Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Thanks Old Rocks. That paper clearly states that the excited states of CO2 last at least 10x longer than the interval between molecular collisions. The energy absorbed from IR is more likely to be thermalized than re-emitted as the same photon.

While this may seem to be a quibble, it means that a certain percentage comes out as radiation that directly escapes to space through the atmospheric window.

You forgot 'In a perfectly pure CO2 environment'. Alarmists and Warmists even luke warmer's refuse to see this very basic point. The thermalization is rapidly offset in earths atmosphere because the number of molecules in the atmosphere is insufficient to thermalize big areas of the atmosphere. This is why there is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which all of the CAGW crap is based on. The empirical evidence indicates that CO2 is not capable of the warming that it is being attributed because of the other componates of the atmosphere which do not act in a positive feed back way.

Thus while the CO2 may ( and i say this because we do not know for sure how this actually works and it is theroy) absorb and re-emit photons vibrating at sufficient frequency to be reabsorbed by CO2 the surrounding componates in the atmosphere change that by absorption and emitance at lower temperatures.

IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise, disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh yes, and Billy Boob is so much smarter than these people;

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Gilbert N. Plass, Infrared radiation in the atmosphere, American Journal of Physics,
24 , No. 5, May 1956.
• P.E. Martin and E.F. Barker, The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide,
Physical Review, 41, August 1, 1932.
• V. Robert Stull, Philip J. Wyatt, and Gilbert N. Plass, The Infrared Transmittance of
Carbon Dioxide, Applied Optics, 3, No. 2, February 1964
• R.T. Pierrehumbert, Principles of Planetary Climate, 2010

And the title reads Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. But keep lying about what is in a power point presentation you did not even look at.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh yes, and Billy Boob is so much smarter than these people;

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Gilbert N. Plass, Infrared radiation in the atmosphere, American Journal of Physics,
24 , No. 5, May 1956.
• P.E. Martin and E.F. Barker, The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide,
Physical Review, 41, August 1, 1932.
• V. Robert Stull, Philip J. Wyatt, and Gilbert N. Plass, The Infrared Transmittance of
Carbon Dioxide, Applied Optics, 3, No. 2, February 1964
• R.T. Pierrehumbert, Principles of Planetary Climate, 2010

And the title reads Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. But keep lying about what is in a power point presentation you did not even look at.

You listed papers which are using pure CO2 environments... Your trying to sell apples as oranges..

 

[Old Rocks]

And you are full of shit, Billy Boob.

 

[kflaux]

IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise, disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.

If there were no such thing as wind, you might have had a point....

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's obvious that backradiation exists. It's what keeps the solar oven at a base temp of 290K or so. Without backradiation, it would quickly radiate away heat and reach a much more frigid temperature. Pointing it at the sky has nothing to do with it, since any object would drop below background air temp quickly if it wasn't receiving a constant bath of backradiation. All objects radiate IR at all times, and for thermal equilibrium, heat radiated out has to be balanced with heat in.

Actually it is not obvious as it can not be measured at ambient temperature...The fact is, hairball, that most of today's spectrometers can't measure into the far IR wavelengths so climate science simply extrapolates the effects of far IR based on what they know about the wavelengths that they can measure...in short...they are just making it up and you believe it to be true.

Here, from Berkley Lab

Berkeley Lab Scientists ID New Driver Behind Arctic Warming

Many of today’s spectrometers cannot detect far-infrared wavelengths, which explains the dearth of field measurements. Because of this, scientists have extrapolated the effects of far-infrared surface emissions based on what’s known at the wavelengths measured by today’s spectrometers.

This is what is referred to as a SWAG...

Scientific Wild Ass Guess.. They have no basis in empirical observed evidence, just what they think will happen. This is kin to witch doctoring.

 

[Billy_Bob]

IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise, disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.

If there were no such thing as wind, you might have had a point....

BZZZZZZZTT

Wrong Again! You really shouldn't take you talking points from Old Crock..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And you are full of shit, Billy Boob.

Show me the tropospheric HOT SPOT moron.

 

[mamooth]

The tropospheric hot spot is a fingerprint of both solar-change warming and greenhouse-gas warming. So by denying it exists, Billy is proudly declaring his own "it's the sun!" theory is a fantasy.

Stratospheric cooling is the real fingerprint of global warming. And the opposite of what would happen with solar-change warming. We see that strong stratospheric cooling.

Of course, the tropospheric warming is there as well. I could link to that data, but first I'll need Billy to promise he won't just auto-declare the data is all fraudulent.

 

[IanC]

LOL

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Thanks Old Rocks. That paper clearly states that the excited states of CO2 last at least 10x longer than the interval between molecular collisions. The energy absorbed from IR is more likely to be thermalized than re-emitted as the same photon.

While this may seem to be a quibble, it means that a certain percentage comes out as radiation that directly escapes to space through the atmospheric window.

You forgot 'In a perfectly pure CO2 environment'. Alarmists and Warmists even luke warmer's refuse to see this very basic point. The thermalization is rapidly offset in earths atmosphere because the number of molecules in the atmosphere is insufficient to thermalize big areas of the atmosphere. This is why there is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which all of the CAGW crap is based on. The empirical evidence indicates that CO2 is not capable of the warming that it is being attributed because of the other componates of the atmosphere which do not act in a positive feed back way.

Thus while the CO2 may ( and i say this because we do not know for sure how this actually works and it is theroy) absorb and re-emit photons vibrating at sufficient frequency to be reabsorbed by CO2 the surrounding componates in the atmosphere change that by absorption and emitance at lower temperatures.

IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise, disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.

There is a considerible difference between acknowledging a mechanism exists, and agreeing with theIPCC version of feedbacks.

I think CO2 has an effect on radiative transfer in the atmosphere. I disagree that it is very important or that feedbacks multiply it.

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The tropospheric hot spot is a fingerprint of both solar-change warming and greenhouse-gas warming. So by denying it exists, Billy is proudly declaring his own "it's the sun!" theory is a fantasy.

Stratospheric cooling is the real fingerprint of global warming. And the opposite of what would happen with solar-change warming. We see that strong stratospheric cooling.

Of course, the tropospheric warming is there as well. I could link to that data, but first I'll need Billy to promise he won't just auto-declare the data is all fraudulent.

Show me this fantasy hot spot you keep saying exists..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Figure 2. Temperature trends for the satellite era. Plot of temperature trend (°C/decade) against pressure (altitude). The HadCRUT2v surface trend value is a large blue circle. The GHCN and the GISS surface values are the open rectangle and diamond. The four radiosonde results (IGRA, RATPAC, HadAT2, and RAOBCORE) are shown in blue, light blue, green, and purple respectively. The two UAH MSU data points are shown as gold-filled diamonds and the RSS MSU data points as gold-filled squares. The 22-model ensemble average is a solid red line. The 22-model average ±2σSE are shown as lighter red lines. MSU values of T2LT and T2 are shown in the panel to the right. UAH values are yellow-filled diamonds, RSS are yellow-filled squares, and UMD is a yellow-filled circle. Synthetic model values are shown as white-filled circles, with 2σSE uncertainty limits as error bars.

Source: Douglass et al. 2008

 

[Billy_Bob]

Figure 2

"The observed warming trends at mid-latitudes, with no warming near the equator, suggest that warm water was distributed poleward by ocean currents. In the Pacific, that happens when El Niño events dominate, which was the case during this period, causing the excessive distribution of warm water toward those latitudes. Refer to this comparison of Pacific trends on a zonal-mean basis for the periods of 1944 to 1975 and 1976 to 2011. It’s Figure 8-32 from my ebook Who Turned on the Heat? From 1944 to 1975, El Nino and La Niña events were more evenly matched, but slightly weighted toward La Niña. During that period, less warm water was released from the tropical Pacific by El Niños and distributed toward the poles. But from 1976-2011, El Niño events dominated, so more warm tropical waters were distributed to the mid-latitudes.

In looking at the unrealistic trends presented by the models, consider that climate models do not simulate the processes of El Niño and La Niña properly. See the discussion of Guilyardi et al (2009) here.

To overcome those failings, the sea surface temperatures in climate models have to be forced by greenhouse gases to create very high warming trends in the tropics, where observations show little warming. Now consider that the Pacific Ocean stretches almost halfway around the globe at the equator and you’ll understand the magnitude of those failings."

Source

Catastrophic mid tropospheric warming doesn't exist..

 

[mamooth]

So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?

Again, you need to promise to not declare the data is faked before I deign to teach you. I note how reluctant you are to do so. It's as if you already know you won't be able argue intelligently against it, and declaring that it's all fake will be your only option. Like you do with every other topic. I won't waste my valuable time on you unless you promise to behave.

Also, copying Bob Tisdale's crank rambling is never a good idea. Here's a thought. To show that you understand the issue, summarize what Tisdale said, in your own words.

You did a better with that diagram from Douglas et al 2008. Alas, that's regarded as a flawed paper by most in the field. It uses bad radiosonde and satellite measurements, and bad statistics. Santer et al 2008 is basically a big crushing refutation of it.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Santer_etal_1.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?

Again, you need to promise to not declare the data is faked before I deign to teach you. I note how reluctant you are to do so. It's as if you already know you won't be able argue intelligently against it, and declaring that it's all fake will be your only option. Like you do with every other topic. I won't waste my valuable time on you unless you promise to behave.

Also, copying Bob Tisdale's crank rambling is never a good idea. Here's a thought. To show that you understand the issue, summarize what Tisdale said, in your own words.

You did a better with that diagram from Douglas et al 2008. Alas, that's regarded as a flawed paper by most in the field. It uses bad radiosonde and satellite measurements, and bad statistics. Santer et al 2008 is basically a big crushing refutation of it.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Santer_etal_1.pdf

You teach??

Too Funny... You attack those who tear your cult apart and its bull shit.. Santer Et Al has been shown garbage and not worth the paper it is written on.. Keep diggin moron..

 

[Old Rocks]

So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?

Again, you need to promise to not declare the data is faked before I deign to teach you. I note how reluctant you are to do so. It's as if you already know you won't be able argue intelligently against it, and declaring that it's all fake will be your only option. Like you do with every other topic. I won't waste my valuable time on you unless you promise to behave.

Also, copying Bob Tisdale's crank rambling is never a good idea. Here's a thought. To show that you understand the issue, summarize what Tisdale said, in your own words.

You did a better with that diagram from Douglas et al 2008. Alas, that's regarded as a flawed paper by most in the field. It uses bad radiosonde and satellite measurements, and bad statistics. Santer et al 2008 is basically a big crushing refutation of it.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Santer_etal_1.pdf

You teach??

Too Funny... You attack those who tear your cult apart and its bull shit.. Santer Et Al has been shown garbage and not worth the paper it is written on.. Keep diggin moron..

Now Billy Boob, you were shown a paper refuting what was published in the one that you linked to. Instead of flapping yap, how about a link to the refutation of that paper? That is how scientific debates work, you know. But you are improving, you did link to one paper.

 

[IanC]

http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-c...ded-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf

that covers most of the debating points, by some of those involved.

personally I think Santer preferring 'reanalyzed' data and wind shear over balloons and satellites is a little suspicious.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?

Again, you need to promise to not declare the data is faked before I deign to teach you. I note how reluctant you are to do so. It's as if you already know you won't be able argue intelligently against it, and declaring that it's all fake will be your only option. Like you do with every other topic. I won't waste my valuable time on you unless you promise to behave.

Also, copying Bob Tisdale's crank rambling is never a good idea. Here's a thought. To show that you understand the issue, summarize what Tisdale said, in your own words.

You did a better with that diagram from Douglas et al 2008. Alas, that's regarded as a flawed paper by most in the field. It uses bad radiosonde and satellite measurements, and bad statistics. Santer et al 2008 is basically a big crushing refutation of it.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Santer_etal_1.pdf

You teach??

Too Funny... You attack those who tear your cult apart and its bull shit.. Santer Et Al has been shown garbage and not worth the paper it is written on.. Keep diggin moron..

Now Billy Boob, you were shown a paper refuting what was published in the one that you linked to. Instead of flapping yap, how about a link to the refutation of that paper? That is how scientific debates work, you know. But you are improving, you did link to one paper.

Garbage from Santer is refutation of nothing..

 

[mamooth]

So in summary, you won't promise not to auto-declare all the data you don't like has to be a fraud. Instead, you're auto-declaring even more stridently that all the data you don't like has to be a fraud.

And that's why nobody wastes any time on you. Enjoy your life of being thought of as a kook, kook.

 

[SSDD]

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?

Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself ....they don't inhibit it. Greenhouse gasses are cooling agents, not warming agents.