Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[SSDD]

Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere. By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out. That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years. We are NOT at equilibrium.

And you believe that CO2 created this additional energy? You are truly a top shelf idiot.

 

[Crick]

I and very nearly every single scientist on this planet believes that human GHG emissions iare the primary cause of that warming. So, you believe the world's scientists are
"top shelf idiots". This from the fellow that rejects quantum mechanics and believes matter controls its thermal emissions dependent on its surroundings. God are you stupid.

 

[Crick]

Yes... he is really that stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere. By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out. That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years. We are NOT at equilibrium.

And you believe that CO2 created this additional energy? You are truly a top shelf idiot.

HE and his "every single scientist" meme is total bull shit. When physicists were asked that very precise question they laughed. CO2 is incapable of "adding" energy that is not present from the sun or earths emissions. The position of some here is laughable and some times I have to take a break from the insanity they call 'alarmist science'.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes... he is really that stupid.

Yes, you really are stupid.. But even non-scientists can see that...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.

No you didn't..you provided a model with no empirical evidence to back it uo. Lets see the experiment that supports the model.

Lets see the observational evidence, or physical measurements that demonstrate how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes in increments of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it

The lapse rate is a simple equation.
Lapse rate = g/Cp.
g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat.

Always dodging...your screen name should be artful dodger.. I asked you to describe the physical process that formula represents. The model works because it is describing a physical process that happens in reality. Describe it.

Sure it's simple. Use the lapse rate formula above and substitute the two Venus parameters in the formula.

Waiting for you to describe the physical process that formula represents.

Go right ahead and search. I'm not lying. You are probably thinking of someone else.

A quick search shows that you have expended a fair amount of words in trying to convince people that climate science didn't predict the tropospheric hot spot as the smoking gun for AGW even though the IPCC said otherwise. So you lied...what else is new?

The evaporation and expansion in the skin of the water will not allow LWIR to penetrate it, the water can not warm due to LWIR as seen by empirical experiment.

I laugh my ass off every time an alarmist makes this claim..

 

[IanC]

Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere. By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out. That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years. We are NOT at equilibrium.

And you believe that CO2 created this additional energy? You are truly a top shelf idiot.

You are the idiot. But then, if you did understand equilibrium and stored energy, you would have to give up your bizzaroland version of physics.

The amount of energy stored in a system is controlled by the NET gain or loss.

CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space.

 

[IanC]

You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.

No you didn't..you provided a model with no empirical evidence to back it uo. Lets see the experiment that supports the model.

Lets see the observational evidence, or physical measurements that demonstrate how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes in increments of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it

The lapse rate is a simple equation.
Lapse rate = g/Cp.
g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat.

Always dodging...your screen name should be artful dodger.. I asked you to describe the physical process that formula represents. The model works because it is describing a physical process that happens in reality. Describe it.

Sure it's simple. Use the lapse rate formula above and substitute the two Venus parameters in the formula.

Waiting for you to describe the physical process that formula represents.

Go right ahead and search. I'm not lying. You are probably thinking of someone else.

A quick search shows that you have expended a fair amount of words in trying to convince people that climate science didn't predict the tropospheric hot spot as the smoking gun for AGW even though the IPCC said otherwise. So you lied...what else is new?

The evaporation and expansion in the skin of the water will not allow LWIR to penetrate it, the water can not warm due to LWIR as seen by empirical experiment.

I laugh my ass off every time an alarmist makes this claim..

Not this "LWIR can't penetrate the ocean skin therefore it can't affect warming" bullshit again.

If solar isolation was absorbed as efficiently as IR by the ocean surface, then every day the top few inches would boil away. Would you still say there was no heating of the water just because little of it got past the skin?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Brace yourself for a brutal winter: Experts say disruptions in the polar vortex could cause temperatures to plummet in parts of the US

Even NOAA is getting on board...I made this prediction over two years ago and now it is coming to fruition.. A stable warming world vs an unstable cooling one..

"The latest predictions come from Dr Judah Cohen, of Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), and are supported by models from several other researchers shared in the last few weeks.

The polar vortex is an atmospheric circulation pattern that sits high above the poles, in a layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere.

This structure can weaken as a result of abnormal warming in the poles, causing it to split off into smaller ‘sister vortices’ that may travel outside of their typical range.

As of the end of December, the models show the polar vortex situated above Scandanavia could break apart to become two or even three vortices, bringing colder weather to the mid-latitudes and warmer weather in the Arctic."

What he left out was the thinning of the atmosphere is what is causing the polar jet to be forced southward and cool the mid-latitudes, bringing the heat to the poles.. The omission is massive and an AGW twist, trying to not admit what is truly causing the change..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.

No you didn't..you provided a model with no empirical evidence to back it uo. Lets see the experiment that supports the model.

Lets see the observational evidence, or physical measurements that demonstrate how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes in increments of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it

The lapse rate is a simple equation.
Lapse rate = g/Cp.
g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat.

Always dodging...your screen name should be artful dodger.. I asked you to describe the physical process that formula represents. The model works because it is describing a physical process that happens in reality. Describe it.

Sure it's simple. Use the lapse rate formula above and substitute the two Venus parameters in the formula.

Waiting for you to describe the physical process that formula represents.

Go right ahead and search. I'm not lying. You are probably thinking of someone else.

A quick search shows that you have expended a fair amount of words in trying to convince people that climate science didn't predict the tropospheric hot spot as the smoking gun for AGW even though the IPCC said otherwise. So you lied...what else is new?

The evaporation and expansion in the skin of the water will not allow LWIR to penetrate it, the water can not warm due to LWIR as seen by empirical experiment.

I laugh my ass off every time an alarmist makes this claim..

Not this "LWIR can't penetrate the ocean skin therefore it can't affect warming" bullshit again.

If solar isolation was absorbed as efficiently as IR by the ocean surface, then every day the top few inches would boil away. Would you still say there was no heating of the water just because little of it got past the skin?

You just dont get it, or you are intentionally obtuse about the wavelengths of UPWELLING radiation and their capabilities.. Where are you getting your magical doubling of energy from?

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space

Total Bull Shit of the highest order..

Tell me Ian, how does the earths 400ppm of CO2 stop all up-welling radiation? It can not because it is energy saturated and incapable of stopping it and the other routes of escape.

Funnier still, explain why CO2 has a LOG decrease in its ability to slow energy release if it can not be saturated..

 

[IanC]

CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space

Total Bull Shit of the highest order..

Tell me Ian, how does the earths 400ppm of CO2 stop all up-welling radiation? It can not because it is energy saturated and incapable of stopping it and the other routes of escape.

Funnier still, explain why CO2 has a LOG decrease in its ability to slow energy release if it can not be saturated..

CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.

No surfaced produced 15 micron radiation escapes through the atmosphere. Some 15 micron escapes to space but it is produced by CO2 molecules high up in a cold region of the atmosphere .

The higher the concentration of CO2, the quicker surface 15 micron radiation is captured and the higher up (and colder) is the atmospheric 15 micron being produced (edit- that escapes).

You mentioned a logarithmic relationship for CO2 and temperature. Are you arguing against the actual effect of CO2 reducing the loss of 15 micron radiation to space? Or just the magnitude of change as CO2 concentration increased?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space

Total Bull Shit of the highest order..

Tell me Ian, how does the earths 400ppm of CO2 stop all up-welling radiation? It can not because it is energy saturated and incapable of stopping it and the other routes of escape.

Funnier still, explain why CO2 has a LOG decrease in its ability to slow energy release if it can not be saturated..

CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.

No surfaced produced 15 micron radiation escapes through the atmosphere. Some 15 micron escapes to space but it is produced by CO2 molecules high up in a cold region of the atmosphere .

The higher the concentration of CO2, the quicker surface 15 micron radiation is captured and the higher up (and colder) is the atmospheric 15 micron being produced (edit- that escapes).

You mentioned a logarithmic relationship for CO2 and temperature. Are you arguing against the actual effect of CO2 reducing the loss of 15 micron radiation to space? Or just the magnitude of change as CO2 concentration increased?

The addition of so called greenhouse gasses increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..that is fact...what happens to a things ability to cool itself if you increase its emissivity?

Why does that simple, and undeniable fact escape you ian? You really believe by increasing the emissivity of a thing you can induce warming? Really?

 

[Crick]

The addition of greenhouse gases increases the amount of time it takes for LWIR to transmit. Why does that simple and undeniable fact escape you Shit?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The addition of greenhouse gases increases the amount of time it takes for LWIR to transmit. Why does that simple and undeniable fact escape you Shit?

Wrong;

DO you know why CO2 has a LOG value? Because more does less to nothing in retention but allows more to escape as it increases.. Wow.. top shelf idiot..

 

[Crick]

Why don't you try to make that statement again in intelligible sentences

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.

Prove this assertion...

Its pure bull shit Ian.. Empirical experiments show that this bandwidth increases output as the gas is increased, near surface (>1 meter) proving that there is more energy than the gas is capable of stopping. IF it were stopping all of it, the amount of energy, at that wavelength, would not increase with increased gas levels. Use some commonsense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why don't you try to make that statement again in intelligible sentences

IF you can not follow that, you have problems.. But you have issues with graphs and pretty pictures so it comes as no surprise..

 

[Crick]

Some results from real scientists

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039<2923:RHDTIC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037<0099:OTDOCC>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018<0822:QCTPIO>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC086iC07p06385

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065250408601567

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster

 

[Billy_Bob]

Some results from real scientists

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039<2923:RHDTIC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037<0099:OTDOCC>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018<0822:QCTPIO>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC086iC07p06385

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065250408601567

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster

LOL

Love it! Every nut case paper on the subject and not one of them has one shred of empirical evidence. Every single one is MODEL DERIVED..

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.