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

[Crick]

If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K. Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.

 

[SSDD]

If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K. Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.

Explain why to think that is true. This should be interesting.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSo DDumb, any explanation of real science goes right over your pointed little head.

 

[SSDD]

SSo DDumb, any explanation of real science goes right over your pointed little head.

So clearly, neither you nor crick can offer one...thus establishing that you are posing an article of faith...not a scientific fact. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Crick]

If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K. Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.

Explain why to think that is true. This should be interesting.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Read the first sentence.

 

[SSDD]

If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K. Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.

Explain why to think that is true. This should be interesting.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Read the first sentence.

Sorry, it doesn't answer the question...if you believe it does, then you are even less informed than I had thought.

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

It's obvious? Provide some proof of that. I have found no evidence to support downward longwave radiation exists. I see many who try and manipulate with models, but not with observed data. Please, tell me how this can happen?

 

[SSDD]

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

don't you call that a guess?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No one will address the band widths and depth of Ocean penetration of the varying bands...

By simply looking at water on this graph you will see bands where absorption by water is 100% and other areas where scattering happens and no absorption occurs. Add SALT and other items that are found in sea water and most areas of absorption do not absorb because they do not penetrate the oceans.

While this graph is for our atmosphere it shows how water will react to down welling radiation even in the high frequency IR bands. Reflected radiation from CO2 is so negligible during the day time and nonexistent at night.

Note that anything longer wave than 8um is out going long wave (black body) radiation. Only areas of down-weling day time radiation in the 0.5um to 1.2um are absorbed by the oceans. That area of wave length is adversely affect by NaCl and particulates.

 

[orogenicman]

Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is. Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands. We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...

So where is the error in the calculations above?

Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery. You need a reality check, dude.

 

[mamooth]

I have found no evidence to support downward longwave radiation exists.

Given that backradiation can be directly measured at any time just by pointing an IR spectrometer at the sky, what you said there is as insane as denying that gravity exists.

So, why did you said something so crazy? If you were just woefully ignorant of the basic science, let us know. I suggest you do use that as your excuse, because if you don't, it means you're either insane or deliberately dishonest.

 

[mamooth]

No one will address the band widths and depth of Ocean penetration of the varying bands...

Of course they do.

They just do it sensibly, instead of babbling nonsense. We've learned it's never worth the effort to attempt to decipher your babble.

 

[SSDD]

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.

don't you call that a guess?

I would call it making it up as they go...

 

[SSDD]

Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is. Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands. We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...

So where is the error in the calculations above?

Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery. You need a reality check, dude.

And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found. Thanks.

 

[SSDD]

I have found no evidence to support downward longwave radiation exists.

Given that backradiation can be directly measured at any time just by pointing an IR spectrometer at the sky, what you said there is as insane as denying that gravity exists.

So, why did you said something so crazy? If you were just woefully ignorant of the basic science, let us know. I suggest you do use that as your excuse, because if you don't, it means you're either insane or deliberately dishonest.

Actually, you aren't measuring back radiation, but it is understandable that you could fool yourself so easily.

 

[orogenicman]

Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is. Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands. We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...

So where is the error in the calculations above?

Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery. You need a reality check, dude.

And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found. Thanks.

If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder. Why not? Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.

 

[SSDD]

Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is. Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands. We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...

So where is the error in the calculations above?

Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery. You need a reality check, dude.

And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found. Thanks.

If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder. Why not? Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.

Really? I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.

 

[orogenicman]

Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is. Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands. We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...

So where is the error in the calculations above?

Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery. You need a reality check, dude.

And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found. Thanks.

If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder. Why not? Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.

Really?

Yes, really.

I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.

Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.