Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[cnm]

You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did.

Hey, Closed Systems, I was lab teching in the middle 70s, reading Scientific American.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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;

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.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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?

 

[SSDD]

You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did.

Hey, Closed Systems, I was lab teching in the middle 70s, reading Scientific American.

Rather than reading magazines which are just a step above popular mechanics, you should have been reading the scientific literature of the time...then you wouldn't have been so easy to dupe 50 years later when you are supposed to be wiser.....

Here...from NOAA

NOAA, 1974

Clip: “Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes.”
“[T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think thatthe present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age’.”

And here...from the National Academy of Sciences

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

“Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. … Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels. … There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate … [T]here is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. … [A]s each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”

 

[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...

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

Like I said..they all have their own made up greenhouse effect hypothesis and few of them bear much resemblance to the greenhouse hypothesis that climate science puts forward...they attempt to use the same broken physics climate science puts forward to support their made up hypotheses...

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.

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.

 

[Wuwei]

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.


.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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' is zero or near zero.

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.

 

[SSDD]

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.


.

the "effects" of CO2 are trending ever closer to zero as time passes...zero or less is where the sensitivity to CO2 will end up.

 

[SSDD]

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.

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...

 

[Wuwei]

Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.

That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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...

Until they can discern what they are taking the temperature of its about as useless as screaming at the sky.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.

That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.

.

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).

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.

That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.

.

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).

More to Wuwei's point..

The base LOG expected value is unchanged at 1.1 Deg C/Doubling. However, the multiplier is 0.6 making the expected warming just 0.66 deg C, which is what we have seen to date.The problem is we do not know how much of that total warming is actually Natural Variation. It could very likely make the amount of warming zero, that can be attributed to CO2. If we applied the percentage of mans input of CO2 vs. natural sources, only 0.004 deg C can be attributed to mans CO2 input.

The facts are killing the CAGW meme and the GHG pontifications are failing without exception.

 

[IanC]

Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.

That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.

.

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).

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?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your 'direct effect' is zero or near zero.

That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.

.

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).

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?

"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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.

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?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.

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?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.

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?

If the photon is actually a particle of matter

I don't think it is. Do you?

 

[IanC]

Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?

What a friggin' idiot you are. Did you ever look up fermions and bosons?