LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Crick]

The point was that Bear513's graph showing a match between solar irradiance and Arctic temperature was a fake. The real data do not match.

 

[jc456]

There is! Read up

How much? 50%? More?

All we get

All the radiation we receive from the Sum is SWIR?

LOL, I answered your question. Re read your question

You mumble.

Based on what was written, I supposed you do mumble! Too funny. I said, reread your question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much? 50%? More?

All we get

All the radiation we receive from the Sum is SWIR?

LOL, I answered your question. Re read your question

You mumble.

Based on what was written, I supposed you do mumble! Too funny. I said, reread your question.

How much of the radiation we receive from the Sum is SWIR?

 

[Crick]

Ir extends to 1 mm lambda

 

[Billy_Bob]

So many who have no clue what it is we have accomplished. We isolated gases and identified their actual effectual properties in our atmosphere, with regard to LWIR at 6-100um.

The picture below is from the draft proposal several years ago. It demonstrates the basic principal parts of the system.

This was an attempt to isolate the atmosphere from other influences and identify how they react to the LWIR energy passage.

 

[Crick]

Are the ends of the tube capped to retain the gases under examination? If so, with what?

And why do you continue to use the term "reactive" when describing the relationship between the tube material and LWIR? The options re EM radiation striking matter are reflect, absorb and transmit.

 

[jc456]

All we get

All the radiation we receive from the Sum is SWIR?

LOL, I answered your question. Re read your question

You mumble.

Based on what was written, I supposed you do mumble! Too funny. I said, reread your question.

How much of the radiation we receive from the Sum is SWIR?

All swir heat we get, is from the sun

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are the ends of the tube capped to retain the gases under examination? If so, with what?

And why do you continue to use the term "reactive" when describing the relationship between the tube material and LWIR? The options re EM radiation striking matter are reflect, absorb and transmit.

Had you read the thread this information was clearly stated. Go Back and read moron..That's right, I know you need crayons and pretty pictures you have no hope of understanding.. You cant even grasp the concept of reactivity to LWIR as "causing change". IF the tube absorbed LWIR then it changed the output and thus the level of energy we were testing would have to be adjusted and the loss accounted for. We wpould also have to make adjustments to the temprature of the air as the tube would be heating up and convection and conduction would then come into play.

I have no idea why I should try and educate an idiot like you..

 

[SSDD]

Are the ends of the tube capped to retain the gases under examination? If so, with what?

And why do you continue to use the term "reactive" when describing the relationship between the tube material and LWIR? The options re EM radiation striking matter are reflect, absorb and transmit.

Had you read the thread this information was clearly stated. Go Back and read moron..That's right, I know you need crayons and pretty pictures you have no hope of understanding.. You cant even grasp the concept of reactivity to LWIR as "causing change". IF the tube absorbed LWIR then it changed the output and thus the level of energy we were testing would have to be adjusted and the loss accounted for. We wpould also have to make adjustments to the temprature of the air as the tube would be heating up and convection and conduction would then come into play.

I have no idea why I should try and educate an idiot like you..

The more you talk to these guys, the more evident it becomes that they are just mouthpieces for whoever gave them their opinions...the nuts and bolts of the whole topic is so far over their heads, that there is little hope of them ever getting it...at least until whoever gave them their opinions gives them a different one...

Over on both the Grand solar minimum thread, and the no evidence thread wuwei is demonstrating beyond any doubt that the whole concept of energy transfer is completely beyond is ability to grasp...he failed to understand that two objects of different temperatures would be losing energy at different rates to their surroundings so long as one of the objects was losing energy to the surroundings and the cooler object and the other was losing energy to the surroundings and gaining energy from the warmer object...he simply couldn't grasp that they would cool at different rates till such time as they were only losing energy to the surroundings....of course that assumes that the objects are the same size, but geez...if they can't wrap their mind around that, then it is easy to see how they became top shelf dupes.

 

[Crick]

So that you can maintain your fantasy

 

[SSDD]

So that you can maintain your fantasy

Us skeptics are the ones who can point to every observation, and measurement ever made to support our position...you guys, on the other hand have no actual empirical evidence...you base your position on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...in short...you favor fiction over reality...

 

[Wuwei]

Us skeptics are the ones who can point to every observation, and measurement ever made to support our position...you guys, on the other hand have no actual empirical evidence...you base your position on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...in short...you favor fiction over reality...

Total lie from a Troll.

 

[Crick]

You lying sack of shit. "The Physical Science Basis" contains almost two thousand pages of empirical evidence derived from thousands of published scientific studies filled with empirical evidence. You have NO empirical data supporting your insane smart photon delusion. You have NO empirical data refuting QM. You have NO empirical data supporting the contentions you've made regarding CFCs in the Arctic or CO2 in the atmosphere. You are a LIAR and a TROLL.

 

[SSDD]

Us skeptics are the ones who can point to every observation, and measurement ever made to support our position...you guys, on the other hand have no actual empirical evidence...you base your position on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...in short...you favor fiction over reality...

Total lie from a Troll.

Says the third biggest liar on the board after the skidmark and the hairball.

 

[SSDD]

You lying sack of shit. "The Physical Science Basis" contains almost two thousand pages of empirical evidence derived from thousands of published scientific studies filled with empirical evidence. You have NO empirical data supporting your insane smart photon delusion. You have NO empirical data refuting QM. You have NO empirical data supporting the contentions you've made regarding CFCs in the Arctic or CO2 in the atmosphere. You are a LIAR and a TROLL.

And not a shred of it even begins to challenge either of the 3 statements in the OP of the No Evidence post...you seem to believe that evidence that the temperature has changed is also evidence that we caused it...sorry skidmark..that isn't science...that is assumption.

Be mad and get your panties in a twist...You wouldn't keep having your ass handed to you if you didn't keep spewing your nonsense.....and trying to use graphs...don't forget that you can't read a graph...

 

[Crick]

My GOD are you STUPID and DISHONEST

 

[Wuwei]

Says the third biggest liar on the board after the skidmark and the hairball.

Nope you are the biggest liar and troll. We gave you noncontroversial evidence that radiant energy is a two way flow. Your only tool is claiming QM is fairy dust. Go figure.

 

[SSDD]

My GOD are you STUPID and DISHONEST

And you can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements in the OP of the No Evidence thread...your abject failure has reduced you to nothing more than a name calling imbecile...and a laughable one at that.

 

[SSDD]

Says the third biggest liar on the board after the skidmark and the hairball.

Nope you are the biggest liar and troll. We gave you noncontroversial evidence that radiant energy is a two way flow. Your only tool is claiming QM is fairy dust. Go figure.

Sorry, but you didn't...you did demonstrate conclusively how easily you are to fool though...

 

[Crick]

How many physicists have you found that agree with your contention that matter can stop radiating?