Why is it?

[SSDD]

What conclusions can be drawn here? That AR5, The Physical Science Basis, is nothing BUT a complilation of almost 2,000 pages of evidence supporting AGW is factually indisputable. That you continue to claim it does not indicates that you 1) Are exceptionally stupid or 2) Lie.

We have been through that before...you were unable to find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...the best you could do was provide a graph showing the absorption spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...data gathered, by the way with an instrument cooled to -80F....you failed to provide the emission graph of the same molecules...and didn't even approach providing any evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...so no..there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW to be found not only in AR5...but anywhere else. It doesn't exist.

 

[jc456]

What conclusions can be drawn here? That AR5, The Physical Science Basis, is nothing BUT a complilation of almost 2,000 pages of evidence supporting AGW is factually indisputable. That you continue to claim it does not indicates that you 1) Are exceptionally stupid or 2) Lie.

or not.

 

[Crick]

Stupid or lying - those are your only choices.

 

[SSDD]

Stupid or lying - those are your only choices.

Project much?...of course you do. Look up the term cognitive dissonance...it is what you warmers are experiencing. you are unable to separate what you believe, from what is....what is, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis in AR5..or anywhere else in climate science...what you believe is that there is abundant evidence....the break with reality exists in the fact that you keep claiming to have produced it when in fact, you haven't produced the first bit..and what you did produce certainly didn't support the A in AGW..

Maybe we could take this from a different tack and help you come to terms with reality...let me post what you posted up and believe to be observed, measured, quantified, empirical data, and you tell me how you think it supports the A in the AGW hypothesis.

So we have a graphic showing absorption wavelengths gathered in a lab, with an instrument cooled to a temperature of at least -80F. Now you explain in your words, how you think that alone supports the A in the AGW hypothesis. It certainly shows the ability of certain gasses to absorb certain frequencies of radiation...of course it doesn't show that most of them immediately give up that energy and therefore don't store any heat...but you tell me how you think that chart alone supports the A in AGW. This should be interesting.

 

[Crick]

Do me a favor, if you don't want to be spewed on, don't try to put words in my mouth.

Downwelling radiation from the night sky has been measured and clearly displays radiation from CO2.

That IR instruments work better when cooled is precisely analogous to clean camera lenses with black inner barrels. That you think it is the cause of the effect is so stupid you're the only human on the planet with that particular fantasy. The ONLY one.

 

[SSDD]

Do me a favor, if you don't want to be spewed on, don't try to put words in my mouth.

Downwelling radiation from the night sky has been measured and clearly displays radiation from CO2.

With an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...that is the only way to get energy to flow downward...except in the rare event of a temperature inversion...

That IR instruments work better when cooled is precisely analogous to clean camera lenses with black inner barrels. That you think it is the cause of the effect is so stupid you're the only human on the planet with that particular fantasy. The ONLY one.

Nope...IR instruments work fine when not cooled.....IR simply does not move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth and therefore, the instrument must be cooled if you want energy to move downward from the atmosphere to it.

So what you still have is zero observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW...what you do have is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[mamooth]

You keep ignoring the fact that uncooled instruments measure the backradiation just fine.

You do that because you're pathologically dishonest and a gutless cult liar. Even you know your PSI science is crap from top to bottom, but it's what you cult tells you to spew, so you spew it.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You keep ignoring the fact that uncooled instruments measure the backradiation just fine.

You do that because you're pathologically dishonest and a gutless cult liar. Even you know your PSI science is crap from top to bottom, but it's what you cult tells you to spew, so you spew it.

Seig Heil mamooth? Your religious zelotry is showing again.

 

[SSDD]

You keep ignoring the fact that uncooled instruments measure the backradiation just fine.

Sorry hairball...but they don't... There are certainly some...like pyrogeometers which can fool idiots into thinking that they are actually measuring back radiation...but alas, they are not...they are only measuring the change in temperature of an internal thermopile...back radiation does not exist..it can not be measured any more than the weight of fairy wings can be measured....by cooling an instrument to a temperature lower than that of the radiator...energy can be measured coming off it, but since the instrument is cooler than the radiator, it isn't back radiation...it is simply energy movement form a radiator to a cooler instrument... Back radiation from a cooler energy receptor back to the warmer emitter is not possible and has never been measured.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball...but they don't...

Yes, they do. You can point them at the sky and get a very clear picture of sky, clouds, tree branches, birds, everything. That's way, way more than a simple pyrgeometer.

And your idiot theory says a pyrgeometer is impossible as well, being that those have no problem measuring temperatures that are colder than the instrument.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball...but they don't...

Yes, they do. You can point them at the sky and get a very clear picture of sky, clouds, tree branches, birds, everything. That's way, way more than a simple pyrometer.

Sorry hairball...if you point them at tree branches...birds...etc, you aren't pointing them at the sky....and pointing them at clouds isn't pointing them at the sky... you have been thoroughly fooled by instrumentation...you have no idea what is actually being measured .....but it certainly isn't back radiation, because it doesn't exist.

 

[Crick]

Bullshit

 

[SSDD]

Bullshit

Gathered with an instrument cooled to a temperature of at least -80F....The instrument was not measuring back radiation..it was measuring normal energy transfer from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument....still being fooled by instrumentation...let the instrument warm to ambient temperature and the signatures from those wavelengths disappear.

 

[IanC]

Do me a favor, if you don't want to be spewed on, don't try to put words in my mouth.

Downwelling radiation from the night sky has been measured and clearly displays radiation from CO2.

That IR instruments work better when cooled is precisely analogous to clean camera lenses with black inner barrels. That you think it is the cause of the effect is so stupid you're the only human on the planet with that particular fantasy. The ONLY one.

I have a question for you Crick.

while I believe that pointing your instrument skyward does capture CO2 specific radiation, I am interested in WHERE you think the radiation originated from.

I think it is from the ten meters or so above the instrument with basically no contribution from above that level. CO2 completely absorbs surface CO2 specific IR in the first 10 meters of atmosphere (although I am not wedded to that number, just the concept). therefore any radiation coming back is also from the first ten meters. also, the radiation coming back to the surface is much more likely to have come from a CO2 molecule that received the excitation energy from molecular collision than from one that absorbed a photon and then re-emitted it.

 

[SSDD]

while I believe that pointing your instrument skyward does capture CO2 specific radiation, I am interested in WHERE you think the radiation originated from.

Which instrument?..the IR thermometer that roy spencer loves to talk about pointing into the sky?....are you aware that the manufacturers Mikron IRTs informed him that infrared thermometers are specifically calibrated to not register feedback from greenhouse gasses?....You point an IRT at the sky and you are measuring everything but energy radiated by so called greenhouse gasses...and still he claims to be measuring back radiation with his IRT...

 

[IanC]

while I believe that pointing your instrument skyward does capture CO2 specific radiation, I am interested in WHERE you think the radiation originated from.

Which instrument?..the IR thermometer that roy spencer loves to talk about pointing into the sky?....are you aware that the manufacturers Mikron IRTs informed him that infrared thermometers are specifically calibrated to not register feedback from greenhouse gasses?....You point an IRT at the sky and you are measuring everything but energy radiated by so called greenhouse gasses...and still he claims to be measuring back radiation with his IRT...

I did not know that. link me up.

it would be difficult to screen out all the various GHG frequencies, especially H2O.

does the handheld IR detector only measure atmospheric window frequencies? is it only measuring 'blackbody' radiation due to temperature (molecular collisions)? is that not backradiation?

please expand upon this topic, it should be interesting

 

[SSDD]

while I believe that pointing your instrument skyward does capture CO2 specific radiation, I am interested in WHERE you think the radiation originated from.

Which instrument?..the IR thermometer that roy spencer loves to talk about pointing into the sky?....are you aware that the manufacturers Mikron IRTs informed him that infrared thermometers are specifically calibrated to not register feedback from greenhouse gasses?....You point an IRT at the sky and you are measuring everything but energy radiated by so called greenhouse gasses...and still he claims to be measuring back radiation with his IRT...

I did not know that. link me up.

it would be difficult to screen out all the various GHG frequencies, especially H2O.

does the handheld IR detector only measure atmospheric window frequencies? is it only measuring 'blackbody' radiation due to temperature (molecular collisions)? is that not backradiation?

please expand upon this topic, it should be interesting

Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth

 

[Crick]

The text of your MIkron article states that their thermometers will only respond to 8-14 microns, Find those wavelengths on the following graph

 

[SSDD]

The text of your MIkron article states that their thermometers will only respond to 8-14 microns, Find those wavelengths on the following graph

crick you f'ing idiot...is, or is not the peak radiating frequency of CO2 15 microns?...Is 15 microns different from 14 microns? Every time you weigh in on anything concerning a graph...your claim of being an engineer becomes more hilarious.

 

[IanC]

while I believe that pointing your instrument skyward does capture CO2 specific radiation, I am interested in WHERE you think the radiation originated from.

Which instrument?..the IR thermometer that roy spencer loves to talk about pointing into the sky?....are you aware that the manufacturers Mikron IRTs informed him that infrared thermometers are specifically calibrated to not register feedback from greenhouse gasses?....You point an IRT at the sky and you are measuring everything but energy radiated by so called greenhouse gasses...and still he claims to be measuring back radiation with his IRT...

I did not know that. link me up.

it would be difficult to screen out all the various GHG frequencies, especially H2O.

does the handheld IR detector only measure atmospheric window frequencies? is it only measuring 'blackbody' radiation due to temperature (molecular collisions)? is that not backradiation?

please expand upon this topic, it should be interesting

Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth

thanks for the link.

the IRT manufacturer did add information to my understanding of the principle over all.

IRTs have continuously evolved to use narrower and narrower bands to make their calculations. at one point they said 8-14 microns, somewhere else they said it is down to a 1 micron wide range but did not specify the actual frequency.

the important take away is that they are using frequencies in the Atmospheric Window range. unaffected by GHGs, free path photons. I should have derived that earlier by myself but I never gave it that much thought.

it explains why the temperature of the atmosphere close to the surface can be measured by pointing sideways, and why skyward readings aren't 'blinded' by the warm air directly above the instrument.


I am unsure as to what your point was though. what did you want me to see? they slammed Spencer but I didnt follow up the actual exchanges. is that it?