Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[abu afak]

No one is questioning the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere. Just the effect of changing concentrations.

let’s see the direct measurement of associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2.

Edited and Revised New posting, old one deleted.
This has NUMBERs and real scientists worldwide have been researching for YEARS/DECADES the very topic.
You just never looked for anything but BS anomalous info.
This is not a Hockey game.
You don't just root for your team.
You try to find the Truth.
You Do NOT.
You put up intentionally uncontexted BS info and goofy graphs.
Again:

Yes, I am a tough customer. I have trust issues with them. I do believe there is a greenhouse gas effect but I don't trust them when they tell me it's transient and takes a really really long time for it's effects to be felt. That seems to go against the concept of a greenhouse gas. So because of that I want to see an experiment where a volume of gas (air) is heated up (radiant heat) and allowed to cool down and then repeat that experiment with varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the difference in cool down times to measure the temperature differentials.

If you're a "tough Customer" at least do some simple research.
Scientists have of course done the experiments.
They know, ie, that the reflection of radiation back into space is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs, and there are plenty of graphics on the net showing such, and I have posted some previously.

Or if one was even basically/truly curious, and not a denialist sitting with his arms folded/Hrmmpph, one could at least go to the GHG page of Wiki and find lots of info on the topic as well as much more in the footnotes.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ie, the opening paragraph:

A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5] The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases."""​

Now unless you think they pulled those Numbers from a hat, someone HAS done the work.

And in the footnotes I came across the CDIAC/Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a Govt agency that ran for 30 years doing nothing but that. They closed//were merged in 2017 into the DOE, but all they did was CO2 experiments and measurements.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov

Info is so easy to find these days, but You and others don't want to find out, you want to maintain your politics, and count on shifting the heavy detail burden to non-experts on message boards.
(Demand endless detail fallacy variant, sure to work on amateur mbs)
That disingenuous way you can maintain your Stubborn position (in your case positionS) on all your little individual Conspiracies.. from anti-evo Intelligent Design to Climate.

And this board is 95% full of lazy politicos who would have different positions if they spent any time even looking for the facts/truth. And again, it's so G-D easy these days.


Crick Sunsettommy Stann et al.

 

[ding]

He's repeating himself.

 

[Crick]

When you have a set of facts that correspond very closely to reality, you tend to do that.

 

[flacaltenn]

​

He's getting worse and doing it multiple times daily. Always/10 YEARS a jerk, Cons can do his every day. You need a taste.
this is a RW troll board.
Absolutely YOUR Doing.

The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study Feb 7, 2022 Solar makes more financial sense than coal The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted...

www.usmessageboard.com

skookerasbil​

It's early in the year still, but this thread most certainly gets a nomination ( second in 2022) for.....

THIS IS the appropriate thread to confront folks that deny basic GHouse theory. I've spent time in here opposing their assertions. Now it's YOUR turn and good luck.

No amount of GHouse theory which is VERY solid compared to the "catastrophic tenets" of Global Warming will dissuade them. KEEP IT OFF THE PERSONAL. And make the points. You have a good start WITHOUT all the angry ole man flaming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

THIS IS the appropriate thread to confront folks that deny basic GHouse theory. I've spent time in here opposing their assertions. Now it's YOUR turn and good luck.

No amount of GHouse theory which is VERY solid compared to the "catastrophic tenets" of Global Warming will dissuade them. KEEP IT OFF THE PERSONAL. And make the points. You have a good start WITHOUT all the angry ole man flaming.

And this would be why I no longer post in this thread. CO2 cannot affect over 72% of earth's surface, only the sun can do that. While energy can be held for a bit longer due to GHG's it cannot affect the oceans in mass. Thus, CO2 has a very limited effect on our atmosphere that water vapor controls. The thermocline barriers and density of our atmosphere have a much greater effect and no "hot spot" has ever formed. It's not denying GH theory, its testing it and finding that the effect of CO2 is dampened by water vapor and does not drive it.

With the cooling of the last 12 years, we are now at a 0.2 multiplier (climate sensitivity number). CAGW theory is falling apart, and the alarmists are apoplectic.

 

[flacaltenn]

And this would be why I no longer post in this thread. CO2 cannot affect over 72% of earth's surface, only the sun can do that. While energy can be held for a bit longer due to GHG's it cannot affect the oceans in mass.

Maybe you NEED to post in this thread. LOL.. Because while you dont deny Greenhouse theory -- you seem to OVER COMPENSATE to the catastrophic Warmers by MINIMIZING the ability of increased CO2 density to warm the planet.

If the 72% is the OCEANS that you're talking about, a LOT of warming can occur due to changes in fresh water RUN-OFF temperature. That WILL take up and store the surface temperature over the entire river system watershed. Also the temperature of PRECIPT can add considerable warming to the oceans. And remember that there is still a "skin effect" on the oceans. And a lot of mixing can occur at current boundaries and due to storms, wind, ect. THe ocean is the MOST efficient heat storage on the planet. Can lock it up for decades or centuries.

That's why the WEATHER and ATMOS temp can be so influenced by El Nino/Nina and other cyclical ocean effects. THAT exchange BACK to sky ALSO occurs "mainly in the skin temperature" of the oceans.

A common misconception is there is such a thing as cold. Cold is simply the absence of heat. So if you have a VERY cold ocean at 50meters down, it's ability to WARM requires less heat forcing for each degree increase. Same reason that drives some of the POLAR "climate sensitivity"..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Maybe you NEED to post in this thread. LOL.. Because while you dont deny Greenhouse theory -- you seem to OVER COMPENSATE to the catastrophic Warmers by MINIMIZING the ability of increased CO2 density to warm the planet.

If the 72% is the OCEANS that you're talking about, a LOT of warming can occur due to changes in fresh water RUN-OFF temperature. That WILL take up and store the surface temperature over the entire river system watershed. Also the temperature of PRECIPT can add considerable warming to the oceans. And remember that there is still a "skin effect" on the oceans. And a lot of mixing can occur at current boundaries and due to storms, wind, ect. THe ocean is the MOST efficient heat storage on the planet. Can lock it up for decades or centuries.

That's why the WEATHER and ATMOS temp can be so influenced by El Nino/Nina and other cyclical ocean effects. THAT exchange BACK to sky ALSO occurs "mainly in the skin temperature" of the oceans.

A common misconception is there is such a thing as cold. Cold is simply the absence of heat. So if you have a VERY cold ocean at 50meters down, it's ability to WARM requires less heat forcing for each degree increase. Same reason that drives some of the POLAR "climate sensitivity"..

Please show me where there is a hot spot in the atmosphere. Absent this hot spot, precipitation can not warm enough to affect the ocean. One must remember that the water is evaporating as it falls and is cooling. Just as the wavelength at which GHG's emit can not get past the skin layer, the energy stored in precipitation must be warmer than the ocean temperature, it is very seldom the case.
There are many misconceptions with much of these different methods of heat/energy transfer, most of which are not modeled correctly and why GCM's over estimate warming by, at minimum, a factor of ten.

 

[flacaltenn]

Please show me where there is a hot spot in the atmosphere. Absent this hot spot, precipitation can not warm enough to affect the ocean.

Doesn't TAKE a "hot spot" to warm precip. The precipt that hits the ground has a temperature LARGELY due to the warming in the LOWER/MID troposphere.

If the clouds are warmed by increased greenhouse and run into cooler air above and/or below the cloud deck -- the precipt that hits the surface will be warmer. It's like the difference between hail/sleet/freezing rain.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Doesn't TAKE a "hot spot" to warm precip. The precipt that hits the ground has a temperature LARGELY due to the warming in the LOWER/MID troposphere.

If the clouds are warmed by increased greenhouse and run into cooler air above and/or below the cloud deck -- the precipt that hits the surface will be warmer. It's like the difference between hail/sleet/freezing rain.

Rain often feels COOLER than the air it travels through I just checked the rain outside of my house it is clearly feels COOLER than the air and common reason is because rain originated in cooler air it fell from.

 

[flacaltenn]

Rain often feels COOLER than the air it travels through I just checked the rain outside of my house it is clearly feels COOLER than the air and common reason is because rain originated in cooler air it fell from.

Of course. But no doubt INFLUENCED by the layers thru which it fell. Difference between wintry mix and snow/rain. SAME origination temp -- but the differences all occur in Mid/Lower troposphere.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Of course. But no doubt INFLUENCED by the layers thru which it fell. Difference between wintry mix and snow/rain. SAME origination temp -- but the differences all occur in Mid/Lower troposphere.

But even in the Tropics it still feels cool despite the warm air it falls through because it originated in the much colder air, if there was a true hot spot the rain would be less common and warmer.

If it starts cold, it will lose heat rapidly to warm air as it falls to the ground the bigger the temperature differences the more rapid it cools down this is what helps rainstorms last longer.

 

[flacaltenn]

But even in the Tropics it still feels cool despite the warm air it falls through because it originated in the much colder air, if there was a true hot spot the rain would be less common and warmer.

If it starts cold, it will lose heat rapidly to warm air as it falls to the ground the bigger the temperature differences the more rapid it cools down this is what helps rainstorms last longer.

If it changes by ONLY 0.4DegC -- that's an effect significant to Global Warming on the fresh water water-shed. We're looking at REALLY MINOR numbers for ANYTHING global warming.

And it can WARM as well as cool depending on the temp layers it falls thru. There's not ALWAYS cooler air below. EVEN IF there is cooler air below -- if there is global surface warming -- the precipt will INHERIT some of that warming.


Start HERE:::

Rainwater Temperature: How Hot or Cold Are Raindrops?

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Billy_Bob]

If it changes by ONLY 0.4DegC -- that's an effect significant to Global Warming on the fresh water water-shed. We're looking at REALLY MINOR numbers for ANYTHING global warming.

And it can WARM as well as cool depending on the temp layers it falls thru. There's not ALWAYS cooler air below. EVEN IF there is cooler air below -- if there is global surface warming -- the precipt will INHERIT some of that warming.


Start HERE:::

Rainwater Temperature: How Hot or Cold Are Raindrops?

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.

www.thoughtco.com

There are three zones in our lower troposphere. The sun affects those zones far more than any GHG. The amount of warming that any precipitation gets will not be enough to change the overall temperature of the larger body. Were talking mass vs mass and rain drops that might be 0.4 deg C warmer than the ocean it falls into will have very little effect.

Then we look at angle of incidence and thickness of the atmosphere for both incoming solar radiation and outgoing long wave radiation.. The amount of heat your talking about is like pissing in the stream and does very little to change its temperature.

Rain in the past, even with lower GHG's was about 0.4 deg C warmer than the oceans in the tropics. What your telling me is, that somehow the rain is warmer than it was 150 years ago... Please tell me by how much and then how you ascertained that. If your lucky, it might be in the hundredths of a degree of warming.

 

[Sunsettommy]

If it changes by ONLY 0.4DegC -- that's an effect significant to Global Warming on the fresh water water-shed. We're looking at REALLY MINOR numbers for ANYTHING global warming.

And it can WARM as well as cool depending on the temp layers it falls thru. There's not ALWAYS cooler air below. EVEN IF there is cooler air below -- if there is global surface warming -- the precipt will INHERIT some of that warming.


Start HERE:::

Rainwater Temperature: How Hot or Cold Are Raindrops?

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Billy_Bob]

You might want to move that outside of flactens quote brackets.

Rainwater Temperature: How Hot or Cold Are Raindrops?

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.

www.thoughtco.com

It is an excellent article and proves the point I was just making to flacten. Rain starts as ice and depending on the air masses and micro circulations, through which it passes, it either cools or warms. The point being, without a warmer mass or HOT SPOT that is different than 150 years ago "warming rain is but a figment of the imagination by comparison.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You might want to move that outside of flactens quote brackets.

Rainwater Temperature: How Hot or Cold Are Raindrops?

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.

www.thoughtco.com

It is an excellent article and proves the point I was just making to flacten. Rain starts as ice and depending on the air masses and micro circulations, through which it passes, it either cools or warms. The point being, without a warmer mass or HOT SPOT that is different than 150 years ago "warming rain is but a figment of the imagination by comparison.

It is fine and knew this for decades already even watched the air temperature on every air flight I have been on where at 40,000 Feet can be 30 below zero F and still below zero F in the Tropics.

I just DELETED my post I had written, this software doesn't allow deletion once someone's post is being replied to which is weird since many forum software allows a full deletion of a post not yet posted no matter what.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Doesn't TAKE a "hot spot" to warm precip.

That assumption depends soley on what you mean by 'warms'. As compared to what? If we compare the rain 150 years ago to today, the temperature is no different (or statistically insignificant) then it was before the rise in CO2. Where are we getting the energy to warm the rain further without a significant hot spot above the tropics? without that warmer airmass where are you deriving the heat/energy from?

I am not underestimating the ability of GHG's to warm, I am quantifying it. Much of the warmist dogma is not supported by observations. This is why their modeling fails without exception. Just like you assuming that water must warm because of GHG's you cannot prove that it is occurring. Logically, it could warm things if there were a region with that stored energy. Where is that region? Absent that region, the warming is no different than it was over 150 years ago/

 

[Billy_Bob]

They know, ie, that the reflection of radiation back into space is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs, and there are plenty of graphics on the net showing such, and I have posted some previously.

Bull Shit...

The ERBE satellite data shows that you are WRONG.

Your models say it is being reflected or emitted towards the earth but the actual empirically observed data shows that this is not happening. That the majority of the energy is not stopped by GHG's. Pay close attention to the slopes in the above attachment. Empirical evidence shows that the energy is leaving earth's atmosphere, a positive slope. The modeling shows a negative slope that would be seen if the GHG's were indeed slowing the outgoing LWIR.

Further, as the GHG's increase there is no decrease in outgoing LWIR...

Sorry Charlie, but the empirical evidence says you be full of Schiff...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Bull Shit...

The ERBE satellite data shows that you are WRONG.

View attachment 615940

Your models say it is being reflected or emitted towards the earth but the actual empirically observed data shows that this is not happening. That the majority of the energy is not stopped by GHG's. Pay close attention to the slopes in the above attachment. Empirical evidence shows that the energy is leaving earth's atmosphere, a positive slope. The modeling shows a negative slope that would be seen if the GHG's were indeed slowing the outgoing LWIR.

Further, as the GHG's increase there is no decrease in outgoing LWIR...

Sorry Charlie, but the empirical evidence says you be full of Schiff...

Climate worriers like him never seem to understand that CO2 doesn't block around 90-95% of the OLWR at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

You might want to move that outside of flactens quote brackets.

Rainwater Temperature: How Hot or Cold Are Raindrops?

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.

www.thoughtco.com

It is an excellent article and proves the point I was just making to flacten. Rain starts as ice and depending on the air masses and micro circulations, through which it passes, it either cools or warms. The point being, without a warmer mass or HOT SPOT that is different than 150 years ago "warming rain is but a figment of the imagination by comparison.

Proves no such thing. Increased GENERAL HEATING of the Mid/Lower troposphere WITHOUT a "hotspot" -- WILL affect the temp of precip.. Regardless of whether the clouds they fell from were at -19DegC or 20DegC...



But more importantly, GROUND heating of rivers/streams and run-off from asphalt/concrete flowing to the sea WILL be STORED in the oceans.