Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.
well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.
I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.
Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.
Hahahaha, do you really need to see the graph of satellite temps again?
CO2 is lowest in ppm over the Antarctic. The Antarctic is 9,000 feet higher in elevation than the Arctic. The Antarctic is surrounded by ocean, the Arctic is surrounded by land.
well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.
I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.
Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.
how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.
I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.
Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.
You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.
What you have actually been demanding is an experiment that shows the exact amount of warming cause by the increase of 120 ppm CO2 from 280-400. It obviously can't be done on a world sized platform. Perhaps a 10 meter high box would at least capture the initial effect, I don't know. Massive increases of CO2 in smaller boxes have shown increased temp so it is the magnitude we are quibbling about not the direction.
The surface radiates about 400w into the bottom of the atmosphere with solar input of less than 200w. The radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the solar input entering the atmosphere to a very close amount but in different wavelength ratios than the radiation at the surface.
We have explained how this happens. If you disagree then propose an alternate solution.
Most legitimate skeptics accept the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect but baulk at the exaggerated predictions put forth by the IPCC consensus, and the even more preposterous predictions of Doom.
So have at it. Explain how the surface radiates more than the solar input without receiving backradiation from the atmosphere.
how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.
I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.
Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.
You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.
What you have actually been demanding is an experiment that shows the exact amount of warming cause by the increase of 120 ppm CO2 from 280-400. It obviously can't be done on a world sized platform. Perhaps a 10 meter high box would at least capture the initial effect, I don't know. Massive increases of CO2 in smaller boxes have shown increased temp so it is the magnitude we are quibbling about not the direction.
The surface radiates about 400w into the bottom of the atmosphere with solar input of less than 200w. The radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the solar input entering the atmosphere to a very close amount but in different wavelength ratios than the radiation at the surface.
We have explained how this happens. If you disagree then propose an alternate solution.
Most legitimate skeptics accept the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect but baulk at the exaggerated predictions put forth by the IPCC consensus, and the even more preposterous predictions of Doom.
So have at it. Explain how the surface radiates more than the solar input without receiving backradiation from the atmosphere.
USATODAY.com - Answers archive: The relation between temperature and air pressure
So since the sun is always shining, there is always somewhere where it is warm and the pressure systems move the heat around the globe until the sun returns to those areas that were in night. The water vapor in the air will provide heat as it too moves around. The relative humidity that is.
I see no reason why a .04% of the atmosphere will heat anything. Ever. It isn't logical. The myth of IR and back radiation is so phony, lies must be told to keep the money flowing. See, it's the only means to show CO2 could ever be evil. Not sure why my breath is lethal but it is what the liars want. Pressure in the atmosphere help keep the warmth down near the surface.
Oh, and the lie promoted is that the more we add CO2 the more back radiation and more heat. That is the myth. I laugh.
You're fucking stupid. Greenland is the same latitude as Antarctica's Peninsula...CO2 is lowest in ppm over the Antarctic. The Antarctic is 9,000 feet higher in elevation than the Arctic. The Antarctic is surrounded by ocean, the Arctic is surrounded by land.
FAIL, but nice try...
Start here:
90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on land mass Greenland
and land moves. If Earth had two polar oceans, how much ice would Earth have???
BUSTED!!!
how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.
I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.
Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.
You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.
What you have actually been demanding is an experiment that shows the exact amount of warming cause by the increase of 120 ppm CO2 from 280-400. It obviously can't be done on a world sized platform. Perhaps a 10 meter high box would at least capture the initial effect, I don't know. Massive increases of CO2 in smaller boxes have shown increased temp so it is the magnitude we are quibbling about not the direction.
The surface radiates about 400w into the bottom of the atmosphere with solar input of less than 200w. The radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the solar input entering the atmosphere to a very close amount but in different wavelength ratios than the radiation at the surface.
We have explained how this happens. If you disagree then propose an alternate solution.
Most legitimate skeptics accept the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect but baulk at the exaggerated predictions put forth by the IPCC consensus, and the even more preposterous predictions of Doom.
So have at it. Explain how the surface radiates more than the solar input without receiving backradiation from the atmosphere.
USATODAY.com - Answers archive: The relation between temperature and air pressure
So since the sun is always shining, there is always somewhere where it is warm and the pressure systems move the heat around the globe until the sun returns to those areas that were in night. The water vapor in the air will provide heat as it too moves around. The relative humidity that is.
I see no reason why a .04% of the atmosphere will heat anything. Ever. It isn't logical. The myth of IR and back radiation is so phony, lies must be told to keep the money flowing. See, it's the only means to show CO2 could ever be evil. Not sure why my breath is lethal but it is what the liars want. Pressure in the atmosphere help keep the warmth down near the surface.
Oh, and the lie promoted is that the more we add CO2 the more back radiation and more heat. That is the myth. I laugh.
Are you dodging the question or too stupid to understand it?
There is not enough average solar input reaching the surface to supply the energy needed to maintain the average surface temperature. 15C (about 400w) from less than 200w solar input. What is the source of the extra energy?
Ian, more material from John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science Alabama State:
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...ents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
"I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State
Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and
Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for
Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society.
It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the
temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change
and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I
have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I
address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this
area has taken."
Sir, I answered your question. I really wasn't expecting anything from you though.how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.
I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.
Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.
You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.
What you have actually been demanding is an experiment that shows the exact amount of warming cause by the increase of 120 ppm CO2 from 280-400. It obviously can't be done on a world sized platform. Perhaps a 10 meter high box would at least capture the initial effect, I don't know. Massive increases of CO2 in smaller boxes have shown increased temp so it is the magnitude we are quibbling about not the direction.
The surface radiates about 400w into the bottom of the atmosphere with solar input of less than 200w. The radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the solar input entering the atmosphere to a very close amount but in different wavelength ratios than the radiation at the surface.
We have explained how this happens. If you disagree then propose an alternate solution.
Most legitimate skeptics accept the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect but baulk at the exaggerated predictions put forth by the IPCC consensus, and the even more preposterous predictions of Doom.
So have at it. Explain how the surface radiates more than the solar input without receiving backradiation from the atmosphere.
USATODAY.com - Answers archive: The relation between temperature and air pressure
So since the sun is always shining, there is always somewhere where it is warm and the pressure systems move the heat around the globe until the sun returns to those areas that were in night. The water vapor in the air will provide heat as it too moves around. The relative humidity that is.
I see no reason why a .04% of the atmosphere will heat anything. Ever. It isn't logical. The myth of IR and back radiation is so phony, lies must be told to keep the money flowing. See, it's the only means to show CO2 could ever be evil. Not sure why my breath is lethal but it is what the liars want. Pressure in the atmosphere help keep the warmth down near the surface.
Oh, and the lie promoted is that the more we add CO2 the more back radiation and more heat. That is the myth. I laugh.
Are you dodging the question or too stupid to understand it?
There is not enough average solar input reaching the surface to supply the energy needed to maintain the average surface temperature. 15C (about 400w) from less than 200w solar input. What is the source of the extra energy?
so does that invalidate his experience and knowledge of the subject? Right......Ian, more material from John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science Alabama State:
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...ents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
"I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State
Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and
Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for
Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society.
It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the
temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change
and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I
have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I
address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this
area has taken."
John Christy takes money from Big Oil and University of Alabama at Huntsville?
Really?
They are the world's leading climate scientists? Oh wait, no they aren't, they have a department of two...both funded by Big Oil.
Why do you deny that a trace gas can have a big impact on climate?Sir, I answered your question. I really wasn't expecting anything from you though.how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.
Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.
You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.
What you have actually been demanding is an experiment that shows the exact amount of warming cause by the increase of 120 ppm CO2 from 280-400. It obviously can't be done on a world sized platform. Perhaps a 10 meter high box would at least capture the initial effect, I don't know. Massive increases of CO2 in smaller boxes have shown increased temp so it is the magnitude we are quibbling about not the direction.
The surface radiates about 400w into the bottom of the atmosphere with solar input of less than 200w. The radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the solar input entering the atmosphere to a very close amount but in different wavelength ratios than the radiation at the surface.
We have explained how this happens. If you disagree then propose an alternate solution.
Most legitimate skeptics accept the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect but baulk at the exaggerated predictions put forth by the IPCC consensus, and the even more preposterous predictions of Doom.
So have at it. Explain how the surface radiates more than the solar input without receiving backradiation from the atmosphere.
USATODAY.com - Answers archive: The relation between temperature and air pressure
So since the sun is always shining, there is always somewhere where it is warm and the pressure systems move the heat around the globe until the sun returns to those areas that were in night. The water vapor in the air will provide heat as it too moves around. The relative humidity that is.
I see no reason why a .04% of the atmosphere will heat anything. Ever. It isn't logical. The myth of IR and back radiation is so phony, lies must be told to keep the money flowing. See, it's the only means to show CO2 could ever be evil. Not sure why my breath is lethal but it is what the liars want. Pressure in the atmosphere help keep the warmth down near the surface.
Oh, and the lie promoted is that the more we add CO2 the more back radiation and more heat. That is the myth. I laugh.
Are you dodging the question or too stupid to understand it?
There is not enough average solar input reaching the surface to supply the energy needed to maintain the average surface temperature. 15C (about 400w) from less than 200w solar input. What is the source of the extra energy?
If you don't believe in convection and conduction, not sure what else I can tell you. The atmospheric pressure and gravity keep the heat around the surface.
because it has not been validated. kapeesh?Why do you deny that a trace gas can have a big impact on climate?Sir, I answered your question. I really wasn't expecting anything from you though.how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.well let me correct that statement for a moment here. At least for me, I have stated and have not wavered one bit, that it is you and your warmers who claim to have all the evidence and cannot produce any to support your position. The tactic used as a response to my questions is to ask me to prove my position instead. Now, I never ever claimed to say that I personally have evidence. Never. I found links, posted them, to show a different scenario of experiment than the physics math you post and I'm immediately insulted. No matter to me though. However, for you to post that we claim to have all the evidence is just flat out a lie. I'm still waiting five years now for the evidence to support CO2 warms the planet.
You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.
What you have actually been demanding is an experiment that shows the exact amount of warming cause by the increase of 120 ppm CO2 from 280-400. It obviously can't be done on a world sized platform. Perhaps a 10 meter high box would at least capture the initial effect, I don't know. Massive increases of CO2 in smaller boxes have shown increased temp so it is the magnitude we are quibbling about not the direction.
The surface radiates about 400w into the bottom of the atmosphere with solar input of less than 200w. The radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the solar input entering the atmosphere to a very close amount but in different wavelength ratios than the radiation at the surface.
We have explained how this happens. If you disagree then propose an alternate solution.
Most legitimate skeptics accept the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect but baulk at the exaggerated predictions put forth by the IPCC consensus, and the even more preposterous predictions of Doom.
So have at it. Explain how the surface radiates more than the solar input without receiving backradiation from the atmosphere.
USATODAY.com - Answers archive: The relation between temperature and air pressure
So since the sun is always shining, there is always somewhere where it is warm and the pressure systems move the heat around the globe until the sun returns to those areas that were in night. The water vapor in the air will provide heat as it too moves around. The relative humidity that is.
I see no reason why a .04% of the atmosphere will heat anything. Ever. It isn't logical. The myth of IR and back radiation is so phony, lies must be told to keep the money flowing. See, it's the only means to show CO2 could ever be evil. Not sure why my breath is lethal but it is what the liars want. Pressure in the atmosphere help keep the warmth down near the surface.
Oh, and the lie promoted is that the more we add CO2 the more back radiation and more heat. That is the myth. I laugh.
Are you dodging the question or too stupid to understand it?
There is not enough average solar input reaching the surface to supply the energy needed to maintain the average surface temperature. 15C (about 400w) from less than 200w solar input. What is the source of the extra energy?
If you don't believe in convection and conduction, not sure what else I can tell you. The atmospheric pressure and gravity keep the heat around the surface.
Even Mars has 70Degree Fahrenheit days even though it has 0.02% the CO2 that the Earth has and CO2 makes up 95% of its atmosphere.
Meaning that with 0.02% of Earth's Atmosphere, it can achieve those high temps.
Yes it absolutely does.so does that invalidate his experience and knowledge of the subject? Right......Ian, more material from John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science Alabama State:
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...ents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
"I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State
Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and
Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for
Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society.
It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the
temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change
and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I
have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I
address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this
area has taken."
John Christy takes money from Big Oil and University of Alabama at Huntsville?
Really?
They are the world's leading climate scientists? Oh wait, no they aren't, they have a department of two...both funded by Big Oil.
because it has not been validated. kapeesh?Why do you deny that a trace gas can have a big impact on climate?Sir, I answered your question. I really wasn't expecting anything from you though.how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.
What you have actually been demanding is an experiment that shows the exact amount of warming cause by the increase of 120 ppm CO2 from 280-400. It obviously can't be done on a world sized platform. Perhaps a 10 meter high box would at least capture the initial effect, I don't know. Massive increases of CO2 in smaller boxes have shown increased temp so it is the magnitude we are quibbling about not the direction.
The surface radiates about 400w into the bottom of the atmosphere with solar input of less than 200w. The radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the solar input entering the atmosphere to a very close amount but in different wavelength ratios than the radiation at the surface.
We have explained how this happens. If you disagree then propose an alternate solution.
Most legitimate skeptics accept the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect but baulk at the exaggerated predictions put forth by the IPCC consensus, and the even more preposterous predictions of Doom.
So have at it. Explain how the surface radiates more than the solar input without receiving backradiation from the atmosphere.
USATODAY.com - Answers archive: The relation between temperature and air pressure
So since the sun is always shining, there is always somewhere where it is warm and the pressure systems move the heat around the globe until the sun returns to those areas that were in night. The water vapor in the air will provide heat as it too moves around. The relative humidity that is.
I see no reason why a .04% of the atmosphere will heat anything. Ever. It isn't logical. The myth of IR and back radiation is so phony, lies must be told to keep the money flowing. See, it's the only means to show CO2 could ever be evil. Not sure why my breath is lethal but it is what the liars want. Pressure in the atmosphere help keep the warmth down near the surface.
Oh, and the lie promoted is that the more we add CO2 the more back radiation and more heat. That is the myth. I laugh.
Are you dodging the question or too stupid to understand it?
There is not enough average solar input reaching the surface to supply the energy needed to maintain the average surface temperature. 15C (about 400w) from less than 200w solar input. What is the source of the extra energy?
If you don't believe in convection and conduction, not sure what else I can tell you. The atmospheric pressure and gravity keep the heat around the surface.
Even Mars has 70Degree Fahrenheit days even though it has 0.02% the CO2 that the Earth has and CO2 makes up 95% of its atmosphere.
Meaning that with 0.02% of Earth's Atmosphere, it can achieve those high temps.
I don't think a drop of red dye in the ocean will cause it to turn red.
sure Poindexter sureYes it absolutely does.so does that invalidate his experience and knowledge of the subject? Right......Ian, more material from John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science Alabama State:
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...ents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
"I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State
Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and
Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for
Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society.
It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the
temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change
and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I
have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I
address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this
area has taken."
John Christy takes money from Big Oil and University of Alabama at Huntsville?
Really?
They are the world's leading climate scientists? Oh wait, no they aren't, they have a department of two...both funded by Big Oil.
The idiot entirely relies upon one data set that even NASA has thrown out as a bad set. Satellites are notoriously UNRELIABLE.
That's like saying "my infrared thermometer says the pot is cool...I see it is on fire...but my remote sensing says it is an ice cube..."
well fine, post it up let's see this validation.because it has not been validated. kapeesh?Why do you deny that a trace gas can have a big impact on climate?Sir, I answered your question. I really wasn't expecting anything from you though.how does the surface radiate? hmmm, "As the sun heats the ground or ocean, warning them, the air near the ground or ocean warms and becomes less dense As this happens the air begins rising, which lowers the air pressure at the Earth's surface. A large area of low pressure created this way is called a "thermal" low. Often in the summer you'll see an "L" on the weather map over the U.S. Southwest, indicating such a thermal low." from USA today.
USATODAY.com - Answers archive: The relation between temperature and air pressure
So since the sun is always shining, there is always somewhere where it is warm and the pressure systems move the heat around the globe until the sun returns to those areas that were in night. The water vapor in the air will provide heat as it too moves around. The relative humidity that is.
I see no reason why a .04% of the atmosphere will heat anything. Ever. It isn't logical. The myth of IR and back radiation is so phony, lies must be told to keep the money flowing. See, it's the only means to show CO2 could ever be evil. Not sure why my breath is lethal but it is what the liars want. Pressure in the atmosphere help keep the warmth down near the surface.
Oh, and the lie promoted is that the more we add CO2 the more back radiation and more heat. That is the myth. I laugh.
Are you dodging the question or too stupid to understand it?
There is not enough average solar input reaching the surface to supply the energy needed to maintain the average surface temperature. 15C (about 400w) from less than 200w solar input. What is the source of the extra energy?
If you don't believe in convection and conduction, not sure what else I can tell you. The atmospheric pressure and gravity keep the heat around the surface.
Even Mars has 70Degree Fahrenheit days even though it has 0.02% the CO2 that the Earth has and CO2 makes up 95% of its atmosphere.
Meaning that with 0.02% of Earth's Atmosphere, it can achieve those high temps.
I don't think a drop of red dye in the ocean will cause it to turn red.
Of course it has been validated, it has been validated by all sorts of sources, including the US military.
well fine, post it up let's see this validation.because it has not been validated. kapeesh?Why do you deny that a trace gas can have a big impact on climate?Sir, I answered your question. I really wasn't expecting anything from you though.Are you dodging the question or too stupid to understand it?
There is not enough average solar input reaching the surface to supply the energy needed to maintain the average surface temperature. 15C (about 400w) from less than 200w solar input. What is the source of the extra energy?
If you don't believe in convection and conduction, not sure what else I can tell you. The atmospheric pressure and gravity keep the heat around the surface.
Even Mars has 70Degree Fahrenheit days even though it has 0.02% the CO2 that the Earth has and CO2 makes up 95% of its atmosphere.
Meaning that with 0.02% of Earth's Atmosphere, it can achieve those high temps.
I don't think a drop of red dye in the ocean will cause it to turn red.
Of course it has been validated, it has been validated by all sorts of sources, including the US military.
