Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!
You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.
This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?
Go to an SB calculator site, plug in the average temperature of the earth, about 300 K. The answer is how much EM energy the earth is radiating. You will see that you don't understand it yet.Describe the mechanism by which CO2 turns ~239 wm^2 into 400 wm^2. The earth is not absorbing 400 from its primary energy source, so it can only emit what it absorbs.
No.Are you claiming that molecules in the atmosphere don't collide or that most of the energy transported through the troposphere is via conduction?
Frequency of what? Be explicit this time around. You are always using colloquial definitions, so I have no idea how you think.The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore,frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.
Let me guess...you thought frequency refers to how often the molecules are bumping into each other... Are you really??...never mind, you are...without a doubt.
The fact is that you can't have a temperature increase without a corresponding increase in frequency, nor can you increase the frequency without increasing the temperature, assuming that all other variables remain the same.
Go to an SB calculator site, plug in the average temperature of the earth, about 300 K. The answer is how much EM energy the earth is radiating. You will see that you don't understand it yet.
Arguing against global warming is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.
I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.
So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.
It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.
Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...
And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.
Arguing against global warming is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.
Embrace the horror, dude, this is not a debatable issue.You don't even seem to grasp what the discussion is about...it isn't about warming, or cooling...it is about whether man is responsible.
And I can't help but notice that you didn't produce a single piece of data that challenges any of the statements I made in the OP. Claiming that a thing is real, when you can't produce the first piece of evidence to support the claim is as stupid as arguing that gravity plays no role in plane crashes. You can, after all, provide observed, measured evidence that gravity plays a role in plane crashes. You can not provide observed, measured evidence that man is altering the global climate...Like I said in the OP..
Right. However the cold polar regions and the hot equatorial regions are small. These areas were obviously taken into account in Trenberth's figure of 396 W/m^2 surface radiation.300K is 80.3 F...are you claiming that the average temperature of the earth is 80 degrees?
If you believe an average mean temperature of a body whose hot and cold extremes can be as much as 200F apart on any given day, the average mean on earth is about 60F or 15.5C or 288 K.
If you want to know how the earth gets to 288K, look to solar input and the ideal gas laws...you will find your answer there...not in a magical formula that only works here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.
The people that understand physics here have been doing a happy dance for years around the silly pseudoscience.I am going in for surgery to correct a ruptured bicep tendon today and am not sure how long it will be before I feel like sitting down at a computer for any period of time...so because I am not answering, don't go doing your happy dance thinking that your "brilliance" (sarc!!) chased me away. The doc says that i can expect to be down for about 3 weeks.
The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.Embrace the horror, dude, this is not a debatable issue.
95% of the science community says its real and it is accelerating.
Embrace the horror, dude, this is not a debatable issue.You don't even seem to grasp what the discussion is about...it isn't about warming, or cooling...it is about whether man is responsible.
And I can't help but notice that you didn't produce a single piece of data that challenges any of the statements I made in the OP. Claiming that a thing is real, when you can't produce the first piece of evidence to support the claim is as stupid as arguing that gravity plays no role in plane crashes. You can, after all, provide observed, measured evidence that gravity plays a role in plane crashes. You can not provide observed, measured evidence that man is altering the global climate...Like I said in the OP..
95% of the science community says its real and it is accelerating.
1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.
I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.
So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.
It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.
Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...
And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.
The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!
You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.
This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?
I know. Just another, in a long line of, fossil fuel bitches, doing what they're told like good little whores.The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.
What???Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!
You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.
This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?
You don't have one single fucking repeatable experiment that shows a 120ppm increase in CO2 warming anythingI know. Just another, in a long line of, fossil fuel bitches, doing what they're told like good little whores.The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.
I know. Just another, in a long line of, fossil fuel bitches, doing what they're told like good little whores.The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.
You don't have one scientist that isn't on the take from the fossil fuel industry.You don't have one single fucking repeatable experiment that shows a 120ppm increase in CO2 warming anything
When you we're a kid, did you have to wear hockey equipment, but you weren't on a team?That's correct s0n.....its all about the WINNING!! Being a climate crusader these days bLoWs!
The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!
You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.
This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?
You want to try again?
What???Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!
You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.
This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?
Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?
