To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Billy_Bob]

Do not validate his bullshit. The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming. Stratospheric cooling is.

The hotspot is a requirement for any warming. Solar-caused, GHG-caused, magic-caused, it should be there for any warming from any cause. It's a fingerprint of any warming. Stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint unique to GHG warming.

Thus, SSDD kind of destroys his own natural-causes theories by claiming it's not there.

'Course, it is there, so it's all moot.

See? RSS satellite model data, which every denier spent years swearing was the most perfect data ever created by humans.

And Dr Carl Mears in now under fire for not calibrating his sensors correctly and his shoddy math... His corrections are now being shunned by most every credible scientific body on earth..

 

[Wuwei]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are. Are they regional? Global? You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?

In previous posts you suggested the graphs were fake. I know they are not.

You can either find the obvious legitimate sources, or continue to delude yourself that it some sort of hoax.

I don't particularly care either way.

It looks like one of the temperature history graphs was from only the US, and the other may be global. I sort of remember the nature of the graphs, but I wouldn't swear by it. If that's the case then, even if the graphs are not fake, the juxtaposition of the two is purposely misleading; a hoax; a fraudulent portrayal. If you want to defend what I think is a hoax, be my guest. Otherwise, you guys can continue to delude yourself and attempt to delude others.

 

[Crick]

And Dr Carl Mears in now under fire for not calibrating his sensors correctly and his shoddy math... His corrections are now being shunned by most every credible scientific body on earth..

Link please. And why the fuck do we have to ask, so often, from you?

 

[jc456]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are. Are they regional? Global? You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?

well it is an internet board and you certainly are welcome to leave the thread anytime. See generally, someone posts something and one disagrees, one then provides data that will disagree. What it is you disagree with may be more prudent than throwing a tantrum.

So you have no idea where the graphs came from either. Well that makes three of you.

Why does it matter if they're accurate, can you challenge them or not?

 

[jc456]

I totally agree with W's question.

Until those who deny backradiation can come up with an explanation using physics to account for surface temperature being all out of proportion to solar input, then the discussion is useless. And make no mistake, the difference is huge, it is not some small quibble over measuring surface temps or solar input. It is 15C difference, more than enough to turn the Earth into a frozen ice cube.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

I have gone into great depth answering this question on numerous occasions. Do you hope that my answer will change?

Of course radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Where else would it go?

Heat is a property of macroscopic quantities. Warmer matter produces more radiation than cooler matter, hence the overall net transfer of energy is always warmer to cooler.

On the microscopic level, radiation just is. One molecule doesn't have a 'temperature'. Only large groups of molecules have an average kinetic energy which considered it's temperature.

Molecules in close proximity collide with each other, producing blackbody radiation proportional to its temperature.

The blackbody radiation from the surface either escapes to space, or is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which either escapes to space, is reabsorbed by the atmosphere, or reaches the surface where it is absorbed.

The equilibrium temperature of the surface is defined by energy input minus energy output. Radiation is part of that equation. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it is much warmer than empty space, therefore it 'gives back' some of the radiation it receives, which keeps the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

Reality is obviously more complex. There are massive heatsinks that are filled with unimaginable energy, eg liquid flowing oceans and gaseous flowing atmosphere.

I don't expect you will understand all this this time because you have failed in the past. But I wish you would try.

thanks for responding.

First, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it has been and always will be based on sunlight and the fact the surface absorbs the sun's energy. the earth then radiates what it absorbs back up to the atmosphere, LWIR and that has heat. i.e., When I heat a frying pan on the stove top and turn off the heat source, the pan will radiate heat for some time. It will begin near a constant it was at with the flame and then slowly cool off. The air above the pan does not re-radiate back to the pan to keep it hot, nor does the air make it hot once it cools off. BTW, I know you know I will never believe that occurs. The reason, there just isn't evidence of it occurring, cooler air cannot warm anything warmer than itself. Feel free to post up an experiment that shows me wrong.

As for your back radiation, if there was indeed back radiation, you claim it comes from CO2. Are you sure? Do you have that evidence as well? Come on, you've been following my posts over the years now, you know I have my expectations and to today, there has not been one iota of evidence ever presented that shows the magic power of CO2 gas. I truly wish to see it, cause it sounds way too magical for me.

I have observed clouds at night keep the ground below warmer than if the clouds weren't there in the winter. I've experienced it, I've felt the difference. When the ground is cooler than the cloud the cloud radiates to the surface, it's always been in winter months again when the surface air is cooler than the clouds.

I believe in the bright yellow ball in the sky and its power to heat. I also observe the surface of the earth as it heats up from that source. I also can see the heat radiating upward off of surfaces such as asphalt and cars. yep, I can see it radiate and it is always moving ground up never air down. I also know that the surface can be hotter than the rays hitting my own skin, so indeed the surface material gets very hot, enough to fry an egg.

You have asked me before why I don't believe in back radiation, and my answer is that I don't see it, nor has anyone ever proved it. you've also asked me if I think molecules radiate and I've said yes. Warm to cool is the direction only. I can't help that I believe that, the fact is there isn't evidence and for two years now, no one has presented it.

You nailed it JC... The fact that all matter radiates regardless of temperature can not go opposite the laws of thermal convection/conduction. The higher temperature object will alwasy radiate to the cooler and earths air is generally cooler than the surface.

The reason we do not see a mid-tropospheric hot spot is due to water vapor and the cooler atmosphere. Water in the air is slightly warmer than the surrounding components until it releases its heat to space and return to earth as a droplet.

The AGW theory states that CO2 will retard heat loss of the atmosphere and trap it in the mid troposphere and this must occur above the tropics. The problem is that air mass is very wet, thus the heat is never trapped, it is absorbed by water, it rises and convection releases the LWIR to space. CO2 can not trap water vapor and can not stop convection. Thus the theroy fails.

While so called "back radiation" is just a rewording of known molecular radiation properties for the AGW nutter crowd other items in the atmosphere radiate at the same wave lengths. No one really knows how much is actually attributed to CO2 as they still can not quantify the convection route of escape.

Billy, still no explanation!

 

[Wuwei]

Why does it matter if they're accurate

The voice of an extremist radical denier

can you challenge them or not?

I already did.

 

[IanC]

And what do you believe they show?

What do I believe they show? They are examples of the continuing data manipulation to support the global warming Scare. Not only are the numbers constantly changed to add to the trend, but the actual shape of the individual warming and cooling periods within the range are being rearranged to make it appear that only warming is happening.

 

[IanC]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are. Are they regional? Global? You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?

In previous posts you suggested the graphs were fake. I know they are not.

You can either find the obvious legitimate sources, or continue to delude yourself that it some sort of hoax.

I don't particularly care either way.

It looks like one of the temperature history graphs was from only the US, and the other may be global. I sort of remember the nature of the graphs, but I wouldn't swear by it. If that's the case then, even if the graphs are not fake, the juxtaposition of the two is purposely misleading; a hoax; a fraudulent portrayal. If you want to defend what I think is a hoax, be my guest. Otherwise, you guys can continue to delude yourself and attempt to delude others.

So you found the original source. Now you are implying that the second graph is actually a global graph? How dishonest is that? Are you really that stupid or confused, or are you just lying to support the Noble Cause?

 

[Wuwei]

So you found the original source. Now you are implying that the second graph is actually a global graph? How dishonest is that? Are you really that stupid or confused, or are you just lying to support the Noble Cause?

C'mon cut the crap. I'm tired of that kind of indignant bluster.
First, I did not find or even look for the original source.
Second, I clearly said,

"I sort of remember the nature of the graphs, but I wouldn't swear by it. If that's the case then,..."​

With that much caveat how can you construe it as a lie??? It seems that you are the one who is supporting your noble cause.

Rather than breaking into a tirade why don't you just tell me: Are the graphs only US temperatures? Are they global? What do you think is the significance of the difference?

 

[SSDD]

So you found the original source. Now you are implying that the second graph is actually a global graph? How dishonest is that? Are you really that stupid or confused, or are you just lying to support the Noble Cause?

C'mon cut the crap. I'm tired of that kind of indignant bluster.
First, I did not find or even look for the original source.
Second, I clearly said,

"I sort of remember the nature of the graphs, but I wouldn't swear by it. If that's the case then,..."​

With that much caveat how can you construe it as a lie??? It seems that you are the one who is supporting your noble cause.

Rather than breaking into a tirade why don't you just tell me: Are the graphs only US temperatures? Are they global? What do you think is the significance of the difference?

The first chart clearly states that it is global...as does the third...if you toss out the second, Ian has still made his point..The data has clearly been adjusted and I doubt that you could prove that science was unable to accurately read a thermometer in either 1950 or 1970....there is no rational, scientifically valid reason for altering the temperatures and certainly no valid argument claiming that the adjustments to data taken nearly 70 and 50 years ago respectively has been made more accurate by the adjustments.