Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

https://ladygeekgirl.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/startrekspockfascinating1.jpg

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

. It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. .

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process, then you say this confusion:

"it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. "

Not it means cooling down more slowly, there is no actual increase in warming at all since molecules don't generate any heat by itself. With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

I posted HERE that any increase in the postulated warm forcing of CO2 is more than countered by the system energy OUTFLOW from the planet. CO2 increase in the air isn't stopping the increased outflow of energy as clearly shown by Satellites.

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

What is warming while it is cooling down slower?

That'd be the Earth......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly.

Does solar radiation emit from the surface of the earth? I was under the impression that solar radiation was mostly in the UV and visible wavelengths and earth emits IR....is that not true? Energy emitting from the surface of the earth is earth's radiation...

A body can not warm itself with its own radiation...not even a perfect black body...which earth isn't...

Does solar radiation emit from the surface of the earth?

Why, no. It's first absorbed and then re-emitted as LWIR.
LWIR which escapes more slowly than the speed of light, because GHGs.

A body can not warm itself with its own radiation..

That's a nice strawman you got there......

A body can not warm itself with its own radiation..

That's a nice strawman you got there......

And all you have to do is prove a body can. go for it. why do you delay six years since I've been on the forum?

And all you have to do is prove a body can.

Prove a body can what?

use your imagination

I don't have to imagine your low IQ.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

https://ladygeekgirl.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/startrekspockfascinating1.jpg

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

. It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. .

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process, then you say this confusion:

"it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. "

Not it means cooling down more slowly, there is no actual increase in warming at all since molecules don't generate any heat by itself. With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

I posted HERE that any increase in the postulated warm forcing of CO2 is more than countered by the system energy OUTFLOW from the planet. CO2 increase in the air isn't stopping the increased outflow of energy as clearly shown by Satellites.

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

 

[jc456]

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

https://ladygeekgirl.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/startrekspockfascinating1.jpg

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

. It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. .

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process, then you say this confusion:

"it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. "

Not it means cooling down more slowly, there is no actual increase in warming at all since molecules don't generate any heat by itself. With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

I posted HERE that any increase in the postulated warm forcing of CO2 is more than countered by the system energy OUTFLOW from the planet. CO2 increase in the air isn't stopping the increased outflow of energy as clearly shown by Satellites.

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Imagine an empty water tank. Water goes in to the tank at a fixed rate. Water drains out at the bottom through a valve that can control the flow. The greater the depth of water in the tank, the greater the pressure and the faster water will flow out the drain. We let water flow in at its fixed rate and flow out through the valve at the bottom initially at a lesser rate.

Since water is coming in faster than it is leaving, the water level in the tank rises. But, as it rises, the rate of flow out the drain increases until at some specific depth, the pressure at the drain becomes great enough that the flow out equals the flow in and the level in the tank stabilizes.

Now we close the drain valve slightly. The rate of water leaving is once again less than the rate coming in. The water level in the tank begins to rise. As it rises, the flow out the drain increases until, once again, the flow out equals the flow in and the level of water in the tank stabilizes, now at a greater depth.

This is analogous to what happens in the Earth's atmosphere. Radiant energy from the sun enters the atmosphere. The Earth, like all matter, radiates infrared energy proportional to its temperature and this energy leaves the planet into space. In an equilibrium state, the power entering the atmosphere would equal the amount leaving. If we slow the rate at which energy leaves the planet, we will raise the equilibrium point; the planet will warm.

Good example.

No....it's a shitty example, but it is good enough to fool him..and apparently good enough to fool you. In the case of the atmosphere, the valve at the top isn't closing...More IR, not less is escaping at the top of the atmosphere...if there were less escaping, then the hot spot that the greenhouse hypothesis predicted would be in evidence...it isn't there because CO2 isn't causing any warming...

in the case of the atmosphere, the valve at the top isn't closing...

Not closing at all? IR leaves just as quickly with zero GHGs as with current GHG levels?

More IR, not less is escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Of course it's more...….

The radiation energy per unit time from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature

Hotter planet, more radiation of energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

https://ladygeekgirl.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/startrekspockfascinating1.jpg

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

. It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. .

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process, then you say this confusion:

"it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. "

Not it means cooling down more slowly, there is no actual increase in warming at all since molecules don't generate any heat by itself. With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

I posted HERE that any increase in the postulated warm forcing of CO2 is more than countered by the system energy OUTFLOW from the planet. CO2 increase in the air isn't stopping the increased outflow of energy as clearly shown by Satellites.

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

 

[jc456]

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process, then you say this confusion:

"it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. "

Not it means cooling down more slowly, there is no actual increase in warming at all since molecules don't generate any heat by itself. With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

I posted HERE that any increase in the postulated warm forcing of CO2 is more than countered by the system energy OUTFLOW from the planet. CO2 increase in the air isn't stopping the increased outflow of energy as clearly shown by Satellites.

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup. just didn't. And, my cup never got any warmer, it started to cool off over time. It did not warm. Now you can show me how something gets warmer cause it's cooling. please, the floors all yours.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup. just didn't. And, my cup never got any warmer, it started to cool off over time. It did not warm. Now you can show me how something gets warmer cause it's cooling. please, the floors all yours.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup.

Why the hell would it? Is it because you're stupid?

 

[Crick]

You apparently didn't make it past the 6th grade... SO you keep touting your AGW but you provide no empirical evidence of it.. Yet natural variation dwarfs what you think is man caused... Funnier still is how you managed to stop natural variation and ensure that everything that is happening is man caused...

Where the fuck is your data?

 

[jc456]

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process, then you say this confusion:

"it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. "

Not it means cooling down more slowly, there is no actual increase in warming at all since molecules don't generate any heat by itself. With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

I posted HERE that any increase in the postulated warm forcing of CO2 is more than countered by the system energy OUTFLOW from the planet. CO2 increase in the air isn't stopping the increased outflow of energy as clearly shown by Satellites.

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup. just didn't. And, my cup never got any warmer, it started to cool off over time. It did not warm. Now you can show me how something gets warmer cause it's cooling. please, the floors all yours.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup.

Why the hell would it? Is it because you're stupid?

it didn't get warmer which is your claim.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You apparently didn't make it past the 6th grade... SO you keep touting your AGW but you provide no empirical evidence of it.. Yet natural variation dwarfs what you think is man caused... Funnier still is how you managed to stop natural variation and ensure that everything that is happening is man caused...

Where the fuck is your data?

This is why your fantasy is failing..

Figure 5. Two contrasting views of the effects of deep cumulus convection. The top diagram emphasizes the extra return flow mass subsidence drying associated with the deep convection. Extra IR energy flux is emitted to space. By contrast, the bottom diagram shows how the typical global climate models (GCMs) interpret the mass outflow from the deep cumulus as adding water-vapor to the upper troposphere and blocking more IR loss to space. The bottom diagram is not realistic as regards to the way Cb convection functions in the atmosphere.

"Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space."

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming by William M. Gray - Professor Emeritus - Colorado State University

This is why there is no Atmospheric Hot spot and why one can not form. This shows how increasing CO2 actually increases the emisitivty of the atmosphere. There is no increase of water vapor at altitude, it simply can not happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not it means cooling down more slowly,

Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.

With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

It has to absorb before it can emit.

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup. just didn't. And, my cup never got any warmer, it started to cool off over time. It did not warm. Now you can show me how something gets warmer cause it's cooling. please, the floors all yours.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup.

Why the hell would it? Is it because you're stupid?

it didn't get warmer which is your claim.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

Yup. Throw on a blanket....warmer.

it didn't get warmer which is your claim

You're lying.

 

[jc456]

dude, classic moron you are.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup. just didn't. And, my cup never got any warmer, it started to cool off over time. It did not warm. Now you can show me how something gets warmer cause it's cooling. please, the floors all yours.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup.

Why the hell would it? Is it because you're stupid?

it didn't get warmer which is your claim.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

Yup. Throw on a blanket....warmer.

it didn't get warmer which is your claim

You're lying.

I was sitting and it didn't get any warmer. feel free to prove me wrong.

BTW, from the earlier post, since you already know that the ice wouldn't cause the warm coffee to cool off any faster, implies and shits on your theory that without CO2 the IR would escape to space quicker. hmmmm you're odd indeed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

folks now cooling slower is warming.

Of course it is.
If, absent GHGs, IR escapes the Earth's surface and exits the atmosphere in .0003 seconds,
and with GHGs IR is absorbed in the atmosphere and takes longer to finally exit....yup, that's cooling slower.
Same solar input, yup, that's warming.

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup. just didn't. And, my cup never got any warmer, it started to cool off over time. It did not warm. Now you can show me how something gets warmer cause it's cooling. please, the floors all yours.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup.

Why the hell would it? Is it because you're stupid?

it didn't get warmer which is your claim.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

Yup. Throw on a blanket....warmer.

it didn't get warmer which is your claim

You're lying.

I was sitting and it didn't get any warmer. feel free to prove me wrong.

BTW, from the earlier post, since you already know that the ice wouldn't cause the warm coffee to cool off any faster, implies and shits on your theory that without CO2 the IR would escape to space quicker. hmmmm you're odd indeed.

I was sitting and it didn't get any warmer.

What didn't get any warmer? Link?

since you already know that the ice wouldn't cause the warm coffee to cool off any faster,

You're lying, again.

your theory that without CO2 the IR would escape to space quicker.

IR absorbed by CO2 takes longer to escape than IR not absorbed by CO2. Obviously.

 

[Crick]

You apparently didn't make it past the 6th grade... SO you keep touting your AGW but you provide no empirical evidence of it.. Yet natural variation dwarfs what you think is man caused... Funnier still is how you managed to stop natural variation and ensure that everything that is happening is man caused...

Where the fuck is your data?

This is why your fantasy is failing..

Figure 5. Two contrasting views of the effects of deep cumulus convection. The top diagram emphasizes the extra return flow mass subsidence drying associated with the deep convection. Extra IR energy flux is emitted to space. By contrast, the bottom diagram shows how the typical global climate models (GCMs) interpret the mass outflow from the deep cumulus as adding water-vapor to the upper troposphere and blocking more IR loss to space. The bottom diagram is not realistic as regards to the way Cb convection functions in the atmosphere.

"Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space."

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming by William M. Gray - Professor Emeritus - Colorado State University

This is why there is no Atmospheric Hot spot and why one can not form. This shows how increasing CO2 actually increases the emisitivty of the atmosphere. There is no increase of water vapor at altitude, it simply can not happen.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf

Yeah, this is where I'd go for science.

Science and Public Policy Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a public policy organization which promotes climate change denial.[1]

Contents

• 1Staff
• 2Publications
• 3Funding
• 4References
• 5External links

Staff
The organization's executive director is Robert Ferguson, and the chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton. Joe D'Aleo is the institute's Meteorology Adviser. Further science advisers, as listed in 2011, include:

• Robert M. Carter
• Craig D. Idso
• William Kininmonth
• David Legates

Willie Soon was at one time the chief science advisor.

Publications
The Science and Public Policy Institute funded a film "Apocalypse? No!" intended to show errors in the Al Gore documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. It shows Monckton giving a presentation to the Cambridge University Union.[2]

The SPPI took an interest in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy ("Climategate"). Its position is elaborated in a 45-page paper released in December 2009, titled Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!: Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal, which concluded that global warming is a myth.[3]

Funding
The Institute is operated by The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, Inc.,[4][5][6] a policy organization founded was founded in 1996 by former Senator Malcolm Wallop, Republican of Wyoming.[7] On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding. In 2002, Frontiers of Freedom had a budget of $700,000, with fossil-fuel company Exxon-Mobil donating $230,000 of that sum.[1]

References

1. ^ Jump up to:a b Jennifer 8. Lee (May 28, 2003). "Exxon Backs Groups that Question Global Warming". Retrieved January 29, 2016.
2. ^ Jonathan Leake (October 14, 2007). "Please, sir - Gore's got warming wrong". Sunday Times.
3. ^ "Climategate: Caught Green-Handed" (pdf). Science and Public Policy Institute.
4. ^ Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Science and Public Policy/Center for Sound Science and Public Policy page at Integrity in Science (retrieved May 6, 2015)
5. ^ Sourcewatch, Frontiers of Freedom (retrieved May 26, 2014)
6. ^ Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231526385. the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of the industry-funded Frontiers of Freedom (a group that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil)
7. ^ Malcolm Wallop dies at 78; was Republican U.S. senator, Associated Press (September 15, 2011)

External links

• Official website
• Science and Public Policy Institute at SourceWatch
• Science and Public Policy Institute at issuepedia.org

 

[IanC]

You apparently didn't make it past the 6th grade... SO you keep touting your AGW but you provide no empirical evidence of it.. Yet natural variation dwarfs what you think is man caused... Funnier still is how you managed to stop natural variation and ensure that everything that is happening is man caused...

Where the fuck is your data?

This is why your fantasy is failing..

Figure 5. Two contrasting views of the effects of deep cumulus convection. The top diagram emphasizes the extra return flow mass subsidence drying associated with the deep convection. Extra IR energy flux is emitted to space. By contrast, the bottom diagram shows how the typical global climate models (GCMs) interpret the mass outflow from the deep cumulus as adding water-vapor to the upper troposphere and blocking more IR loss to space. The bottom diagram is not realistic as regards to the way Cb convection functions in the atmosphere.

"Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space."

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming by William M. Gray - Professor Emeritus - Colorado State University

This is why there is no Atmospheric Hot spot and why one can not form. This shows how increasing CO2 actually increases the emisitivty of the atmosphere. There is no increase of water vapor at altitude, it simply can not happen.

This is what Gray said-

"
. To balance the influence of a doubling of CO2 by radiation alone it would be required that the temperature of the globe be warmed by 1oC. The models then assume that this CO2 induced warming of 1oC will (following the Charney Report assumptions) cause a moisture increase that will further reduce IR loss to space, such that there will have to be an additional 2oC upper-level warming beyond the needed 1oC warming from the CO2 by itself. The combination of these two processes is assumed to bring about an upper-level 3oC global warming over the whole tropics (30oN-30oS). Of this 3oC warming 2oC would be designated as positive water-vapor feedback warming. Such an expected strong and positive temperature increase and positive water-vapor feedback of a doubling of CO2 is quite unrealistic.
"

As usual you have either misunderstood your link or simply lied about it because few people could be bothered to check.

 

[Crick]

You apparently didn't make it past the 6th grade... SO you keep touting your AGW but you provide no empirical evidence of it.. Yet natural variation dwarfs what you think is man caused... Funnier still is how you managed to stop natural variation and ensure that everything that is happening is man caused...

Where the fuck is your data?

This is why your fantasy is failing..

Figure 5. Two contrasting views of the effects of deep cumulus convection. The top diagram emphasizes the extra return flow mass subsidence drying associated with the deep convection. Extra IR energy flux is emitted to space. By contrast, the bottom diagram shows how the typical global climate models (GCMs) interpret the mass outflow from the deep cumulus as adding water-vapor to the upper troposphere and blocking more IR loss to space. The bottom diagram is not realistic as regards to the way Cb convection functions in the atmosphere.

"Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space."

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming by William M. Gray - Professor Emeritus - Colorado State University

This is why there is no Atmospheric Hot spot and why one can not form. This shows how increasing CO2 actually increases the emisitivty of the atmosphere. There is no increase of water vapor at altitude, it simply can not happen.

The point you were supposed to verify was that the observed warming and CO2 changes were within the levels of natural variation. You haven't touched that point.

 

[jc456]

cooling slower is not getting warmer. dude, just isn't. moronic stupidity is all you are.

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

Why not? Be as precise as you can......with your crayons.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

cooling slower is not getting warmer.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup. just didn't. And, my cup never got any warmer, it started to cool off over time. It did not warm. Now you can show me how something gets warmer cause it's cooling. please, the floors all yours.

BTW, my hot coffee did not cool off any slower with ice above the cup.

Why the hell would it? Is it because you're stupid?

it didn't get warmer which is your claim.

warmer implies an increase of warmth

Yup. Throw on a blanket....warmer.

it didn't get warmer which is your claim

You're lying.

I was sitting and it didn't get any warmer. feel free to prove me wrong.

BTW, from the earlier post, since you already know that the ice wouldn't cause the warm coffee to cool off any faster, implies and shits on your theory that without CO2 the IR would escape to space quicker. hmmmm you're odd indeed.

I was sitting and it didn't get any warmer.

What didn't get any warmer? Link?

since you already know that the ice wouldn't cause the warm coffee to cool off any faster,

You're lying, again.

your theory that without CO2 the IR would escape to space quicker.

IR absorbed by CO2 takes longer to escape than IR not absorbed by CO2. Obviously.

IR absorbed by CO2 takes longer to escape than IR not absorbed by CO2. Obviously

Prove it

 

[Billy_Bob]

You apparently didn't make it past the 6th grade... SO you keep touting your AGW but you provide no empirical evidence of it.. Yet natural variation dwarfs what you think is man caused... Funnier still is how you managed to stop natural variation and ensure that everything that is happening is man caused...

Where the fuck is your data?

This is why your fantasy is failing..

Figure 5. Two contrasting views of the effects of deep cumulus convection. The top diagram emphasizes the extra return flow mass subsidence drying associated with the deep convection. Extra IR energy flux is emitted to space. By contrast, the bottom diagram shows how the typical global climate models (GCMs) interpret the mass outflow from the deep cumulus as adding water-vapor to the upper troposphere and blocking more IR loss to space. The bottom diagram is not realistic as regards to the way Cb convection functions in the atmosphere.

"Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space."

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming by William M. Gray - Professor Emeritus - Colorado State University

This is why there is no Atmospheric Hot spot and why one can not form. This shows how increasing CO2 actually increases the emisitivty of the atmosphere. There is no increase of water vapor at altitude, it simply can not happen.

This is what Gray said-

"
. To balance the influence of a doubling of CO2 by radiation alone it would be required that the temperature of the globe be warmed by 1oC. The models then assume that this CO2 induced warming of 1oC will (following the Charney Report assumptions) cause a moisture increase that will further reduce IR loss to space, such that there will have to be an additional 2oC upper-level warming beyond the needed 1oC warming from the CO2 by itself. The combination of these two processes is assumed to bring about an upper-level 3oC global warming over the whole tropics (30oN-30oS). Of this 3oC warming 2oC would be designated as positive water-vapor feedback warming. Such an expected strong and positive temperature increase and positive water-vapor feedback of a doubling of CO2 is quite unrealistic.
"

As usual you have either misunderstood your link or simply lied about it because few people could be bothered to check.

Once again you place your bias on what Dr Gray said. Please show where the upper cloud boundary has grown in height and the water vapor has increased without causing rain out. That is you physics problem. How to make water vapor not rain-out at re-nucleation. Climate models fail because there is no increasing area of water vapor at cloud boundary and thus no way to store heat. Dr Gray explained why it can not, but you all seem to think you can make it appear.. Good luck playing with your broken models.

 

[IanC]

You apparently didn't make it past the 6th grade... SO you keep touting your AGW but you provide no empirical evidence of it.. Yet natural variation dwarfs what you think is man caused... Funnier still is how you managed to stop natural variation and ensure that everything that is happening is man caused...

Where the fuck is your data?

This is why your fantasy is failing..

Figure 5. Two contrasting views of the effects of deep cumulus convection. The top diagram emphasizes the extra return flow mass subsidence drying associated with the deep convection. Extra IR energy flux is emitted to space. By contrast, the bottom diagram shows how the typical global climate models (GCMs) interpret the mass outflow from the deep cumulus as adding water-vapor to the upper troposphere and blocking more IR loss to space. The bottom diagram is not realistic as regards to the way Cb convection functions in the atmosphere.

"Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space."

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming by William M. Gray - Professor Emeritus - Colorado State University

This is why there is no Atmospheric Hot spot and why one can not form. This shows how increasing CO2 actually increases the emisitivty of the atmosphere. There is no increase of water vapor at altitude, it simply can not happen.

This is what Gray said-

"
. To balance the influence of a doubling of CO2 by radiation alone it would be required that the temperature of the globe be warmed by 1oC. The models then assume that this CO2 induced warming of 1oC will (following the Charney Report assumptions) cause a moisture increase that will further reduce IR loss to space, such that there will have to be an additional 2oC upper-level warming beyond the needed 1oC warming from the CO2 by itself. The combination of these two processes is assumed to bring about an upper-level 3oC global warming over the whole tropics (30oN-30oS). Of this 3oC warming 2oC would be designated as positive water-vapor feedback warming. Such an expected strong and positive temperature increase and positive water-vapor feedback of a doubling of CO2 is quite unrealistic.
"

As usual you have either misunderstood your link or simply lied about it because few people could be bothered to check.

Once again you place your bias on what Dr Gray said. Please show where the upper cloud boundary has grown in height and the water vapor has increased without causing rain out. That is you physics problem. How to make water vapor not rain-out at re-nucleation. Climate models fail because there is no increasing area of water vapor at cloud boundary and thus no way to store heat. Dr Gray explained why it can not, but you all seem to think you can make it appear.. Good luck playing with your broken models.

Gray says he accepts 1C per doubling of CO2, and disagrees with tripling of that figure by water vapour feedback. Just like I have been saying here for ten years