Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Unless we comply with "your" position we are now all labeled 'deniers' just by posting in your thread.No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong..
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.