Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Billy_Bob]

No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong..

Unless we comply with "your" position we are now all labeled 'deniers' just by posting in your thread.

It is sad that you took this approach to label those with whom you disagree... This is a step used by people who can not stand to have their positions debated. I have personally done work in atmospheric physics that disproves the current GHG hypothesis. But as with many others here, it has always resulted in name calling when the orthodoxy is questioned.

So..

Tell me what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters. (In a 10% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Then tell what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters.(In a 60% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Run each experiment for 24 hours tracking temperature every 15 min. Then calculate the down-welling rate of incoming radiation and out going LWIR.

A simple experiment in the deserts of the world easily disprove the CO2 monster hypothesis and prove that water vapor is the primary regulator. CO2 is a bit player and nothing more, as its ability to reflect energy or lost to collision is so high that very little is ever re-emitted towards the earth. Even the IPCC, in their latest assessment, agrees that CO2's LOG of expected warming by the gas alone is 2 times higher than what we have seen empirically and they have lowered their 'climate sensitivity' numbers again. 0.0-0.6 Deg C/Doubling

No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.

 

[flacaltenn]

First, I have never said that there was no greenhouse effect...I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...second, I have never said that CO2 is not a so called greenhouse gas and have certainly never said that it doesn't absorb and emit radiation...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

Well as MANY qualified folks have tried to explain to you, the way radiative heat transfer occurs the photons don't get to CHOOSE "a cooler object" to take off after. They radiate as a function of the geometry of the solid or gaseous layer.. Which means -- if you model the atmos as a slab -- about 1/2 will go up and 1/2 will go down..

No law of Thermo is broken.. Since the warmer object (like the SURFACE of the Earth) always LOSES more photons to the cooler object (which is the sky).. You just cant' abide that SOME have travel towards the warmer object to equalize this exchange out..

That last part isn't a theory...hell it is barely hypothesis and a piss poor one at that...the fact that you warmers don't like to admit is that there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gases...What sort of "solid" theory can't even point to a single published paper containing empirical data in its support?

I've personally cover that base with you about 3 times now.. Citing MULTIPLE studies where INDEED the LW radiation (at night preferably) has been measured from the sky.. Where you squirm after that is INSISTING that NONE of their devices WORK correctly.. And the measurements are just bogus..

Same thing when I take my Home Depot laser guided IR photometer in my hot little hands and TELL you I'm reading photons from the window sill leaking cold air at 56DegF... It's an "equipment malfunction" to you.. So this whole affair just keeps getting re-asserted and re-adjucated over and over and over again.

Needs it's own stage... Cant be doing this in threads about Arctic Sea ice or NOAA cooking the books...

 

[flacaltenn]

Unless we comply with "your" position we are now all labeled 'deniers' just by posting in your thread.

It is sad that you took this approach to label those with whom you disagree... This is a step used by people who can not stand to have their positions debated. I have personally done work in atmospheric physics that disproves the current GHG hypothesis. But as with many others here, it has always resulted in name calling when the orthodoxy is questioned.

You see anyone debating harder on the facts and science in this forum?? Not shying from a damn thing.. I'm called a denier as well.. But at least I'm not misconstruing basic physics to do assert what I do... Or inventing new implementations of the GHouse theory that are yet to be published in any textbook...

 

[flacaltenn]

No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.

Have no idea what relevance this has to denying that CO2 plays NO ROLE in GHouse theory.. This is whole separate enchilada...

Tell me what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters. (In a 10% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Then tell what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters.(In a 60% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Run each experiment for 24 hours tracking temperature every 15 min. Then calculate the down-welling rate of incoming radiation and out going LWIR.

Why would I have to run those readings every 15 minutes for 24 hours?? Would be BETTER done in a desert AT NIGHT with no down-dwelling solar IR... And then compared over YEARS to find a signature that changes with changing CO2 concentration.. Which is where you probably GOT all this isn't it??

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

Yes.. In a desert, clouds and humidity dominant.. Is that surprising to you?

And why am I measuring incoming solar radiation to validate the GreenHouse effect again?? The earth has a S-Boltzman temperature and a known LWIRed distribution.. That's good enough for me...

 

[Billy_Bob]

No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.

Have no idea what relevance this has to denying that CO2 plays NO ROLE in GHouse theory.. This is whole separate enchilada...

Tell me what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters. (In a 10% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Then tell what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters.(In a 60% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Run each experiment for 24 hours tracking temperature every 15 min. Then calculate the down-welling rate of incoming radiation and out going LWIR.

Why would I have to run those readings every 15 minutes for 24 hours?? Would be BETTER done in a desert AT NIGHT with no down-dwelling solar IR... And then compared over YEARS to find a signature that changes with changing CO2 concentration.. Which is where you probably GOT all this isn't it??

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

Yes.. In a desert, clouds and humidity dominant.. Is that surprising to you?

And why am I measuring incoming solar radiation to validate the GreenHouse effect again?? The earth has a S-Boltzman temperature and a known LWIRed distribution.. That's good enough for me...

You are validating the incoming rate of energy. As the sun sets you are validating the energy escape rate. The only difference in the atmosphere is the water vapor content. All other components are the same to include CO2 levels.

Using the incoming energy vs the out going energy you can determine the rate of energy exchange. In the dry atmosphere the ratio is near 1/1.20. For each one hour of incoming SR it takes one point two hours to escape. This means the CO2 back radiation is near zero. Air movement is free flowing in vertical axis and LWIR is unimpeded and energy convected/conducted is moved rapidly, thus cooling is rapid.

In a wet atmosphere the incoming SR ratio is 1-1.8. For each one hour of incoming SR it takes one point eight hours for that same energy to escape. Again the CO2 back radiation is near zero and the MASS of the atmosphere has changed slowing the incoming as well as the out going energy. You have less energy in and less energy out. The vertical axis is slowed by water vapor absorption (conduction and convection), slowing the cooling process.

This is why in a desert at about 2 hours after sun up the temp can soar to 110 degrees and remain there until sun down, where it will drop rapidly to below freezing within about 2 hours. Yet when it is moist it will only warm to 90 degrees after three or four hours and remain warmer after sun down for 4-6 hours before fully cooling off.

This can be wholly attributed to mass of the atmosphere.

Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly. The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.

Without knowing how much energy you are receiving you can not know if the energy leaving is linearly coupled. Dr Evans proved it was. S-Boltzman has some issues... Not knowing your input makes your GHG pontifications SWAG.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly. The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.

This is sheer goobly-gook.... Not the UNsurprising fact that more solar irradiation creates more LWIR outbound from the surface.. Don't know WHY this amazes you... The earth has a mean equilibrium surface temperature.. THAT is what dictates the amount of LWIR just like S-Boltzman...

The GOOK is the part of about the absence of hot spot.. Shows you don't understand the argument about what the Hot Spot should look like IF it were prominent and existing.. Has nothing to DO with the global avg exchange of LWIR between surface and atmosphere PLANET-WIDE....

Here's a CLUE below as to why this hot spot deal doesn't affect the GENERAL discussion of back-rad or GH effect...

And BTW -- papers published SINCE 2015 claim to find this LIMITED TROPICAL hot spot about once every other year...




From Dr. Roy Spencer...

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”
May 21st, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly. The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.

This is sheer goobly-gook.... Not the UNsurprising fact that more solar irradiation creates more LWIR outbound from the surface.. Don't know WHY this amazes you... The earth has a mean equilibrium surface temperature.. THAT is what dictates the amount of LWIR just like S-Boltzman...

The GOOK is the part of about the absence of hot spot.. Shows you don't understand the argument about what the Hot Spot should look like IF it were prominent and existing.. Has nothing to DO with the global avg exchange of LWIR between surface and atmosphere PLANET-WIDE....

I will leave you to your fantasy...

The coupled rate of input to output disproves AGW at its heart. IF CO2 was doing as you suggest and the current GHG hypothesis compels, a mid tropospheric hotspot must manifest itself and the I/O ratio would not be coupled. Basic Physics ... And Dr Evans did it planet wide finding the same result.

I refuse to deny science like many of you.

 

[flacaltenn]

The coupled rate of input to output disproves AGW at its heart. IF CO2 was doing as you suggest and the current GHG hypothesis compels, a mid tropospheric hotspot must manifest itself and the I/O ratio would not be coupled. Basic Physics ... And Dr Evans did it planet wide finding the same result.

Did you read my HINT?? before you further dig the hole?? The entire "hot spot" thing is a phenomenon ONLY EXPECTED in a LIMITED AREA of the TROPICS??

How does that have ANYTHING TO DO with disproving GHouse theory?

And WTF is a "coupled I/O ratio"???

There's only an OUTBOUND LWIR heat transfer and a layer of atmosphere that RETARDS IT... Works 24 hours a day humidity or not. In places INCLUDING the tropics...

 

[SSDD]

Well as MANY qualified folks have tried to explain to you, the way radiative heat transfer occurs the photons don't get to CHOOSE "a cooler object" to take off after. They radiate as a function of the geometry of the solid or gaseous layer.. Which means -- if you model the atmos as a slab -- about 1/2 will go up and 1/2 will go down..

Who ever said anything about "choosing" other than you warmers who use that as an argument ad absurdum in an attempt to deflect. It is you warmers who seem to think that energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...Apparently you think rocks choose to fall down, etc etc etc because they do obey the laws of physics...

No law of Thermo is broken.. Since the warmer object (like the SURFACE of the Earth) always LOSES more photons to the cooler object (which is the sky).. You just cant' abide that SOME have travel towards the warmer object to equalize this exchange out..

So says the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and as far as I can tell, no physical law predicts spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures...and there certainly is no measurement of any such spontaneous energy movement... You claim that this mysterious, unobservable energy exchange balances out with, and looks identical to the same situation with no magical spontaneous two way energy exchange, but somehow this thing that has the same net effect as no energy exchange drives the climate of the globe... It is a failure of rational thinking on your part...not mine.

I've personally cover that base with you about 3 times now.. Citing MULTIPLE studies where INDEED the LW radiation (at night preferably) has been measured from the sky.. Where you squirm after that is INSISTING that NONE of their devices WORK correctly.. And the measurements are just bogus..

All you have shown, about 3 times now is how easily you are fooled by instrumentation. You provide measurements that are supposedly of down dwelling radiation made with a f'ing pyrogeometer...the only thing that instrument is measuring is the amount of and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...and that measurement is then run through a formula that assumes downward radiation...you could just as easily install software that converts the temperature change within the thermopile to the amount of fairy dust raining down from the sky, or the presence of unicorns....

If you want to claim that downward radiation is being measured, then lets see a measurement of a discrete wavelength moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

Same thing when I take my Home Depot laser guided IR photometer in my hot little hands and TELL you I'm reading photons from the window sill leaking cold air at 56DegF... It's an "equipment malfunction" to you.. So this whole affair just keeps getting re-asserted and re-adjucated over and over and over again.

You are detecting something...and that something is being run through software that assumes photons... What is funny is that you actually believe, in your heart that a home depot instrument is measuring theoretical particles...you actually believe it...

Once again, your laser guided IR photometer is doing nothing more than measuring the amount of and rate of change within an internal thermopile...if the thermopile is warming, then it is being pointed at a warmer object and the internal software translates the amount of and rate of change to a temperature and then converts that either into a number, or a color in a synthetic image...and if it is cooling, then that amount and rate of change is converted by the internal software into a number or color. Your home depot IR photometer is not measuring photons....it is measuring nothing more than an internal temperature change...

You are being fooled by instrumentation and to tell the truth, in you, that is a bit surprising.

Needs it's own stage... Cant be doing this in threads about Arctic Sea ice or NOAA cooking the books...

Does that stage need to have a big sign hung over it saying come see the deniers sing, dance, and caper about? Does it need to be labeled as such? If you don't want your precious hypothesis being questioned, then come up with some actual evidence to support it rather than evidence of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

But at least I'm not misconstruing basic physics to do assert what I do... Or inventing new implementations of the GHouse theory that are yet to be published in any textbook...

Every one of you have your own personal hypothesis about how the greenhouse hypothesis works...every single one of your explanations of the greenhouse hypothesis is an invented implementation since none of you subscribe to the claim by climate science that back radiation is actually warming the surface of the earth...Each of you make up an explanation that is more plausible in your own mind than that bit of rubbish and then attempt to apply the magical physics by which the earth is warmed by absorbing its own radiation to whatever hypothesis you have made up and called the greenhouse theory..

And if you have any knowledge of the history of science, you should know full well that being published in a textbook means exactly squat....every failed hypothesis in the history of the earth at one time was published in a textbook and accepted as true...till it wasn't...

 

[cnm]

Then deny THIS:
285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

Pierre Gosselin. I'm not trawling that link to find your argument and make it for you. Excerpt the relevant piece. Then talk some more about closed systems with inputs and outputs.

 

[SSDD]

No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.

Have no idea what relevance this has to denying that CO2 plays NO ROLE in GHouse theory.. This is whole separate enchilada...

that would be because your personal hypothesis just doesn't include that embarrassment...the mainstream hypothesis however, said that a pronounced upper tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun of AGW... It didn't happen.

I can't get any of the other warmers to answer and I doubt that you will either, but in real science...that is, science that is actively seeking the truth rather than just the next research grant...how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is either scrapped, or modified in an attempt to have it not experience more predictive failures?

Has any serious modification been made to the greenhouse hypothesis by science other than simply reducing the sensitivity to CO2 which is no real alteration of the mis applied physics that led to the predictive failure in the first place?

Now, in pseudoscience, how many predictive failures are allowed so long as the funding continues?

Why would I have to run those readings every 15 minutes for 24 hours?? Would be BETTER done in a desert AT NIGHT with no down-dwelling solar IR... And then compared over YEARS to find a signature that changes with changing CO2 concentration.. Which is where you probably GOT all this isn't it??

According to climate science, the downwelling radiation never stops..

 

[cnm]

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

Skimmed it. Incoherent rambling irrelevant to the topic from what I could see, the topic being the proportion of papers predicting cooling as opposed to the proportion predicting warming in the 60s - 70s.

 

[SSDD]

Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly. The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.

This is sheer goobly-gook.... Not the UNsurprising fact that more solar irradiation creates more LWIR outbound from the surface.. Don't know WHY this amazes you... The earth has a mean equilibrium surface temperature.. THAT is what dictates the amount of LWIR just like S-Boltzman...

So sayeth the man with his own personal greenhouse hypothesis to which he applies the failed physics of an entirely different hypothesis...

 

[SSDD]

The coupled rate of input to output disproves AGW at its heart. IF CO2 was doing as you suggest and the current GHG hypothesis compels, a mid tropospheric hotspot must manifest itself and the I/O ratio would not be coupled. Basic Physics ... And Dr Evans did it planet wide finding the same result.

Did you read my HINT?? before you further dig the hole?? The entire "hot spot" thing is a phenomenon ONLY EXPECTED in a LIMITED AREA of the TROPICS??

How does that have ANYTHING TO DO with disproving GHouse theory?

And WTF is a "coupled I/O ratio"???

There's only an OUTBOUND LWIR heat transfer and a layer of atmosphere that RETARDS IT... Works 24 hours a day humidity or not. In places INCLUDING the tropics...

Once again...how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get in real science? How many are allowed in pseudoscience?

 

[cnm]

Here is some more PUBLISHED papers he will ignore:

Has anyone denied papers predicting cooling have been published?

 

[SSDD]

Then deny THIS:
285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

Pierre Gosselin. I'm not trawling that link to find your argument and make it for you. Excerpt the relevant piece. Then talk some more about closed systems with inputs and outputs.

I provided plenty...I provided you with just a few of the over 300 papers published during that time period which expressed concerns about the effects of an imminent cooling period...The fact is that there was a real concern about how the earth would be effected by what appeared to be a significant cooling trend...You can deny, and turn to as many opinion pieces as you like, but the fact is that the scientific literature of the period proves you wrong...

 

[cnm]

One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. …

No numbers, random individual examples. Meh.

 

[SSDD]

Here is some more PUBLISHED papers he will ignore:

Has anyone denied papers predicting cooling have been published?

Maybe you are not old enough to remember a time when there wasn't a 24/7 news cycle...when there were only 3 or 4 channels on TV and when the news only showed a few hours a day...magazines and newspapers were the only sources, and they actually interviewed scientists to get the story that wasn't available to anyone with access to a PC. The fact is that there was serious concern about a cooling trend and the real possibility of a shift to a significantly altered climate... Deny all you like...your denial only demonstrates how easily it has been to fool you.

 

[SSDD]

One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. …

No numbers, random individual examples. Meh.

Deny on Garth....people like you are easy to fool...that is why climate science itself calls you useful idiots.