How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

[jc456]

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

and there it is more WINNING for me. Thanks for the insult. I still see you can't post factual information.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the Stefan–Boltzmann law: "the total intensity radiated over all wavelengths increases as the temperature increases", of a black body which is proportional to the fourth power of the thermodynamic temperature.[1]

Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?

It does. At night. During the day. On Christmas. On your birthday.

Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?

It does. At night. During the day. On Christmas. On your birthday.

Yeah that's why it's freezing. yeppers that warm IR came down and warmed up the desert at night, oh wait, no it didn't cause it doesn't do that.

Yeah that's why it's freezing.

So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground? Seems a bit thin.

Is that why night temps in the desert on Earth are the same as on the night side of the moon?

So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground?

I don't live on the moon. Why would I care there? and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.

oh BTW, there isn't oxygen on the moon.

Seems a bit thin.
well I haven't seen anything from you on proof there is back radiation.

and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.

Water vapor radiates toward the ground? Why can't CO2 do the same?

I don't live on the moon. Why would I care there?

Because the moon disproves your claims.

Water vapor radiates toward the ground?

it does?

Yes. Is this the first time you've heard that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So that means it emits zero energy? Or just less than a black body?
Does it absorb energy, or does it act like a mirror?

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

If you believe that then you must believe in AGW

Wrong.

 

[jc456]

Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?

It does. At night. During the day. On Christmas. On your birthday.

Yeah that's why it's freezing. yeppers that warm IR came down and warmed up the desert at night, oh wait, no it didn't cause it doesn't do that.

Yeah that's why it's freezing.

So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground? Seems a bit thin.

Is that why night temps in the desert on Earth are the same as on the night side of the moon?

So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground?

I don't live on the moon. Why would I care there? and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.

oh BTW, there isn't oxygen on the moon.

Seems a bit thin.
well I haven't seen anything from you on proof there is back radiation.

and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.

Water vapor radiates toward the ground? Why can't CO2 do the same?

I don't live on the moon. Why would I care there?

Because the moon disproves your claims.

Water vapor radiates toward the ground?

it does?

Yes. Is this the first time you've heard that?

prove it then.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

She's a moron, but at least she doesn't want to waste trillions on windmills.

 

[jc456]

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

If you believe that then you must believe in AGW

Wrong.

sure!

 

[RollingThunder]

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

and there it is more WINNING for me. Thanks for the insult. I still see you can't post factual information.

Nope! No winning! That is just some more delusional trolling of yours, you poor retarded wacko.

You can't handle "factual information", troll. As you will now demonstrate by freaking out and gibbering denier cult nonsense.

Here's the facts about what is happening with the climate....

Following the previous 'hottest year on record' in 2005, the title was taken by 2010....then a few years later, 2014 became the new 'hottest year on record'.....but lost that title immediately to 2015.....and now 2016 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record'......which would make three record years in a row, which would be a record in itself.....and that is just calendar years....scientists also look at the significance of any 12 month period or 'year'......so now we are looking at the hottest twelve consecutive months on record since 1880....with, uniquely, every individual month in that period also breaking the instrumental temperature record for that month as well....on top of rapidly melting ice all around the world, a new record low Arctic ice extent and volume coming in September, torrential storms with heavy flooding, and accelerating sea level rise, plus many other climate disruptions and changes. That's the situation America and the world are currently facing. This summer will almost certainly see record breaking heat waves and storms across most of the USA and a number of other countries. We will be going into the November elections with all of that evidence of the reality of global warming/climate change fresh in the minds of American voters.....and they will look at the head-in-the-sand, reality-denying refusal to accept the scientific facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes spewing from the Republicon Congressional and Presidential candidates and they will laugh at those bozos and vote them out of office.......

We Just Completed A Full Year Of Record-Hot Months
"I'm just in shock," says one climate scientist. "I wish it weren't so."
The Huffington Post
Lydia OConnor
05/18/2016
(excerpts)
For the 12th month in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced record-high global temperatures -- marking a yearlong heat streak that scientists say is grim sign of climate change in action. April 2016 was the hottest April ever recorded by NOAA since it started tracking global temperatures in 1880, the agency announcedWednesday. This is the 12th consecutive month the agency has identified a monthly global temperature record. That's the longest such streak NOAA has ever recorded. "The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.98°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F," NOAA announced. "This was the highest for April in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.50°F."

Those temperatures are staggering, climatologists say. "It's pretty striking," said Dr. Astrid Caldas, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Huffington Post contributor. "I'm just in shock. I wish it weren't so." Dr. Caldas noted that she didn't expect the planet would arrive at this point so quickly. "I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that its happening," she said. "But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It's the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the records being broken, that's really striking."

NOAA

"I think it is quite clear that climate change has played a key role in several record weather events during the past year, including record strength hurricanes (both the Northern and Southern hemisphere saw their most intense hurricanes on record during the past year), an unprecedented, still ongoing California drought, and raging Canadian wildfires unlike anything we've seen so early in the fire season," Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, wrote. "And that's just a few examples." Dr. Astrid Caldas pointed to the floods in Texas and Oklahoma last May. "They have the signature of climate change," she said, noting that warmer weather allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture. "The heavy downpours are getting heavier." The recent widespread coral bleaching, she added, has been linked to water temperatures being so high that coral is losing the ability to cope.

Given the United States critical role in the Paris agreement, its crucial that the next presidential administration continue taking the lead on climate issues, Dr. Mann said. "We will need to decide in this next presidential election whether we want to continue the progress that the current administration has made, or throw it all away by electing a climate change denier president," he wrote. "The fate of the Earth does quite literally lie in the balance."
(Read more at website)

 

[jc456]

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

and there it is more WINNING for me. Thanks for the insult. I still see you can't post factual information.

Nope! No winning! That is just some more delusional trolling of yours, you poor retarded wacko.

You can't handle "factual information", troll. As you will now demonstrate by freaking out and gibbering denier cult nonsense.

Here's the facts about what is happening with the climate....

Following the previous 'hottest year on record' in 2005, the title was taken by 2010....then a few years later, 2014 became the new 'hottest year on record'.....but lost that title immediately to 2015.....and now 2016 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record'......which would make three record years in a row, which would be a record in itself.....and that is just calendar years....scientists also look at the significance of any 12 month period or 'year'......so now we are looking at the hottest twelve consecutive months on record since 1880....with, uniquely, every individual month in that period also breaking the instrumental temperature record for that month as well....on top of rapidly melting ice all around the world, a new record low Arctic ice extent and volume coming in September, torrential storms with heavy flooding, and accelerating sea level rise, plus many other climate disruptions and changes. That's the situation America and the world are currently facing. This summer will almost certainly see record breaking heat waves and storms across most of the USA and a number of other countries. We will be going into the November elections with all of that evidence of the reality of global warming/climate change fresh in the minds of American voters.....and they will look at the head-in-the-sand, reality-denying refusal to accept the scientific facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes spewing from the Republicon Congressional and Presidential candidates and they will laugh at those bozos and vote them out of office.......

We Just Completed A Full Year Of Record-Hot Months
"I'm just in shock," says one climate scientist. "I wish it weren't so."
The Huffington Post
Lydia OConnor
05/18/2016
(excerpts)
For the 12th month in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced record-high global temperatures -- marking a yearlong heat streak that scientists say is grim sign of climate change in action. April 2016 was the hottest April ever recorded by NOAA since it started tracking global temperatures in 1880, the agency announcedWednesday. This is the 12th consecutive month the agency has identified a monthly global temperature record. That's the longest such streak NOAA has ever recorded. "The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.98°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F," NOAA announced. "This was the highest for April in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.50°F."

Those temperatures are staggering, climatologists say. "It's pretty striking," said Dr. Astrid Caldas, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Huffington Post contributor. "I'm just in shock. I wish it weren't so." Dr. Caldas noted that she didn't expect the planet would arrive at this point so quickly. "I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that its happening," she said. "But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It's the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the records being broken, that's really striking."

NOAA

"I think it is quite clear that climate change has played a key role in several record weather events during the past year, including record strength hurricanes (both the Northern and Southern hemisphere saw their most intense hurricanes on record during the past year), an unprecedented, still ongoing California drought, and raging Canadian wildfires unlike anything we've seen so early in the fire season," Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, wrote. "And that's just a few examples." Dr. Astrid Caldas pointed to the floods in Texas and Oklahoma last May. "They have the signature of climate change," she said, noting that warmer weather allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture. "The heavy downpours are getting heavier." The recent widespread coral bleaching, she added, has been linked to water temperatures being so high that coral is losing the ability to cope.

Given the United States critical role in the Paris agreement, its crucial that the next presidential administration continue taking the lead on climate issues, Dr. Mann said. "We will need to decide in this next presidential election whether we want to continue the progress that the current administration has made, or throw it all away by electing a climate change denier president," he wrote. "The fate of the Earth does quite literally lie in the balance."
(Read more at website)

do you deny that adjustments were made to the data you just posted?

 

[RollingThunder]

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

and there it is more WINNING for me. Thanks for the insult. I still see you can't post factual information.

Nope! No winning! That is just some more delusional trolling of yours, you poor retarded wacko.

You can't handle "factual information", troll. As you will now demonstrate by freaking out and gibbering denier cult nonsense.

Here's the facts about what is happening with the climate....

Following the previous 'hottest year on record' in 2005, the title was taken by 2010....then a few years later, 2014 became the new 'hottest year on record'.....but lost that title immediately to 2015.....and now 2016 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record'......which would make three record years in a row, which would be a record in itself.....and that is just calendar years....scientists also look at the significance of any 12 month period or 'year'......so now we are looking at the hottest twelve consecutive months on record since 1880....with, uniquely, every individual month in that period also breaking the instrumental temperature record for that month as well....on top of rapidly melting ice all around the world, a new record low Arctic ice extent and volume coming in September, torrential storms with heavy flooding, and accelerating sea level rise, plus many other climate disruptions and changes. That's the situation America and the world are currently facing. This summer will almost certainly see record breaking heat waves and storms across most of the USA and a number of other countries. We will be going into the November elections with all of that evidence of the reality of global warming/climate change fresh in the minds of American voters.....and they will look at the head-in-the-sand, reality-denying refusal to accept the scientific facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes spewing from the Republicon Congressional and Presidential candidates and they will laugh at those bozos and vote them out of office.......

We Just Completed A Full Year Of Record-Hot Months
"I'm just in shock," says one climate scientist. "I wish it weren't so."
The Huffington Post
Lydia OConnor
05/18/2016
(excerpts)
For the 12th month in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced record-high global temperatures -- marking a yearlong heat streak that scientists say is grim sign of climate change in action. April 2016 was the hottest April ever recorded by NOAA since it started tracking global temperatures in 1880, the agency announcedWednesday. This is the 12th consecutive month the agency has identified a monthly global temperature record. That's the longest such streak NOAA has ever recorded. "The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.98°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F," NOAA announced. "This was the highest for April in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.50°F."

Those temperatures are staggering, climatologists say. "It's pretty striking," said Dr. Astrid Caldas, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Huffington Post contributor. "I'm just in shock. I wish it weren't so." Dr. Caldas noted that she didn't expect the planet would arrive at this point so quickly. "I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that its happening," she said. "But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It's the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the records being broken, that's really striking."

NOAA

"I think it is quite clear that climate change has played a key role in several record weather events during the past year, including record strength hurricanes (both the Northern and Southern hemisphere saw their most intense hurricanes on record during the past year), an unprecedented, still ongoing California drought, and raging Canadian wildfires unlike anything we've seen so early in the fire season," Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, wrote. "And that's just a few examples." Dr. Astrid Caldas pointed to the floods in Texas and Oklahoma last May. "They have the signature of climate change," she said, noting that warmer weather allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture. "The heavy downpours are getting heavier." The recent widespread coral bleaching, she added, has been linked to water temperatures being so high that coral is losing the ability to cope.

Given the United States critical role in the Paris agreement, its crucial that the next presidential administration continue taking the lead on climate issues, Dr. Mann said. "We will need to decide in this next presidential election whether we want to continue the progress that the current administration has made, or throw it all away by electing a climate change denier president," he wrote. "The fate of the Earth does quite literally lie in the balance."
(Read more at website)

do you deny that adjustments were made to the data you just posted?

Do you deny that you are a clueless retard who doesn't know squat about science and actually holds the crackpot belief that a giant world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists Is fraudulently "adjusting" the data to exaggerate the CO2 driven warming?

 

[jc456]

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

and there it is more WINNING for me. Thanks for the insult. I still see you can't post factual information.

Nope! No winning! That is just some more delusional trolling of yours, you poor retarded wacko.

You can't handle "factual information", troll. As you will now demonstrate by freaking out and gibbering denier cult nonsense.

Here's the facts about what is happening with the climate....

Following the previous 'hottest year on record' in 2005, the title was taken by 2010....then a few years later, 2014 became the new 'hottest year on record'.....but lost that title immediately to 2015.....and now 2016 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record'......which would make three record years in a row, which would be a record in itself.....and that is just calendar years....scientists also look at the significance of any 12 month period or 'year'......so now we are looking at the hottest twelve consecutive months on record since 1880....with, uniquely, every individual month in that period also breaking the instrumental temperature record for that month as well....on top of rapidly melting ice all around the world, a new record low Arctic ice extent and volume coming in September, torrential storms with heavy flooding, and accelerating sea level rise, plus many other climate disruptions and changes. That's the situation America and the world are currently facing. This summer will almost certainly see record breaking heat waves and storms across most of the USA and a number of other countries. We will be going into the November elections with all of that evidence of the reality of global warming/climate change fresh in the minds of American voters.....and they will look at the head-in-the-sand, reality-denying refusal to accept the scientific facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes spewing from the Republicon Congressional and Presidential candidates and they will laugh at those bozos and vote them out of office.......

We Just Completed A Full Year Of Record-Hot Months
"I'm just in shock," says one climate scientist. "I wish it weren't so."
The Huffington Post
Lydia OConnor
05/18/2016
(excerpts)
For the 12th month in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced record-high global temperatures -- marking a yearlong heat streak that scientists say is grim sign of climate change in action. April 2016 was the hottest April ever recorded by NOAA since it started tracking global temperatures in 1880, the agency announcedWednesday. This is the 12th consecutive month the agency has identified a monthly global temperature record. That's the longest such streak NOAA has ever recorded. "The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.98°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F," NOAA announced. "This was the highest for April in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.50°F."

Those temperatures are staggering, climatologists say. "It's pretty striking," said Dr. Astrid Caldas, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Huffington Post contributor. "I'm just in shock. I wish it weren't so." Dr. Caldas noted that she didn't expect the planet would arrive at this point so quickly. "I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that its happening," she said. "But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It's the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the records being broken, that's really striking."

NOAA

"I think it is quite clear that climate change has played a key role in several record weather events during the past year, including record strength hurricanes (both the Northern and Southern hemisphere saw their most intense hurricanes on record during the past year), an unprecedented, still ongoing California drought, and raging Canadian wildfires unlike anything we've seen so early in the fire season," Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, wrote. "And that's just a few examples." Dr. Astrid Caldas pointed to the floods in Texas and Oklahoma last May. "They have the signature of climate change," she said, noting that warmer weather allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture. "The heavy downpours are getting heavier." The recent widespread coral bleaching, she added, has been linked to water temperatures being so high that coral is losing the ability to cope.

Given the United States critical role in the Paris agreement, its crucial that the next presidential administration continue taking the lead on climate issues, Dr. Mann said. "We will need to decide in this next presidential election whether we want to continue the progress that the current administration has made, or throw it all away by electing a climate change denier president," he wrote. "The fate of the Earth does quite literally lie in the balance."
(Read more at website)

do you deny that adjustments were made to the data you just posted?

Do you deny that you are a clueless retard who doesn't know squat about science and actually holds the crackpot belief that a giant world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists Is fraudulently "adjusting" the data to exaggerate the CO2 driven warming?

are you going to answer or not? do you deny that adjustments were made to the data you posted?

 

[jc456]

Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic

"The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend. These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all, and have only been detected by skeptics who happened to archive old NOAA charts and created comparisons like the one below. Here is the before and after animation (pre-2000 NOAA US temperature history vs. post-2000). History has been cooled and modern temperatures have been warmed from where they were being shown previously by the NOAA. This does not mean the current version is wrong, but since the entire US warming signal was effectively created by these changes, it is not unreasonable to act for a detailed reconciliation (particularly when those folks preparing the chart all believe that temperatures are going up, so would be predisposed to treating a flat temperature chart like the earlier"

 

[elektra]

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

Yet, SoilingBlunder, your reply is a troll, a flame?

 

[RollingThunder]

toiletpaper://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html']Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic

"The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend. These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all...

And here's where the troll JustCrazy does the usual denier cult thing of citing bogus denier cult blogs for his sources of supposed 'evidence'. This time it is obvious lies from another denier blog, aimed at the ignorant rightwingnut ideologues...

"These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all..." is such complete bullshit right from the start, you know everything after that is fraudulent.

In fact, in the real world, the reasons for the scientific adjustments to the raw instrumental data records have been explained in great detail and are quite valid scientifically. You denier cult dingbats just prefer to keep your heads jammed up your asses rather than learn anything that would destroy your crackpot myths. So, of course, you won't read these articles. Others will, and they will see how utterly corrupt and crazy you are, JustCrazy.

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data
How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.
ArsTechnica
by Scott K. Johnson
Jan 21, 2016

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
8 February 2016

 

[elektra]

Seems they have fought over weather a long time!


POINTS ON TEMPERATURE — Los Angeles Herald 21 February 1895 — California Digital Newspaper Collection

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.

You are a clueless retard with your head up your ass, androgynoustwit.

Too bad you're far too stupid to have the mental capacity to recognize just how extremely stupid you are.

what someone who loses an argument says...........

Well, JustCrazy, you'd be the expert on that, since you are constantly losing every argument.......it must really suck to be as severely retarded as you obviously are.

what someone who loses an argument says....

What retards like JustCrazy say when they have no argument.

And still WINNING

In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "winning" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....

and yet you're arguing posts rather than topic. That sir is an automatic winner for me. WINNING. without back radiation, there is absolutely no way for CO2 to matter. And when you can present evidence of back radiation, which you can't, then the discussion can move forward. But calling me names is just a losers mentality.

Not only that, but even if back radiation existed...which it doesn't...it wouldn't matter anyway....Here is a conversation between an interested student and Dr Happer, a brilliant physicists. Read this closely...the language is pretty straight forward...


From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention. Even if back radiation existed...it wouldn't matter because only one in a billion energy exchanges between CO2 molecules and the other molecules residing in the atmosphere results in a photon being emitted....radiation is such a small player in the overall scheme of energy movement within the atmosphere that it really doesn't even matter....

That was enlightening. The more science you learn, the more apparent that AGW is total bullshit

Don't look to SSDD for science, his confusion about physics harms our cause.

And by "confusion" you mean his insistence that heat travels from warm to cold, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "winning" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....

and yet you're arguing posts rather than topic. That sir is an automatic winner for me. WINNING. without back radiation, there is absolutely no way for CO2 to matter. And when you can present evidence of back radiation, which you can't, then the discussion can move forward. But calling me names is just a losers mentality.

Not only that, but even if back radiation existed...which it doesn't...it wouldn't matter anyway....Here is a conversation between an interested student and Dr Happer, a brilliant physicists. Read this closely...the language is pretty straight forward...


From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention. Even if back radiation existed...it wouldn't matter because only one in a billion energy exchanges between CO2 molecules and the other molecules residing in the atmosphere results in a photon being emitted....radiation is such a small player in the overall scheme of energy movement within the atmosphere that it really doesn't even matter....

That was enlightening. The more science you learn, the more apparent that AGW is total bullshit

Don't look to SSDD for science, his confusion about physics harms our cause.

And by "confusion" you mean his insistence that heat travels from warm to cold, right?

His belief that photons don't travel toward matter warmer than the source.

 

[jc456]

and yet you're arguing posts rather than topic. That sir is an automatic winner for me. WINNING. without back radiation, there is absolutely no way for CO2 to matter. And when you can present evidence of back radiation, which you can't, then the discussion can move forward. But calling me names is just a losers mentality.

Not only that, but even if back radiation existed...which it doesn't...it wouldn't matter anyway....Here is a conversation between an interested student and Dr Happer, a brilliant physicists. Read this closely...the language is pretty straight forward...


From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention. Even if back radiation existed...it wouldn't matter because only one in a billion energy exchanges between CO2 molecules and the other molecules residing in the atmosphere results in a photon being emitted....radiation is such a small player in the overall scheme of energy movement within the atmosphere that it really doesn't even matter....

That was enlightening. The more science you learn, the more apparent that AGW is total bullshit

Don't look to SSDD for science, his confusion about physics harms our cause.

And by "confusion" you mean his insistence that heat travels from warm to cold, right?

His belief that photons don't travel toward matter warmer than the source.

so what is your belief that happens to that warmer matter when traveling photons from a cooler object hits it?

 

[RollingThunder]

toiletpaper://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html']Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic

"The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend. These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all...

And here's where the troll JustCrazy does the usual denier cult thing of citing bogus denier cult blogs for his sources of supposed 'evidence'. This time it is obvious lies from another denier blog, aimed at the ignorant rightwingnut ideologues...

"These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all..." is such complete bullshit right from the start, you know everything after that is fraudulent.

In fact, in the real world, the reasons for the scientific adjustments to the raw instrumental data records have been explained in great detail and are quite valid scientifically. You denier cult dingbats just prefer to keep your heads jammed up your asses rather than learn anything that would destroy your crackpot myths. So, of course, you won't read these articles. Others will, and they will see how utterly corrupt and crazy you are, JustCrazy.

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data
How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.
ArsTechnica
by Scott K. Johnson
Jan 21, 2016

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
8 February 2016

And....as usual....the anti-science deniers run away from the scientific evidence that debunks their fraudulent myths.

 

[jc456]

toiletpaper://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html']Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic

"The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend. These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all...

And here's where the troll JustCrazy does the usual denier cult thing of citing bogus denier cult blogs for his sources of supposed 'evidence'. This time it is obvious lies from another denier blog, aimed at the ignorant rightwingnut ideologues...

"These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all..." is such complete bullshit right from the start, you know everything after that is fraudulent.

In fact, in the real world, the reasons for the scientific adjustments to the raw instrumental data records have been explained in great detail and are quite valid scientifically. You denier cult dingbats just prefer to keep your heads jammed up your asses rather than learn anything that would destroy your crackpot myths. So, of course, you won't read these articles. Others will, and they will see how utterly corrupt and crazy you are, JustCrazy.

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data
How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.
ArsTechnica
by Scott K. Johnson
Jan 21, 2016

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
8 February 2016

And....as usual....the anti-science deniers run away from the scientific evidence that debunks their fraudulent myths.

dude, I've been waiting to see your scientific evidence. where is it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not only that, but even if back radiation existed...which it doesn't...it wouldn't matter anyway....Here is a conversation between an interested student and Dr Happer, a brilliant physicists. Read this closely...the language is pretty straight forward...


From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention. Even if back radiation existed...it wouldn't matter because only one in a billion energy exchanges between CO2 molecules and the other molecules residing in the atmosphere results in a photon being emitted....radiation is such a small player in the overall scheme of energy movement within the atmosphere that it really doesn't even matter....

That was enlightening. The more science you learn, the more apparent that AGW is total bullshit

Don't look to SSDD for science, his confusion about physics harms our cause.

And by "confusion" you mean his insistence that heat travels from warm to cold, right?

His belief that photons don't travel toward matter warmer than the source.

so what is your belief that happens to that warmer matter when traveling photons from a cooler object hits it?

so what is your belief that happens to that warmer matter when traveling photons from a cooler object hits it?

The same thing that always happens whenever photons hit matter.
Regardless of the temperature of the emitter.