Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Crick]

Still can't read a graph i see.

Let me guess: you see dramatic and unprecedented cooling in those data. Right?

 

[Billy_Bob]

If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere

I think it would be difficult because any measurements would be in very old archives. I certainly wouldn't waste time in searching for it because with modern science it is quite logical to deduce it from the conservation of energy, a fundamental law of physics. It is simple:

Absorption of IR means the loss of IR energy to the gas in a random fashion. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the IR energy loss. Gain of random energy of a gas is thermal energy. One can go into detail on how IR leads to increased vibratory energy of a GHG, which is very rapidly dissipated to the rest of the atmosphere, but the conservation of energy is sufficient to say that the absorbed IR increases the thermal energy.

Do you have any other ideas about the nature of the energy transfer?

And your hot spot is where again?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still can't read a graph i see.

Let me guess: you see dramatic and unprecedented cooling in those data. Right?

Those graphs cherry pick a small area and are not a picture of the whole... Only small areas are warming all the rest are cooling... why do you cherry pick?

 

[SSDD]

If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere

I think it would be difficult because any measurements would be in very old archives. I certainly wouldn't waste time in searching for it because with modern science it is quite logical to deduce it from the conservation of energy, a fundamental law of physics. It is simple:

Absorption of IR means the loss of IR energy to the gas in a random fashion. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the IR energy loss. Gain of random energy of a gas is thermal energy. One can go into detail on how IR leads to increased vibratory energy of a GHG, which is very rapidly dissipated to the rest of the atmosphere, but the conservation of energy is sufficient to say that the absorbed IR increases the thermal energy.

Do you have any other ideas about the nature of the energy transfer?

So you have nothing...like i have been saying. if there were anything in those old archives, it would be inescapable..there is, and never has been anything to support your beliefs other than models which don't jibe with observations.

 

[Wuwei]

So you have nothing...like i have been saying. if there were anything in those old archives, it would be inescapable..there is, and never has been anything to support your beliefs other than models which don't jibe with observations.

No, you have nothing. It is simple physics. Here it is again step by step.

• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Do you disagree with any of the above statements? Which ones?

.

 

[SSDD]

So you have nothing...like i have been saying. if there were anything in those old archives, it would be inescapable..there is, and never has been anything to support your beliefs other than models which don't jibe with observations.

No, you have nothing. It is simple physics. Here it is again step by step.

• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Do you disagree with any of the above statements? Which ones?

.

So you have a failed hypothesis and still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements...if you can't provide any, why do you keep talking?

 

[Wuwei]

So you have a failed hypothesis and still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements...if you can't provide any, why do you keep talking?

I'm addressing the fact that I disagree with your second statement.
Here it is again step by step.

• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Which of the above do you disagree with?

You are avoiding the question.

 

[SSDD]

So you have a failed hypothesis and still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements...if you can't provide any, why do you keep talking?

I'm addressing the fact that I disagree with your second statement.
Here it is again step by step.

• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Which of the above do you disagree with?

You are avoiding the question.

Of course you disagree...so what? You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it? of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?

If simple physics corroborated your belief, then you could certainly provide some empirical evidence to challenge my statements...you can't because your understanding is flawed and reality will never back you up with actual evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.

Incorrect;

CO2 can not warm as the energy residency time is incapable of allowing warming of the molecule. Your link has a huge hole in it..

 

[Billy_Bob]

That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.

Where are you getting this crap?

I don't know of any perpetual energy motion machines that do not have loss.

My Gawd you people live and die by your failed modeling...

 

[Wuwei]

Of course you disagree...so what? You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it? of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?

If simple physics corroborated your belief, then you could certainly provide some empirical evidence to challenge my statements...you can't because your understanding is flawed and reality will never back you up with actual evidence.

Do you need measured evidence for every simple problem in physics??

Suppose you wanted to know the final speed of a disk rolling down an incline, and were given the moment of inertia, and the ramp angle and length. There are simple formulas to compute that. Would you shun those those formulas as models and not be satisfied unless you actually built the system and tried to observe and measure the final velocity of the disk?

That is exactly what you are doing all the time with the simple problems in physics. You have absolutely no imagination nor intuition in problem solving and would flunk a physics course cold.

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
3. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
4. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
5. The conservation of energy requires the above.

Which of those five statements to you think are false. Do you have any understanding of a simple application of the law of conservation of energy? I'm curious how you will evade this question again.

 

[SSDD]

That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.

Where are you getting this crap?

I don't know of any perpetual energy motion machines that do not have loss.

My Gawd you people live and die by your failed modeling...

Their fundamental hypothesis is based on a belief in back radiation...energy from a cooler atmosphere warming the warmer surface...if you don't believe in perpetual motion, you can't join the cult.

 

[SSDD]

Do you need measured evidence for every simple problem in physics??

If it were so simple, observed measured evidence would be no problem...if you were correct, measured evidence would be no problem...you lose on both counts and now you are conceding and saying just trust the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

No thanks...i don't speak the language of Baaaahhh, nor do I possess the herding instinct of sheep.

Suppose you wanted to know the final speed of a disk rolling down an incline, and were given the moment of inertia, and the ramp angle and length. There are simple formulas to compute that. Would you shun those those formulas as models and not be satisfied unless you actually built the system and tried to observe and measure the final velocity of the disk?

Yep...and i could trulyt egos formulas because they have been tested and proven right over and over and over...and if i wanted i could do the observation and measuring myself.

Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

That is exactly what you are doing all the time with the simple problems in physics. You have absolutely no imagination nor intuition in problem solving and would flunk a physics course cold.

You mean trusting time proven formulas which have proven their accuracy over and over, and over with experiment and observation of their accuracy, in some cases for hundreds of years but not trusting a mathematical model which can't even produce a single observed, measured example that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

That? Yeah, I'm guilty. if I weren't, I would be a dupe...and I don't want yo be a dupe.

1. Blackbody radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
3. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
4. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
5. The conservation of energy requires the above./quote]

Yeah...that is your litany...problem is, right off the bat, you assume that absorption and emission equals warming...there is no evidence of that. The rest is just gibberish steaming from your assumption. Prove that absorption and emission equals warming...that is fundamental to your claims and you will never prove it because absorption and emission do not equal warming.

 

[Wuwei]

If it were so simple, observed measured evidence would be no problem...if you were correct, measured evidence would be no problem...you lose on both counts and now you are conceding and saying just trust the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

Geez, the conservation of energy really is quite simple in the case of a photon disappearing and giving energy to a molecule. And you can't even handle that!

No thanks...i don't speak the language of Baaaahhh, nor do I possess the herding instinct of sheep.

Let me translate that

No thanks...i don't speak the language of a physicist, nor do I possess the basic science of classical and quantum physics that has been proven time and again.​

Yep...and i could trulyt egos formulas because they have been tested and proven right over and over and over...and if i wanted i could do the observation and measuring myself.

Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

You are saying "yep" to building a system to test the speed of a tire rolling down a ramp. Wow, you really are a science skeptic.

However there is empirical evidence that the conservation of energy is valid and it explains radiation warming the atmosphere.

Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Nope, conservation of energy is not flawed when it comes to explaining how the atmosphere warms.

You mean trusting time proven formulas which have proven their accuracy over and over, and over with experiment and observation of their accuracy, in some cases for hundreds of years but not trusting a mathematical model which can't even produce a single observed, measured example that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

That? Yeah, I'm guilty. if I weren't, I would be a dupe...and I don't want yo be a dupe.

Yep, only a dupe would distrust time proven formulas in the mathematical models of physics.

you assume that absorption and emission equals warming...there is no evidence of that. The rest is just gibberish steaming from your assumption. Prove that absorption and emission equals warming...that is fundamental to your claims and you will never prove it because absorption and emission do not equal warming.

Again you are denying the evidence of the conservation of energy quite dogmatically, it seems. Well nobody can help you when you are so entrenched in anti-science that you need to observe everything even if it uses time proven formulas.

 

[SSDD]

If it were so simple, observed measured evidence would be no problem...if you were correct, measured evidence would be no problem...you lose on both counts and now you are conceding and saying just trust the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

Geez, the conservation of energy really is quite simple in the case of a photon disappearing and giving energy to a molecule. And you can't even handle that!

No thanks...i don't speak the language of Baaaahhh, nor do I possess the herding instinct of sheep.

Let me translate that

No thanks...i don't speak the language of a physicist, nor do I possess the basic science of classical and quantum physics that has been proven time and again.​

Yep...and i could trulyt egos formulas because they have been tested and proven right over and over and over...and if i wanted i could do the observation and measuring myself.

Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

You are saying "yep" to building a system to test the speed of a tire rolling down a ramp. Wow, you really are a science skeptic.

However there is empirical evidence that the conservation of energy is valid and it explains radiation warming the atmosphere.

Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Nope, conservation of energy is not flawed when it comes to explaining how the atmosphere warms.

You mean trusting time proven formulas which have proven their accuracy over and over, and over with experiment and observation of their accuracy, in some cases for hundreds of years but not trusting a mathematical model which can't even produce a single observed, measured example that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

That? Yeah, I'm guilty. if I weren't, I would be a dupe...and I don't want yo be a dupe.

Yep, only a dupe would distrust time proven formulas in the mathematical models of physics.

you assume that absorption and emission equals warming...there is no evidence of that. The rest is just gibberish steaming from your assumption. Prove that absorption and emission equals warming...that is fundamental to your claims and you will never prove it because absorption and emission do not equal warming.

Again you are denying the evidence of the conservation of energy quite dogmatically, it seems. Well nobody can help you when you are so entrenched in anti-science that you need to observe everything even if it uses time proven formulas.

S all that and still not the first piece of observed, measured, evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of nfrared radiation by eight gas and warming in the atmosphere. Just more questions based on your flawed understanding of physics. You will never find answers to those questions and the physics you believe in because those physics are not reality.

Either post the dataof that challenges my statements or admit that you can't do it. I have grown tired of your tedium.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course you disagree...so what? You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it? of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?

If simple physics corroborated your belief, then you could certainly provide some empirical evidence to challenge my statements...you can't because your understanding is flawed and reality will never back you up with actual evidence.

The evidence is observation that a significant amount of radiation from a planet does not make it out to space.

The only conclusion is that you don't believe the law of conservation of energy. Or maybe you don't even know what or how you think... Whatever... You are just an anti-science troll.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Geez, the conservation of energy really is quite simple in the case of a photon disappearing and giving energy to a molecule. And you can't even handle that!

.
You are aware that the molecule determines how it will handle the incoming energy, don't you? Energy is not just absorbed by what it hits. For instance, a CO2 molecule holding energy will pass all other energy and must pass all other energy before accepting more.

I'm using simple sentences here as this is a very complex process that you do not seem to understand.

 

[SSDD]

Of course you disagree...so what? You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it? of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?

If simple physics corroborated your belief, then you could certainly provide some empirical evidence to challenge my statements...you can't because your understanding is flawed and reality will never back you up with actual evidence.

The evidence is observation that a significant amount of radiation from a planet does not make it out to space.

The only conclusion is that you don't believe the law of conservation of energy. Or maybe you don't even know what or how you think... Whatever... You are just an anti-science troll.

That is only an observation that we don't know enough about the way energy moves through the system... The bottom line is that if the atmosphere behaved as you believe, there wild be a pronounced, and easily measurable tropospheric hot spot. There is none. And there is the undeniable fact thad adding radiatively emissive gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. Explain in rational, measurable terms how you believe raising the emissivity of ANYTHING can result in that thing becoming warmer.

 

[SSDD]

Geez, the conservation of energy really is quite simple in the case of a photon disappearing and giving energy to a molecule. And you can't even handle that!

.
You are aware that the molecule determines how it will handle the incoming energy, don't you? Energy is not just absorbed by what it hits. For instance, a CO2 molecule holding energy will pass all other energy and must pass all other energy before accepting more.

I'm using simple sentences here as this is a very complex process that you do not seem to understand.

I think he believes that only so called greenhouse gasses radiate energy.

 

[Wuwei]

That is only an observation that we don't know enough about the way energy moves through the system.

"We" is just you. I'm only referring to what can impede LW IR, as traverses from earth to outer space.