Idiots, Crooks, & Bedbugs

[Crick]

Same answer as always huh rocks...nothing. Maybe dogma is enough to convince and comfort you, but I am an empirical evidence sort of guy...failed computer models demand the presence of empirical evidence if you have any brain cells firing at all...clearly...you don't.

Now I predict either a red herring, or an ad hominem from you....or maybe both since your silence tells us that even you know that the requested evidence doesn't reside in the religious tract you linked to...you know nothing is there, but you try to peddle it anyway...a demonstration of your basic dishonesty.

The rest of us are unwilling to choose obvious lies for our fundamentals SID.

 

[SSDD]

The rest of us are unwilling to choose obvious lies for our fundamentals SID.

Says one of the biggest liars on the board....you are laughing stock crickham.....laughing stock.

 

[IanC]

The rest of us are unwilling to choose obvious lies for our fundamentals SID.

Says one of the biggest liars on the board....you are laughing stock crickham.....laughing stock.

the other thread was closed. I had already written this response so I'll add it here. no need to respond. I always think there should be some way to get through to you but I suppose it takes a certain amount trust and respect to actually read a comment for content, digest it, and make a pertinent answer. it's never happened before, I know it wont happen this time. hahahahahaha

....

You keep saying CO2 does nothing, then you say it does absorb IR, then you go back to saying it does nothing again.

Which is precisely what I mean...absorption and emission are nothing but absorption and emission...run a quantity of water that can easily flow through a big bore water pipe through that water pipe...the water went in...the water went out...what happened to the flow?...going through the pipe did nothing. You are claiming that the pipe is to small for the water to flow uninterrupted through the pipe...if the statement were true...then there would be a visible back up. If there is no back up, then clearly your claim that the pipe is to small to easily accommodate the flow is false. At some point, even you must admit that the claim was false...what might that point be Ian?


.

there you go again....giving radiation the properties of matter. the two are fundementally different. radiation doesnt 'back up'. it does not interact with other radiation except in the presence of matter.

are you saying that there is no green house effect at all? or are you saying that CO2 takes no part in it? or are you saying that increasing (or decreasing) CO2 makes no difference?

let's go with your incorrect version of physics where radiation = matter. you say there is no difference in the pipe whether the radiation stays in it a nanosecond or an hour. what about the 'weight' of the pipe? in the first case it is simply the weight of the pipe, in the second case it is the weight of the pipe plus an hour's worth of radiation. obviously different.

now let's turn that into a more realistic scenario. if the atmosphere did not absorb 15 micron IR it would be 'lighter' by 35W because the energy would disappear directly into space. less energy equals lower temperature by definition. a cooler atmosphere would then create less blackbody radiation, which means less energy is returned to the surface. or in your convoluted and incorrect understanding of the SLoT, more surface energy is lost because the temperature differential is greater. anyway you look at it both the surface and the atmosphere will equilibrate to a lower temperature by losing the 35W directly to space.

but the atmosphere does absorb the 35W of 15 micron surface radiation. this warms the boundary, and....at the other end, TOA, there is not 35W of 15 micron IR coming out. your 'pipe' keeps getting heavier and heavier.

BTW, many people think CO2 molecules absorb a photon, then re-emit it. this is incorrect. it takes roughly 10 times longer to absorb/emit than it takes to enter into a collision with another molecule, at the surface. CO2 absorbs a photon and adds to the general pool of energy by transferring it via collision. most CO2 molecules that emit a photon have been excited via a collision rather than by absorbing a photon.

as height increases in the atmosphere, density and temperature decrease. while less collisions happen, there is a great chance that an excited molecule will last long enough to produce a photon, and that photon will have a greater chance to escape because there are less molecules to capture it.

 

[SSDD]

there you go again....giving radiation the properties of matter. the two are fundementally different. radiation doesnt 'back up'. it does not interact with other radiation except in the presence of matter.['quote]

So are you saying that oxygen, nitrogen, CO2 and all the other components that make up the atmosphere are not matter? I was unaware that our atmosphere was an empty vacuum.

are you saying that there is no green house effect at all? or are you saying that CO2 takes no part in it? or are you saying that increasing (or decreasing) CO2 makes no difference?

As I have said to you over and over, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science. There is an atmospheric thermal effect but not the effect described by climate science and upon which all of the failing climate models are based. CO2 adds mass to the atmosphere and that is the extent of its contribution to any warming that may be attributed to it...

let's go with your incorrect version of physics where radiation = matter. you say there is no difference in the pipe whether the radiation stays in it a nanosecond or an hour. what about the 'weight' of the pipe? in the first case it is simply the weight of the pipe, in the second case it is the weight of the pipe plus an hour's worth of radiation. obviously different.[/quote=

I never said that and you know it....why do you find that you must make up an argument for me? Energy being absorbed and then immediately emitted is a different thing from energy being absorbed and then stored....CO2 is not storing energy so why even introduce the red herring into the conversation?

And you can play with the weight of the pipe and every other straw man you care to add....but the fact is Ian that climate models based upon the physics that you believe in have failed...how many failures do you believe a hypothesis should get before those who believe in it should acknowledge to themselves that it is wrong...and then look to why it is wrong....whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not...the current crop of climate models fail as a result of a fundamental error in the physics...i.e. back radiation.

now let's turn that into a more realistic scenario. if the atmosphere did not absorb 15 micron IR it would be 'lighter' by 35W because the energy would disappear directly into space. less energy equals lower temperature by definition. a cooler atmosphere would then create less blackbody radiation, which means less energy is returned to the surface. or in your convoluted and incorrect understanding of the SLoT, more surface energy is lost because the temperature differential is greater. anyway you look at it both the surface and the atmosphere will equilibrate to a lower temperature by losing the 35W directly to space.

Perhaps in your head it is a more realistic scenario....it is, after all what you believe...but it is not reflected in the real world. Whether you like it or not, what I believe is reflected in the real world...CO2 keeps increasing but there is no additional warming which is what I have been saying all along...The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

but the atmosphere does absorb the 35W of 15 micron surface radiation. this warms the boundary, and....at the other end, TOA, there is not 35W of 15 micron IR coming out. your 'pipe' keeps getting heavier and heavier.

And yet, the increasing CO2 has not resulted in any additional warming and in fact, if you believe the CRN, the temperature here in the US has fallen....and since the standard surface record claims the same amount of warming here as elsewhere, one could reasonably expect that if the CRN were extended to cover the entire globe, the same cooling trend would be seen.

BTW, many people think CO2 molecules absorb a photon, then re-emit it. this is incorrect. it takes roughly 10 times longer to absorb/emit than it takes to enter into a collision with another molecule, at the surface. CO2 absorbs a photon and adds to the general pool of energy by transferring it via collision. most CO2 molecules that emit a photon have been excited via a collision rather than by absorbing a photon.

Ten times longer is still a diminishingly small amount of time....and the fact remains that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has not resulted in any warming...that glaring fact is never going to go away...your hypothesis and the models built upon that hypothesis predict warming with increasing temperature...it isn't happening...and why?...because CO2 can not cause warming...

as height increases in the atmosphere, density and temperature decrease. while less collisions happen, there is a great chance that an excited molecule will last long enough to produce a photon, and that photon will have a greater chance to escape because there are less molecules to capture it.

Density and temperature decrease with increased altitude....and increase as the altitude decreases...sounds a lot like the atmospheric thermal effect which actually does predict what will happen as CO2 increases....nothing. You keep on believing what you wish about the microscopic...name your characters...and imagine what they are doing till your heart's content...and believe the mathematical and computer models....but at some point open up your eyes and realize that it is the luddite's prediction that is actually being proven out in the real world.

 

[jc456]

The rest of us are unwilling to choose obvious lies for our fundamentals SID.

Says one of the biggest liars on the board....you are laughing stock crickham.....laughing stock.

the other thread was closed. I had already written this response so I'll add it here. no need to respond. I always think there should be some way to get through to you but I suppose it takes a certain amount trust and respect to actually read a comment for content, digest it, and make a pertinent answer. it's never happened before, I know it wont happen this time. hahahahahaha

....

You keep saying CO2 does nothing, then you say it does absorb IR, then you go back to saying it does nothing again.

Which is precisely what I mean...absorption and emission are nothing but absorption and emission...run a quantity of water that can easily flow through a big bore water pipe through that water pipe...the water went in...the water went out...what happened to the flow?...going through the pipe did nothing. You are claiming that the pipe is to small for the water to flow uninterrupted through the pipe...if the statement were true...then there would be a visible back up. If there is no back up, then clearly your claim that the pipe is to small to easily accommodate the flow is false. At some point, even you must admit that the claim was false...what might that point be Ian?


.

there you go again....giving radiation the properties of matter. the two are fundementally different. radiation doesnt 'back up'. it does not interact with other radiation except in the presence of matter.

are you saying that there is no green house effect at all? or are you saying that CO2 takes no part in it? or are you saying that increasing (or decreasing) CO2 makes no difference?

let's go with your incorrect version of physics where radiation = matter. you say there is no difference in the pipe whether the radiation stays in it a nanosecond or an hour. what about the 'weight' of the pipe? in the first case it is simply the weight of the pipe, in the second case it is the weight of the pipe plus an hour's worth of radiation. obviously different.

now let's turn that into a more realistic scenario. if the atmosphere did not absorb 15 micron IR it would be 'lighter' by 35W because the energy would disappear directly into space. less energy equals lower temperature by definition. a cooler atmosphere would then create less blackbody radiation, which means less energy is returned to the surface. or in your convoluted and incorrect understanding of the SLoT, more surface energy is lost because the temperature differential is greater. anyway you look at it both the surface and the atmosphere will equilibrate to a lower temperature by losing the 35W directly to space.

but the atmosphere does absorb the 35W of 15 micron surface radiation. this warms the boundary, and....at the other end, TOA, there is not 35W of 15 micron IR coming out. your 'pipe' keeps getting heavier and heavier.

BTW, many people think CO2 molecules absorb a photon, then re-emit it. this is incorrect. it takes roughly 10 times longer to absorb/emit than it takes to enter into a collision with another molecule, at the surface. CO2 absorbs a photon and adds to the general pool of energy by transferring it via collision. most CO2 molecules that emit a photon have been excited via a collision rather than by absorbing a photon.

as height increases in the atmosphere, density and temperature decrease. while less collisions happen, there is a great chance that an excited molecule will last long enough to produce a photon, and that photon will have a greater chance to escape because there are less molecules to capture it.

Ian, a question, if you had a light on a jar with a thermometer in it and removed all the CO2, recorded the temperature from that thermometer, then added CO2 to the jar with the same set up, recorded the temperature, would it be a warmer reading?

 

[IanC]

The rest of us are unwilling to choose obvious lies for our fundamentals SID.

Says one of the biggest liars on the board....you are laughing stock crickham.....laughing stock.

the other thread was closed. I had already written this response so I'll add it here. no need to respond. I always think there should be some way to get through to you but I suppose it takes a certain amount trust and respect to actually read a comment for content, digest it, and make a pertinent answer. it's never happened before, I know it wont happen this time. hahahahahaha

....

You keep saying CO2 does nothing, then you say it does absorb IR, then you go back to saying it does nothing again.

Which is precisely what I mean...absorption and emission are nothing but absorption and emission...run a quantity of water that can easily flow through a big bore water pipe through that water pipe...the water went in...the water went out...what happened to the flow?...going through the pipe did nothing. You are claiming that the pipe is to small for the water to flow uninterrupted through the pipe...if the statement were true...then there would be a visible back up. If there is no back up, then clearly your claim that the pipe is to small to easily accommodate the flow is false. At some point, even you must admit that the claim was false...what might that point be Ian?


.

there you go again....giving radiation the properties of matter. the two are fundementally different. radiation doesnt 'back up'. it does not interact with other radiation except in the presence of matter.

are you saying that there is no green house effect at all? or are you saying that CO2 takes no part in it? or are you saying that increasing (or decreasing) CO2 makes no difference?

let's go with your incorrect version of physics where radiation = matter. you say there is no difference in the pipe whether the radiation stays in it a nanosecond or an hour. what about the 'weight' of the pipe? in the first case it is simply the weight of the pipe, in the second case it is the weight of the pipe plus an hour's worth of radiation. obviously different.

now let's turn that into a more realistic scenario. if the atmosphere did not absorb 15 micron IR it would be 'lighter' by 35W because the energy would disappear directly into space. less energy equals lower temperature by definition. a cooler atmosphere would then create less blackbody radiation, which means less energy is returned to the surface. or in your convoluted and incorrect understanding of the SLoT, more surface energy is lost because the temperature differential is greater. anyway you look at it both the surface and the atmosphere will equilibrate to a lower temperature by losing the 35W directly to space.

but the atmosphere does absorb the 35W of 15 micron surface radiation. this warms the boundary, and....at the other end, TOA, there is not 35W of 15 micron IR coming out. your 'pipe' keeps getting heavier and heavier.

BTW, many people think CO2 molecules absorb a photon, then re-emit it. this is incorrect. it takes roughly 10 times longer to absorb/emit than it takes to enter into a collision with another molecule, at the surface. CO2 absorbs a photon and adds to the general pool of energy by transferring it via collision. most CO2 molecules that emit a photon have been excited via a collision rather than by absorbing a photon.

as height increases in the atmosphere, density and temperature decrease. while less collisions happen, there is a great chance that an excited molecule will last long enough to produce a photon, and that photon will have a greater chance to escape because there are less molecules to capture it.

Ian, a question, if you had a light on a jar with a thermometer in it and removed all the CO2, recorded the temperature from that thermometer, then added CO2 to the jar with the same set up, recorded the temperature, would it be a warmer reading?

What kind of light, what kind of jar?

Glass is usually opaque to IR, so nothing would get in for CO2 to use. Once the jar warms up from the light and starts producing IR, the IR is trapped anyways.

If you used IR transparent plastic or quartz to make the enclosure, and used a 15 micron filtered IR light source, then you would find that the IR would stop travelling straight through the enclosure when you added CO2, become dispersed and radiate out all sides of the enclosure, and if your thermometer was sensitive enough you would detect a small rise in temp because the CO2 converted some of the IR into kinetic energy while colliding with other molecules in an excited state.

Was that sort of what you were looking for?

 

[IanC]

JC - there are two types of spectography. One is where you shine light through a substance and find which wavelengths are absorbed. The other is when you heat a substance and see what wavelengths it gives off. The two types of graphs are exactly opposite of each other. What a substance absorbs, it also emits.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

So, question, did you ever research the issue or did you just accept what they stated? Again, curious.

Why yes, I have researched the issue. Extensively. From the first recognition of the role of the atmosphere in retaining heat by Fourier, to the articles of Hansen and Mann. And many other articles in peer reviewed publications, particularly those publications involving geology.

And, from personal observations of glaciers in the Olympics, Cascades, and Rockies. Personal observations over 70 years of the increasing warmth in the same areas.

Now, as to accepting what the scientists are stating. Were it just one scientist, or scientists from one country, you might have a point. It is thousands of scientists from all the countries on earth that are making the observations that are telling us that the earth is warming rapidly. And that we are the primary cause of that warming. And it is the craven assholes paid by energy companies that are lying through their teeth to deny the reality of what is happening. And ignorant fools like you that do zero research just flap-yap and spew whatever they feed you.

And yet you have no empirical evidence to show what 120ppm increase has done to our atmosphere. Your modals all fail, indicating that those who created them have incorrect knowledge and physics applied, showing they do not have a grasp on how the system even works.

Now you want us to believe you simply becasue you say so, without and basis in scientific fact.. Are you ever going to answer my question that I presented backed by empirical evidence?

Didn't think so..

 

[SSDD]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

So, question, did you ever research the issue or did you just accept what they stated? Again, curious.

Why yes, I have researched the issue. Extensively. From the first recognition of the role of the atmosphere in retaining heat by Fourier, to the articles of Hansen and Mann. And many other articles in peer reviewed publications, particularly those publications involving geology.

And, from personal observations of glaciers in the Olympics, Cascades, and Rockies. Personal observations over 70 years of the increasing warmth in the same areas.

Now, as to accepting what the scientists are stating. Were it just one scientist, or scientists from one country, you might have a point. It is thousands of scientists from all the countries on earth that are making the observations that are telling us that the earth is warming rapidly. And that we are the primary cause of that warming. And it is the craven assholes paid by energy companies that are lying through their teeth to deny the reality of what is happening. And ignorant fools like you that do zero research just flap-yap and spew whatever they feed you.

And yet you have no empirical evidence to show what 120ppm increase has done to our atmosphere. Your modals all fail, indicating that those who created them have incorrect knowledge and physics applied, showing they do not have a grasp on how the system even works.

Now you want us to believe you simply becasue you say so, without and basis in scientific fact.. Are you ever going to answer my question that I presented backed by empirical evidence?

Didn't think so..

When the model is based on physics and it fails then a flawed understanding of physics is the only explanation....interesting that neither warmers nor luke warmers seem to grasp that bit of obvious....

 

[Old Rocks]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

So, question, did you ever research the issue or did you just accept what they stated? Again, curious.

Why yes, I have researched the issue. Extensively. From the first recognition of the role of the atmosphere in retaining heat by Fourier, to the articles of Hansen and Mann. And many other articles in peer reviewed publications, particularly those publications involving geology.

And, from personal observations of glaciers in the Olympics, Cascades, and Rockies. Personal observations over 70 years of the increasing warmth in the same areas.

Now, as to accepting what the scientists are stating. Were it just one scientist, or scientists from one country, you might have a point. It is thousands of scientists from all the countries on earth that are making the observations that are telling us that the earth is warming rapidly. And that we are the primary cause of that warming. And it is the craven assholes paid by energy companies that are lying through their teeth to deny the reality of what is happening. And ignorant fools like you that do zero research just flap-yap and spew whatever they feed you.

And yet you have no empirical evidence to show what 120ppm increase has done to our atmosphere. Your modals all fail, indicating that those who created them have incorrect knowledge and physics applied, showing they do not have a grasp on how the system even works.

Now you want us to believe you simply becasue you say so, without and basis in scientific fact.. Are you ever going to answer my question that I presented backed by empirical evidence?

Didn't think so..

Silly Billy, you are such a dumb bastard. Of course we have a model. 180 ppm of CO2 during the depths of the glacial periods, 280 ppm during the interglacials. And now we have added 120 ppm. That is over 40%. And we have also added over 1000 ppb of CH4. Yes, far more than enough to account for the 1 degree C rise we have seen already. In the coming years, we will see the effects of what we have in the atmosphere right now.

 

[SSDD]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

So, question, did you ever research the issue or did you just accept what they stated? Again, curious.

Why yes, I have researched the issue. Extensively. From the first recognition of the role of the atmosphere in retaining heat by Fourier, to the articles of Hansen and Mann. And many other articles in peer reviewed publications, particularly those publications involving geology.

And, from personal observations of glaciers in the Olympics, Cascades, and Rockies. Personal observations over 70 years of the increasing warmth in the same areas.

Now, as to accepting what the scientists are stating. Were it just one scientist, or scientists from one country, you might have a point. It is thousands of scientists from all the countries on earth that are making the observations that are telling us that the earth is warming rapidly. And that we are the primary cause of that warming. And it is the craven assholes paid by energy companies that are lying through their teeth to deny the reality of what is happening. And ignorant fools like you that do zero research just flap-yap and spew whatever they feed you.

And yet you have no empirical evidence to show what 120ppm increase has done to our atmosphere. Your modals all fail, indicating that those who created them have incorrect knowledge and physics applied, showing they do not have a grasp on how the system even works.

Now you want us to believe you simply becasue you say so, without and basis in scientific fact.. Are you ever going to answer my question that I presented backed by empirical evidence?

Didn't think so..

Silly Billy, you are such a dumb bastard. Of course we have a model. 180 ppm of CO2 during the depths of the glacial periods, 280 ppm during the interglacials. And now we have added 120 ppm. That is over 40%. And we have also added over 1000 ppb of CH4. Yes, far more than enough to account for the 1 degree C rise we have seen already. In the coming years, we will see the effects of what we have in the atmosphere right now.

Problem is old rocks that most of the warming happened prior to 1950....and constant adjustment is required in order to claim a warmest year by a hundredth of a degree with a margin of error of 10 times that...CO2 does not and can not cause warming...the models have failed miserably and will continue to do so as long as they are built upon a flawed set of physics....you can lie to your self and there is a certain amount of humor in that....but actual thinking people can see that CO2 continues to increase while warming doesn't in direct opposition to the model predictions...and then there is the failure of the tropospheric hot spot to appear, which would be the inevitable result of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science..

 

[Crick]

When the model is based on physics and it fails then a flawed understanding of physics is the only explanation....interesting that neither warmers nor luke warmers seem to grasp that bit of obvious....

What's more notable is this display of your ignorance. It has been noted to you on numerous occasions that no one has created a model recreating the 20th century's warming that did not assume AGW. Models that do assume AGW can recreate it quite closely. Is the difference between them a flawed understanding of physics? No. The difference is an intentional choice in what is to be simulated. GCMs do much better than deniers claim but, of course, they are not perfect and they will always need work. But their problems have almost NOTHING to do with "flawed physics". They have to do with choices. They have to do with understanding and giving weight to the multitude of processes taking place in the massive and massively complex and chaotic climate.

The frequent charge from deniers like you, that people with PhDs in physics and chemistry and the like are making mistakes that you and those like you would not have made or that you or those like you have caught is complete nonsense. A PhD in physics is as far beyond you in physics and its comprehension as you are above a toddler just learning to walk.

 

[SSDD]

What's more notable is this display of your ignorance. It has been noted to you on numerous occasions that no one has created a model recreating the 20th century's warming that did not assume AGW.

Poor idiot child....no one has been able to produce a model that can successfully hind cast the warming over the past century....much less predict the future....why?...because of a fundamental misunderstanding of physics...

Models that do assume AGW can recreate it quite closely.

Sorry crick...but they don't.....once again, you really need to learn to read a graph....you look at them and completely fail to get anything at all from them...the models have failed....and the only way to get observation to even remotely agree with them is to massage the data till it is unrecognizable when compared to the raw data...

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey, you of the smart photons that don't carry energy, you are continuing to come off as one of the most stupid people on this board. You, Silly Billy, and jc are in neck and neck competition.

 

[SSDD]

Hey, you of the smart photons that don't carry energy, you are continuing to come off as one of the most stupid people on this board. You, Silly Billy, and jc are in neck and neck competition.

So you are reduced to just plain old name calling now...geez rocks...how much lower can you get? It must really suck to be you.

 

[Crick]

I love that Flanders would assign a "Winner" vote to "must really suck to be you". Sounds like a hysterial screaming match among second graders.

What's more notable is this display of your ignorance. It has been noted to you on numerous occasions that no one has created a model recreating the 20th century's warming that did not assume AGW.

Poor idiot child....no one has been able to produce a model that can successfully hind cast the warming over the past century....much less predict the future....why?...because of a fundamental misunderstanding of physics...

And thus we see the trigger for Old Rocks comments. That you should garner the balls to claim that the world's physicists have all made a mistake that a middle school student could catch is just incredible - like all the rest of your thinking re physics. Hundreds of different GCMs, using AGW, have accurately hindcast the last 150 years. NOT ONE has EVER done so that did NOT assume AGW. That is a plain, simple and undeniable FACT.

Models that do assume AGW can recreate it quite closely.

Sorry crick...but they don't.....once again, you really need to learn to read a graph....you look at them and completely fail to get anything at all from them...the models have failed....and the only way to get observation to even remotely agree with them is to massage the data till it is unrecognizable when compared to the raw data...

God are you stupid