Hey, Closed Systems, I was lab teching in the middle 70s, reading Scientific American.You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hey, Closed Systems, I was lab teching in the middle 70s, reading Scientific American.You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did.
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...
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...
You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
Dr Evans looked at it this way;
View attachment 261963
There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.
Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.
View attachment 261964
The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case
Hey, Closed Systems, I was lab teching in the middle 70s, reading Scientific American.You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did.
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...
You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
Dr Evans looked at it this way;
View attachment 261963
There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.
Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.
View attachment 261964
The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.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...
You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
Dr Evans looked at it this way;
View attachment 261963
There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.
Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.
View attachment 261964
The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
The site you referenced says the following:
The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
That is what this thread is about the direct effect of CO2, not the feedbacks. Many here disagree with that statement concerning the physics of the CO2 (and other GHGs) aspect of GW so that is the focus, not CAGW.
.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
The site you referenced says the following:
The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
That is what this thread is about the direct effect of CO2, not the feedbacks. Many here disagree with that statement concerning the physics of the CO2 (and other GHGs) aspect of GW so that is the focus, not CAGW.
.
Your 'direct effect' in zero or near zero.Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
The site you referenced says the following:
The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
That is what this thread is about the direct effect of CO2, not the feedbacks. Many here disagree with that statement concerning the physics of the CO2 (and other GHGs) aspect of GW so that is the focus, not CAGW.
.
CO2 emissions, as a particle, require a cooler object in order to have any positive affect.
CO2 emissions, as a wave, again require a cooler object to have any positive affect.
In our atmosphere the CO2 molecule collides with all other molecules over 30,000 times during the residency time that it can hold a photon. thus its ability to re-radiate this energy is very near zero as its energy is lost, most certainly, to collisions. This means that Convection and Conduction are its primary mode of travel in the troposphere. Once water vapor captures the energy it is lost to the upward convection column and never see's the earths surface again.
I am waiting for even one of you to produce empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. All of your IR thermometers will tell you what the temp of the atmosphere is but it can not discern the origin of the IR (water vapor, N2, O2, or CO2) making any proclamation of it being only CO2 a pipe dream.
That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.
Until they can discern what they are taking the temperature of its about as useless as screaming at the sky.Your 'direct effect' in zero or near zero.Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
The site you referenced says the following:
The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
That is what this thread is about the direct effect of CO2, not the feedbacks. Many here disagree with that statement concerning the physics of the CO2 (and other GHGs) aspect of GW so that is the focus, not CAGW.
.
CO2 emissions, as a particle, require a cooler object in order to have any positive affect.
CO2 emissions, as a wave, again require a cooler object to have any positive affect.
In our atmosphere the CO2 molecule collides with all other molecules over 30,000 times during the residency time that it can hold a photon. thus its ability to re-radiate this energy is very near zero as its energy is lost, most certainly, to collisions. This means that Convection and Conduction are its primary mode of travel in the troposphere. Once water vapor captures the energy it is lost to the upward convection column and never see's the earths surface again.
I am waiting for even one of you to produce empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. All of your IR thermometers will tell you what the temp of the atmosphere is but it can not discern the origin of the IR (water vapor, N2, O2, or CO2) making any proclamation of it being only CO2 a pipe dream.
They all...to an individual believe that the temperature change within the internal thermopile of their instrument is telling them something specific about what caused the temperature of the thermopile to change...It is sad to see people who believe themselves to be scientifically literate be so easily fooled by an instrument which is so easy to understand...
I know. He used the 0-1.1 deg C/doubling. However, since the writing of the paper, this too has has been revised downward. The Amplification Factor (aka: Climate Sensitivity) is almost assuredly closer to a negative forcing, by empirical review and experiment. (anything below 1.0 is a negative forcing number- when multiplied against the LOG value of CO2 direct warming expected).That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.
.
More to Wuwei's point..I know. He used the 0-1.1 deg C/doubling. However, since the writing of the paper, this too has has been revised downward. The Amplification Factor (aka: Climate Sensitivity) is almost assuredly closer to a negative forcing, by empirical review and experiment. (anything below 1.0 is a negative forcing number- when multiplied against the LOG value of CO2 direct warming expected).That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.
.
I know. He used the 0-1.1 deg C/doubling. However, since the writing of the paper, this too has has been revised downward. The Amplification Factor (aka: Climate Sensitivity) is almost assuredly closer to a negative forcing, by empirical review and experiment. (anything below 1.0 is a negative forcing number- when multiplied against the LOG value of CO2 direct warming expected).That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.
.
"LOG" is the acronym for Logarithmic Equation Applied. It was the way I was taught to identify the mathematical construct vs. a tree..... As well as the command for some programs.I know. He used the 0-1.1 deg C/doubling. However, since the writing of the paper, this too has has been revised downward. The Amplification Factor (aka: Climate Sensitivity) is almost assuredly closer to a negative forcing, by empirical review and experiment. (anything below 1.0 is a negative forcing number- when multiplied against the LOG value of CO2 direct warming expected).That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.
.
Why do you write LOG? The equation uses natural logarithm not base 10. And log (10) doesnt use capitals either.
Is it a holdover from some coding program?
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.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...
You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
Dr Evans looked at it this way;
View attachment 261963
There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.
Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.
View attachment 261964
The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?
Your question is one of semantics. As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters. In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object. As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.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...
You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
Dr Evans looked at it this way;
View attachment 261963
There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.
Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.
View attachment 261964
The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?
Your question is one of semantics. As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters. In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object. As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.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...
You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
Dr Evans looked at it this way;
View attachment 261963
There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.
Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.
View attachment 261964
The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?
Your question is one of semantics. As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters. In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object. As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?