Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Crick]

[
Please explain how a published, peer reviewed, paper is not evidence.

Evidence for what? There are plenty of peer reviewed published papers that provide evidence that the climate is changing....but no one is disputing that. Everyone knows that the climate changes.

What there isn't is a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities is measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one....

So there is evidence that the climate changes...big deal...it isn't as if you need to spend much money to figure that one out...but no observed, measured evidence whatsoever that we are causing any change at all.

Then what the fuck is this?

 

[SSDD]

What you said was "I'm going to decide what is and isn't valid based on my idiotic misinterpretations of basic physics." Well done, asshole.

I have asked you to explain how you think any of what you posted challenges my statements,,,I am still listening to the silence.

 

[SSDD]

[
Please explain how a published, peer reviewed, paper is not evidence.

Evidence for what? There are plenty of peer reviewed published papers that provide evidence that the climate is changing....but no one is disputing that. Everyone knows that the climate changes.

What there isn't is a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities is measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one....

So there is evidence that the climate changes...big deal...it isn't as if you need to spend much money to figure that one out...but no observed, measured evidence whatsoever that we are causing any change at all.

Then what the fuck is this?

Model output skidmark...undescribed, and unproven proxy reconstructions going back to the 1700's. The statement explaining the graph says: (bolding mine)

"Beginning with the industrial era or continuing the exit from the little ice age, these other factors must show a steady growth pattern up to the present time. Only conjectures can be made, since no other useful observation data is available – if it would be the case, I would have incorporated it in the correlation analysis.

Man-made possible factors with steady growth pattern are:

At least the author acknowledged the high degree of uncertainty...and you read that as being observed, measured evidence...Really?

That graph is nothing like observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

But if you feel like the first section showing the effects of the so called greenhouse gasses is correct, then by all means, lets see the evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. here is the observed measured evidence that the graph is based on? Ill tell you..it doesn't exist...you are showing me model output and calling it empirical data.

Sad skidmark...all that time spent searching an that is the best you can do? Well, in all honesty, I guess it is. Is that really how low your bar for "evidence" is set?

 

[Crick]

Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

...
an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

...

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe. The cause of the large uncertainty in the models resides in the difficulty of accurately predicting the climate feedback mechanisms that are associated with the interaction of oceans, vegetation, and clouds and water vapour with the greenhouse effect.

...

METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

...

Figure 1. A spectrum of the greenhouse radiation at the surface measured for February, 1996, showing the contributions of several greenhouse gases

and

From AR5, WG-1 "The Physical Science Basis" chapter 8

 

[SSDD]

Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

...
an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

...

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe. The cause of the large uncertainty in the models resides in the difficulty of accurately predicting the climate feedback mechanisms that are associated with the interaction of oceans, vegetation, and clouds and water vapour with the greenhouse effect.

...

METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

...

Figure 1. A spectrum of the greenhouse radiation at the surface measured for February, 1996, showing the contributions of several greenhouse gases

and

View attachment 230548
From AR5, WG-1 "The Physical Science Basis" chapter 8

Yeah...like i said on the other thread... you have a measurement of energy moving from warmer gasses to a cooler instrument...so what? The second law of thermodynamics predicts that.That only proves that you are easily fooled by instrumentation. Lets see that spectrum made with an uncooled instrument...if the instrument is uncooled, you get squat because there is no energy entering into the device to measure.

Like i have said...you have a low bar for what you accept as evidence...which is why you are a dupe.

When i made my statements, i was 100% confident that they wouldn't be challenged...do you think you are showing me something i haven't seen before?

 

[Crick]

I was 100% confident that you would claim the ability to refute anything I put up based on your insane interpretations of basic physics. You are a complete waste of time.

Did you notice that none of your buddies got in here and stood up with you? Perhaps they've got just that much more sense.

 

[Crick]

And

" The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple."

In SSDD world, how did the readings from the spectrometer match the readings from a thermocouple? One is radiant and one is conductive.

 

[SSDD]

I was 100% confident that you would claim the ability to refute anything I put up based on your insane interpretations of basic physics. You are a complete waste of time.

Did you notice that none of your buddies got in here and stood up with you? Perhaps they've got just that much more sense.

Again...you think I need the support of others to make me feel good about my position? T hat sounds more like you...say it skidmark...baaahhhh you bleating dupe.

Let me know when you get a measurement of backradiation made with an instrument at ambient temperature..after all, you guys claim it is 330+ wm^2..

 

[Crick]

And do let me know when you can take a photograph with a CCD sitting in the open, you stupid asshole.

 

[SSDD]

And do let me know when you can take a photograph with a CCD sitting in the open, you stupid asshole.

So you still dopant know how a ccd works? No wonder you are so easily fooled by instruments. They must be like magic to you.

 

[Crick]

I can only guess you don't even see the point I'm making. You cannot take a picture with an exposed CCD because the image will be swamped by ambient lighting. Eliminate the ambient lighting and the SNR of the image rises dramatically and becomes visible. The same applies when sensing LWIR. Your contention that the cold temperature of the sensor is, in effect, driving what it sees, is blatant nonsense. Explain why the emissions bands of greenhouse gases shows up as clearly as they do in the data.

 

[Crick]

The reason the emission bands of the greenhouse gases show up so clearly in the spectra of this downwelling IR is that its origins are those very greenhouse gases.

 

[SSDD]

The reason the emission bands of the greenhouse gases show up so clearly in the spectra of this downwelling IR is that its origins are those very greenhouse gases.

Only if the instrument is cooled...still being fooled by instruments.

 

[Crick]

As your camera is fooled by all the black paint in its lens barrel. And you still haven't explained why we see the emissions spectra of the greenhouse gases.

 

[Marion Morrison]

OP article from 2013..

Meanwhile...later that year:

Global Warming Alarmists Stuck In Antarctic Sea Ice

 

[Marion Morrison]

Two UN stamps on OP basis for everything. Go fuck yourself. Time to boot them fuckers out of NY.

 

[skookerasbil]

OP article from 2013..

Meanwhile...later that year:

Global Warming Alarmists Stuck In Antarctic Sea Ice

 

[Crick]

The reason the emission bands of the greenhouse gases show up so clearly in the spectra of this downwelling IR is that its origins are those very greenhouse gases.

Only if the instrument is cooled...still being fooled by instruments.

Did you miss this part or are you simply hoping everyone else did?

" The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple."

The thermal emissions of the instrument were characterized.

 

[SSDD]

I can't help it if you are a dupe skidmark. This has all been explained to you before. Not going through it all again just so you can ignore it once more. Stay ignorant and stupid. It's what you deserve.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[
Please explain how a published, peer reviewed, paper is not evidence.

Evidence for what? There are plenty of peer reviewed published papers that provide evidence that the climate is changing....but no one is disputing that. Everyone knows that the climate changes.

What there isn't is a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities is measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one....

So there is evidence that the climate changes...big deal...it isn't as if you need to spend much money to figure that one out...but no observed, measured evidence whatsoever that we are causing any change at all.

Then what the fuck is this?

I'm at a loss to understand how atmospheric CO2 is able to warm the oceans 700m deep