AGWCult now threatening "Deniers"

[Abraham3]

You non-reading BS artist... What kind of record is based on data only from 1960 till 1990? It's a BS record made to give a false impression just as most of the crap from the warmer side...

And you wonder why you keep losing believers...

Wow you are so dumb

That is pretty incredible.

 

[gslack]

You non-reading BS artist... What kind of record is based on data only from 1960 till 1990? It's a BS record made to give a false impression just as most of the crap from the warmer side...

And you wonder why you keep losing believers...

Wow you are so dumb

That is pretty incredible.

No what's dumb is the denial of an idiot when his own stupidity is slapping him in the face...

61-90 is the time period which they collected the mean from.. Meaning they are comparing the last 15 years against temps recorded between 61 and 90, and calling it a record...

You don't understand it? Or are you going to play dumb?

I think you are too ignorant to understand what you read...

 

[flacaltenn]

The seminal experiment on the absorption spectra of CO2 was done by Tyndall of England in 1858.

Absorption doesn't mean squat rocks if emission happens immediately afterwards. The IR is doing nothing more than going through a door.

The experiment that proves that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere results in Y amount of warming has yet to be done. Out in the real world, it has been happening for the past 15+ years and it hasn't gotten any warmer. Your hypothesis fails.

If the CO2 is being toasted by a warmer source like the surface -- by definition it's accumulating thermal energy.. It's getting warmer. Couldn't get warmer if Long Wave IR was "just passing thru a door"..

And it's NOT a door -- it's IR emission (RE-radiation) pattern is in ALL DIRECTIONS.. Meaning that about 1/2 of the IR goes up and a little less than 1/2 goes back to the surface..

You're missing out on the basics of ElectroMag Heat propagation.. There is a conversion IMMEDIATELY as it is absorbed to raw heat energy.. Whether that heat sticks around or ends up funding the flight of ANOTHER EM photon --- depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule..

No need to reply and assert that photons aren't launched in every direction.. You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets. You will assert that NO PHOTONS ever get launched toward warmer objects.. But you'd STILL ---- be wrong..

 

[gslack]

The seminal experiment on the absorption spectra of CO2 was done by Tyndall of England in 1858.

Absorption doesn't mean squat rocks if emission happens immediately afterwards. The IR is doing nothing more than going through a door.

The experiment that proves that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere results in Y amount of warming has yet to be done. Out in the real world, it has been happening for the past 15+ years and it hasn't gotten any warmer. Your hypothesis fails.

If the CO2 is being toasted by a warmer source like the surface -- by definition it's accumulating thermal energy.. It's getting warmer. Couldn't get warmer if Long Wave IR was "just passing thru a door"..

And it's NOT a door -- it's IR emission (RE-radiation) pattern is in ALL DIRECTIONS.. Meaning that about 1/2 of the IR goes up and a little less than 1/2 goes back to the surface..

You're missing out on the basics of ElectroMag Heat propagation.. There is a conversion IMMEDIATELY as it is absorbed to raw heat energy.. Whether that heat sticks around or ends up funding the flight of ANOTHER EM photon --- depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule..

No need to reply and assert that photons aren't launched in every direction.. You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets. You will assert that NO PHOTONS ever get launched toward warmer objects.. But you'd STILL ---- be wrong.. :eusa_angel:

Underlined the parts you got wrong... Oh I see... This is awkward, I underlined all of it...

Oh well....

The problem is you assume all energy in the system is used to create heat. Not so...You are using the modern "climate science" version of energy automatically being converted into heat.

Sorry but it's just wrong. It's a simplistric view taught to people who don't want to be physicists or engineers, but rather something like a "climate scientist" or somebody who wants to fight the AGW fight but not be a scientist...

The fact is not all the energy coming is converted to heat. Some of it lost in the transfer, some of it used in the system making the transfer, and all the particulars that go along with it.

So in reality, we aren't looking at 50/50 down and up. We aren't even looking at 50% in either direction. In each stage of energy transfer, we lose the ability use some small part of that energy in that process or the making of.

Further, no one, and let's be very clear, NO ONE, has stated any such thing as you claimed in this statement.."You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets."

That is a retarded and ignorant claim used by the warmers to divert, and the fact you are trying it again, after I spent pages clarifying, shows it's intentional now...

I say it again.. Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further? I have asked you and the warmers, and Ian that and every time I do you respond with either ignoring it, or posting that lie you just tried...

The fact is you don't understand it. Ian doesn't, and certainly none of the warmers do.. Just because something radiates, does not mean it can effect change in it's source... And the sad part is you just said one reason why and you didn't even realize you did it...

WHen you claimed that bit about thermal heat gradient, you explained one small way the system prevents reusing the same energy to dothe same task. The molecule doesn't measure it and decide toradiate or not in any one direction. It doesn't have to, the fact is you said yourself that "depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule.." Catching on yet?

How can it depend on thermal gradients,the rate of absorption/emission and the temperature, and ignore it at the same time? It can't and you just showed it, thank you...

I am telling you once more to think this through for yourself.. Don't take someone else's word for it, especially not mine. And certainly not somebody who makes a living off of it being correct. This entire theory, relies on a belief in something that cannot be shown anywhere but in theory. The math states a possibility, but it is limited by our understanding of it. A mathematical possibility is not a physical certainty, if for no other reason than our own ignorance..

 

[flacaltenn]

Absorption doesn't mean squat rocks if emission happens immediately afterwards. The IR is doing nothing more than going through a door.

The experiment that proves that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere results in Y amount of warming has yet to be done. Out in the real world, it has been happening for the past 15+ years and it hasn't gotten any warmer. Your hypothesis fails.

If the CO2 is being toasted by a warmer source like the surface -- by definition it's accumulating thermal energy.. It's getting warmer. Couldn't get warmer if Long Wave IR was "just passing thru a door"..

And it's NOT a door -- it's IR emission (RE-radiation) pattern is in ALL DIRECTIONS.. Meaning that about 1/2 of the IR goes up and a little less than 1/2 goes back to the surface..

You're missing out on the basics of ElectroMag Heat propagation.. There is a conversion IMMEDIATELY as it is absorbed to raw heat energy.. Whether that heat sticks around or ends up funding the flight of ANOTHER EM photon --- depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule..

No need to reply and assert that photons aren't launched in every direction.. You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets. You will assert that NO PHOTONS ever get launched toward warmer objects.. But you'd STILL ---- be wrong.. :eusa_angel:

Underlined the parts you got wrong... Oh I see... This is awkward, I underlined all of it...

Oh well....

The problem is you assume all energy in the system is used to create heat. Not so...You are using the modern "climate science" version of energy automatically being converted into heat.

Sorry but it's just wrong. It's a simplistric view taught to people who don't want to be physicists or engineers, but rather something like a "climate scientist" or somebody who wants to fight the AGW fight but not be a scientist...

The fact is not all the energy coming is converted to heat. Some of it lost in the transfer, some of it used in the system making the transfer, and all the particulars that go along with it.

So in reality, we aren't looking at 50/50 down and up. We aren't even looking at 50% in either direction. In each stage of energy transfer, we lose the ability use some small part of that energy in that process or the making of.

Further, no one, and let's be very clear, NO ONE, has stated any such thing as you claimed in this statement.."You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets."

That is a retarded and ignorant claim used by the warmers to divert, and the fact you are trying it again, after I spent pages clarifying, shows it's intentional now...

I say it again.. Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further? I have asked you and the warmers, and Ian that and every time I do you respond with either ignoring it, or posting that lie you just tried...

The fact is you don't understand it. Ian doesn't, and certainly none of the warmers do.. Just because something radiates, does not mean it can effect change in it's source... And the sad part is you just said one reason why and you didn't even realize you did it...

WHen you claimed that bit about thermal heat gradient, you explained one small way the system prevents reusing the same energy to dothe same task. The molecule doesn't measure it and decide toradiate or not in any one direction. It doesn't have to, the fact is you said yourself that "depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule.." Catching on yet?

How can it depend on thermal gradients,the rate of absorption/emission and the temperature, and ignore it at the same time? It can't and you just showed it, thank you...

I am telling you once more to think this through for yourself.. Don't take someone else's word for it, especially not mine. And certainly not somebody who makes a living off of it being correct. This entire theory, relies on a belief in something that cannot be shown anywhere but in theory. The math states a possibility, but it is limited by our understanding of it. A mathematical possibility is not a physical certainty, if for no other reason than our own ignorance..

Are you now accepting that Radiative Heat transfer is bidirectional? Or are you an even bigger idiot that the last time you couldn't discuss Physics??

There is so much horseshit in this response -- there's not a safe place to step...
But let's pick a pile....

I say it again.. Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further? I have asked you and the warmers, and Ian that and every time I do you respond with either ignoring it, or posting that lie you just tried...

Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. The atmos simply RESTRICTS the rate of cooling. Lowers the net exchange because heat stored in the atmos. exerts back pressure on the transfer upwards.

And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.. A 5th grader could understand how the surface warms in this simple context..

You're an ill-tempered know-nothing with a huge anti-social problems ---- apparently...
Wouldn't take your advice under penalty of torture...

 

[Dot Com]

AGWCult now threatening "Deniers"

whats the BFD? I can't stomach Deniers too long either.

 

[gslack]

If the CO2 is being toasted by a warmer source like the surface -- by definition it's accumulating thermal energy.. It's getting warmer. Couldn't get warmer if Long Wave IR was "just passing thru a door"..

And it's NOT a door -- it's IR emission (RE-radiation) pattern is in ALL DIRECTIONS.. Meaning that about 1/2 of the IR goes up and a little less than 1/2 goes back to the surface..

You're missing out on the basics of ElectroMag Heat propagation.. There is a conversion IMMEDIATELY as it is absorbed to raw heat energy.. Whether that heat sticks around or ends up funding the flight of ANOTHER EM photon --- depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule..

No need to reply and assert that photons aren't launched in every direction.. You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets. You will assert that NO PHOTONS ever get launched toward warmer objects.. But you'd STILL ---- be wrong.. :eusa_angel:

Underlined the parts you got wrong... Oh I see... This is awkward, I underlined all of it...

Oh well....

The problem is you assume all energy in the system is used to create heat. Not so...You are using the modern "climate science" version of energy automatically being converted into heat.

Sorry but it's just wrong. It's a simplistric view taught to people who don't want to be physicists or engineers, but rather something like a "climate scientist" or somebody who wants to fight the AGW fight but not be a scientist...

The fact is not all the energy coming is converted to heat. Some of it lost in the transfer, some of it used in the system making the transfer, and all the particulars that go along with it.

So in reality, we aren't looking at 50/50 down and up. We aren't even looking at 50% in either direction. In each stage of energy transfer, we lose the ability use some small part of that energy in that process or the making of.

Further, no one, and let's be very clear, NO ONE, has stated any such thing as you claimed in this statement.."You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets."

That is a retarded and ignorant claim used by the warmers to divert, and the fact you are trying it again, after I spent pages clarifying, shows it's intentional now...

I say it again.. Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further? I have asked you and the warmers, and Ian that and every time I do you respond with either ignoring it, or posting that lie you just tried...

The fact is you don't understand it. Ian doesn't, and certainly none of the warmers do.. Just because something radiates, does not mean it can effect change in it's source... And the sad part is you just said one reason why and you didn't even realize you did it...

WHen you claimed that bit about thermal heat gradient, you explained one small way the system prevents reusing the same energy to dothe same task. The molecule doesn't measure it and decide toradiate or not in any one direction. It doesn't have to, the fact is you said yourself that "depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule.." Catching on yet?

How can it depend on thermal gradients,the rate of absorption/emission and the temperature, and ignore it at the same time? It can't and you just showed it, thank you...

I am telling you once more to think this through for yourself.. Don't take someone else's word for it, especially not mine. And certainly not somebody who makes a living off of it being correct. This entire theory, relies on a belief in something that cannot be shown anywhere but in theory. The math states a possibility, but it is limited by our understanding of it. A mathematical possibility is not a physical certainty, if for no other reason than our own ignorance..

Are you now accepting that Radiative Heat transfer is bidirectional? Or are you an even bigger idiot that the last time you couldn't discuss Physics??

There is so much horseshit in this response -- there's not a safe place to step...
But let's pick a pile....

I say it again.. Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further? I have asked you and the warmers, and Ian that and every time I do you respond with either ignoring it, or posting that lie you just tried...

Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. The atmos simply RESTRICTS the rate of cooling. Lowers the net exchange because heat stored in the atmos. exerts back pressure on the transfer upwards.

And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.. A 5th grader could understand how the surface warms in this simple context..

You're an ill-tempered know-nothing with a huge anti-social problems ---- apparently...
Wouldn't take your advice under penalty of torture...

I know where to start...

"Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. "

LOL, and that's a nice sidestep, but... If you read carefully I said "Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further?" So why doyou assume that any incidental photons that get sent back can actually warm the surface more? Are you really not understanding this or is it just that scary for you? Not all radiating heat will result in additional warming.. It's not 100% and there is no free lunch so if you call it net flow, than it must mean the larger portion goes up, not equal portions but the larger portion. if so then we must accept that some of that down welling will not make it for whatever reason, and then whatever is left, is expected to overcome that thermal gradient and emission/absorption you spoke of earlier and warm the surface more... You still avoid answering the question.. LOL

"And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.."

And exactly where is the act of backradiation you have been defending so strongly? SLowing heat loss does not mean backradiation. What you just described was the atmosphere doing it's job minus backradiation...

Again, you can call it "net flow", hell you can call it "magic" for all I care, but you just showed that backradiation is not needed nor does it fit in the system..

LOL, and you're an arrogant ass with delusions of your own brilliance, with a massive fear of being wrong... As well as impatient with others of alternative views, and a sucker for save-ass internet scientists..

 

[SSDD]

]

Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. The atmos simply RESTRICTS the rate of cooling. Lowers the net exchange because heat stored in the atmos. exerts back pressure on the transfer upwards.

In the first place, net exchange is an unproven assumption of postmodern science.

In the second place, where is the hotspot demanded by your hypothesis?

 

[Old Rocks]

You dumb ass. The absorption of longwave outgoing IR by the GHGs means that when a photon is emitted, it is non-directional. So what was 100% outgoing is now 50% incoming.

Of course it hasn't warmed in the last 15 years. That is why 12 of the 15 hottest years on record happened during those years.

Oh, but you are wrong. That experiment is being done right now. And we are seeing the results right here;

Climate change: The hottest years on record | The Economist

LOL, best to use a source that relies on a proper standard for record socks

Saw this on your chart from your link..

the hottest years on record, deviation from the 1961-90 global average temperature, C

You non-reading BS artist... What kind of record is based on data only from 1960 till 1990? It's a BS record made to give a false impression just as most of the crap from the warmer side...

And you wonder why you keep losing believers...

Wow you are so dumb

Whee! Simply unbelievable!

Slacko, that is the warmest 20 years on record out of the 180 years of instrumental records. You seem to be the only person here that is incapable of comprehending that immediatly.

 

[IanC]

This is an hilarious thread! Could gslack be any dumber? And I see Old Rocks still doesn't understand the difference between warm and warming.

Hey flac- I have a more serious question for you. Why do you think the speed of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere affects the absorption/emission spectra? Blackbody radiation is a function of the average kinetic motion of all the molecules (temperature) but specific ab/em is based on the molecule itself. Other than slight momentum transferred (entropy is always hiding in the background) specific transfers lose no energy and 'slightly linger wavelenths' are not an option.

 

[flacaltenn]

Underlined the parts you got wrong... Oh I see... This is awkward, I underlined all of it...

Oh well....

The problem is you assume all energy in the system is used to create heat. Not so...You are using the modern "climate science" version of energy automatically being converted into heat.

Sorry but it's just wrong. It's a simplistric view taught to people who don't want to be physicists or engineers, but rather something like a "climate scientist" or somebody who wants to fight the AGW fight but not be a scientist...

The fact is not all the energy coming is converted to heat. Some of it lost in the transfer, some of it used in the system making the transfer, and all the particulars that go along with it.

So in reality, we aren't looking at 50/50 down and up. We aren't even looking at 50% in either direction. In each stage of energy transfer, we lose the ability use some small part of that energy in that process or the making of.

Further, no one, and let's be very clear, NO ONE, has stated any such thing as you claimed in this statement.."You have a comical view that the CO2 molecule measures the thermal gradient in all directions and then constructs a "launch list" of only cooler potential targets."

That is a retarded and ignorant claim used by the warmers to divert, and the fact you are trying it again, after I spent pages clarifying, shows it's intentional now...

I say it again.. Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further? I have asked you and the warmers, and Ian that and every time I do you respond with either ignoring it, or posting that lie you just tried...

The fact is you don't understand it. Ian doesn't, and certainly none of the warmers do.. Just because something radiates, does not mean it can effect change in it's source... And the sad part is you just said one reason why and you didn't even realize you did it...

WHen you claimed that bit about thermal heat gradient, you explained one small way the system prevents reusing the same energy to dothe same task. The molecule doesn't measure it and decide toradiate or not in any one direction. It doesn't have to, the fact is you said yourself that "depends on thermal gradients, the rate of absorption/emission, and the temperature of the CO2 molecule.." Catching on yet?

How can it depend on thermal gradients,the rate of absorption/emission and the temperature, and ignore it at the same time? It can't and you just showed it, thank you...

I am telling you once more to think this through for yourself.. Don't take someone else's word for it, especially not mine. And certainly not somebody who makes a living off of it being correct. This entire theory, relies on a belief in something that cannot be shown anywhere but in theory. The math states a possibility, but it is limited by our understanding of it. A mathematical possibility is not a physical certainty, if for no other reason than our own ignorance..

Are you now accepting that Radiative Heat transfer is bidirectional? Or are you an even bigger idiot that the last time you couldn't discuss Physics??

There is so much horseshit in this response -- there's not a safe place to step...
But let's pick a pile....

I say it again.. Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further? I have asked you and the warmers, and Ian that and every time I do you respond with either ignoring it, or posting that lie you just tried...

Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. The atmos simply RESTRICTS the rate of cooling. Lowers the net exchange because heat stored in the atmos. exerts back pressure on the transfer upwards.

And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.. A 5th grader could understand how the surface warms in this simple context..

You're an ill-tempered know-nothing with a huge anti-social problems ---- apparently...
Wouldn't take your advice under penalty of torture...

I know where to start...

"Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. "

LOL, and that's a nice sidestep, but... If you read carefully I said "Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further?" So why doyou assume that any incidental photons that get sent back can actually warm the surface more? Are you really not understanding this or is it just that scary for you? Not all radiating heat will result in additional warming.. It's not 100% and there is no free lunch so if you call it net flow, than it must mean the larger portion goes up, not equal portions but the larger portion. if so then we must accept that some of that down welling will not make it for whatever reason, and then whatever is left, is expected to overcome that thermal gradient and emission/absorption you spoke of earlier and warm the surface more... You still avoid answering the question.. LOL

"And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.."

And exactly where is the act of backradiation you have been defending so strongly? SLowing heat loss does not mean backradiation. What you just described was the atmosphere doing it's job minus backradiation...

Ya know -- if you'd stop the personal attacks and thought MORE about what was being said.. You might not be so confused.. You just defined "backradiation" above (where I added the bolding).. The downdwelling IR DOES NOT overcome the net flow up... It just REDUCES IT.. It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it???

But besides rejecting GreenHouse theory in Totalatity without a good reason, you're also confused by the different forms of heat flow.. Insulation reduces the NET COOLING of a classical CONDUCTIVE thermal energy flow.. Bidirectional exchange of Photons -- reduces the net COOLING of an ELECTROMAGNETIC (IR) energy flow.. Two different modes of heating. Two different set of rules in the Thermo textbooks..

No warming of the surface results from bidirectional or backradiation.. Just more insulation.
The SUN pumps NEW energy into the system and the loss rate is reduced.

Just like your house insulation doesn't create energy, your furnace does..
Go add some insulation and take the thermostat off the wall and let the furnace do what it did BEFORE you added the insulation.
The house will warm. That's from CONDUCTIVE heating rules. Backradiation derives from Elect.Mag. heating rules.

If I have to reduce this anymore for you -- you'll be quoting my words and denying that I said them..

Again, you can call it "net flow", hell you can call it "magic" for all I care, but you just showed that backradiation is not needed nor does it fit in the system..

LOL, and you're an arrogant ass with delusions of your own brilliance, with a massive fear of being wrong... As well as impatient with others of alternative views, and a sucker for save-ass internet scientists..

I think I will call it Net Flow because that's the proper Thermo terminology.. Sorry that makes you want to attack me. You're barely tolerable as a human being and USELESS as a voice who THINKS they are harming AGW theory a whit. You are a DENIER.. Of the worst sort... And rejecting the basics of Atmospheric Physics gives the AGW side a HUGE excuse to marginalize any skeptics..

I have no fear of you or of proper scientific debate.. Ever...

 

[gslack]

LOL, best to use a source that relies on a proper standard for record socks

Saw this on your chart from your link..

the hottest years on record, deviation from the 1961-90 global average temperature, C

You non-reading BS artist... What kind of record is based on data only from 1960 till 1990? It's a BS record made to give a false impression just as most of the crap from the warmer side...

And you wonder why you keep losing believers...

Wow you are so dumb

Whee! Simply unbelievable!

Slacko, that is the warmest 20 years on record out of the 180 years of instrumental records. You seem to be the only person here that is incapable of comprehending that immediatly.

LOL, really sockman? Then why does the graph say differently?

If you estasblish a mean temp from between the years 1961-1990, to base the deviation on then it isn't a record for the last 180 years you moron..

You freaking idiots got the climate science bait and switch pulled on you, and even when you see it, you pretend its not so....

LOL where on that graphic does it say it is for the last 180 years? Point it out... Where does it say the records are based on the last 180 years? Can you piint that out to me??

LOL, in fact not only is it a BS record created by selctive data, but they even screwed that up..

Notice the * on the graphic? Did you read the explanation? Of course not you can't be bothered to read, you have BS to spread... it says the following...

"*jan-oct"

LOL, yep, they called it a record year but left off the last 2 months.. Why? Because the last two months changed the mean...

You freaking insufferable morons..You don't read, you don't think, and even when it stares you in the face you deny it... ROFL...

 

[gslack]

This is an hilarious thread! Could gslack be any dumber? And I see Old Rocks still doesn't understand the difference between warm and warming.

Hey flac- I have a more serious question for you. Why do you think the speed of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere affects the absorption/emission spectra? Blackbody radiation is a function of the average kinetic motion of all the molecules (temperature) but specific ab/em is based on the molecule itself. Other than slight momentum transferred (entropy is always hiding in the background) specific transfers lose no energy and 'slightly linger wavelenths' are not an option.

And the fact you didn't read the graph is not surprising being the cowardly little punk you are...

Again, when you grow a spine talk to me...

 

[gslack]

Are you now accepting that Radiative Heat transfer is bidirectional? Or are you an even bigger idiot that the last time you couldn't discuss Physics??

There is so much horseshit in this response -- there's not a safe place to step...
But let's pick a pile....



Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. The atmos simply RESTRICTS the rate of cooling. Lowers the net exchange because heat stored in the atmos. exerts back pressure on the transfer upwards.

And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.. A 5th grader could understand how the surface warms in this simple context..

You're an ill-tempered know-nothing with a huge anti-social problems ---- apparently...
Wouldn't take your advice under penalty of torture...

I know where to start...

"Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. "

LOL, and that's a nice sidestep, but... If you read carefully I said "Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further?" So why doyou assume that any incidental photons that get sent back can actually warm the surface more? Are you really not understanding this or is it just that scary for you? Not all radiating heat will result in additional warming.. It's not 100% and there is no free lunch so if you call it net flow, than it must mean the larger portion goes up, not equal portions but the larger portion. if so then we must accept that some of that down welling will not make it for whatever reason, and then whatever is left, is expected to overcome that thermal gradient and emission/absorption you spoke of earlier and warm the surface more... You still avoid answering the question.. LOL

"And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.."

And exactly where is the act of backradiation you have been defending so strongly? SLowing heat loss does not mean backradiation. What you just described was the atmosphere doing it's job minus backradiation...

Ya know -- if you'd stop the personal attacks and thought MORE about what was being said.. You might not be so confused.. You just defined "backradiation" above (where I added the bolding).. The downdwelling IR DOES NOT overcome the net flow up... It just REDUCES IT.. It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it???

But besides rejecting GreenHouse theory in Totalatity without a good reason, you're also confused by the different forms of heat flow.. Insulation reduces the NET COOLING of a classical CONDUCTIVE thermal energy flow.. Bidirectional exchange of Photons -- reduces the net COOLING of an ELECTROMAGNETIC (IR) energy flow.. Two different modes of heating. Two different set of rules in the Thermo textbooks..

No warming of the surface results from bidirectional or backradiation.. Just more insulation.
The SUN pumps NEW energy into the system and the loss rate is reduced.

Just like your house insulation doesn't create energy, your furnace does..
Go add some insulation and take the thermostat off the wall and let the furnace do what it did BEFORE you added the insulation.
The house will warm. That's from CONDUCTIVE heating rules. Backradiation derives from Elect.Mag. heating rules.

If I have to reduce this anymore for you -- you'll be quoting my words and denying that I said them..

Again, you can call it "net flow", hell you can call it "magic" for all I care, but you just showed that backradiation is not needed nor does it fit in the system..

LOL, and you're an arrogant ass with delusions of your own brilliance, with a massive fear of being wrong... As well as impatient with others of alternative views, and a sucker for save-ass internet scientists..

I think I will call it Net Flow because that's the proper Thermo terminology.. Sorry that makes you want to attack me. You're barely tolerable as a human being and USELESS as a voice who THINKS they are harming AGW theory a whit. You are a DENIER.. Of the worst sort... And rejecting the basics of Atmospheric Physics gives the AGW side a HUGE excuse to marginalize any skeptics..

I have no fear of you or of proper scientific debate.. Ever...

And if you paid attention to what you write, you'd see that I didn't insult you until you insulted me...

" The downdwelling IR DOES NOT overcome the net flow up... It just REDUCES IT.. It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it??? "

LOL, go back to citing SOD science and stop add-libbing... What in the hell was that? You have BS from start to finish in that.. let's start with it "it reduces it", LOL how? The energy down gobbles up the energy up? They duke it out in the neutral ground between the two? They meet in the middle and make an ether zone to warm? WTF?

Then there's this gem.."It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it???"

LOL, forgetting the fact you claim insulation re-radiates some of the energy back to it's source for a moment are you? Of course you are because that's how SOD and SPencer think works isn't it... Using the same energy twice to do the same task is not what insulation does, and if you think it is, you could effectively stop entropy at any temperature.

So does backradiation as cited by climate science exist or not? Is it re-radiating some of the same energy back to it's warmer source or not? Is it that, or is it now as you claim a simple insulator slowing heat loss sans any extra warming?

You called radiation of all things evidence of climate science backradiation, you now call insulating evidence of backradiation, yet all the while you describe nothing in either scenario regarding backradiation... DO you even know what it is you are defending anymore? Or do i sense a quiet backpeddle now?

Tell you what, you get your climate science ducks in order, and get your theory straight, and then come and try totalk down to people on it...

You're as bad as the other idiots who in their desire to "get me" can't be bothered to read their own charts.. LOL, so you want to explain how deviation from a mean gathered from 61-90, represents a record for 180 years?

ROFL..

 

[flacaltenn]

This is an hilarious thread! Could gslack be any dumber? And I see Old Rocks still doesn't understand the difference between warm and warming.

Hey flac- I have a more serious question for you. Why do you think the speed of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere affects the absorption/emission spectra? Blackbody radiation is a function of the average kinetic motion of all the molecules (temperature) but specific ab/em is based on the molecule itself. Other than slight momentum transferred (entropy is always hiding in the background) specific transfers lose no energy and 'slightly linger wavelenths' are not an option.

Missed your post Ian.. Some troll recently uncovered it for me..

I don't know that it affect the spectra of emission/abs. But speed is related to the Kelvin Temp of the gas molecules, and thus emission rates. Thus it's the other way around perhaps.. A hotter gas travels faster and emits MORE than a cooler gas.

If there's any shift in spectra -- it's tiny due to Doppler of motion and negligable -- but maybe I'm overlooking something.

BlackBody doesn't apply to a gas molecule, If it DID --- a shift in Kelvin Temp WOULD shift the emission/abs spectra slightly as shown in the traditional graphs. For a gas -- those lines of em/abs are fixed by atomic alignment. (I think)..

 

[flacaltenn]

I know where to start...

"Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. "

LOL, and that's a nice sidestep, but... If you read carefully I said "Why do you assume that heat radiated to warmer from a colder will result in the warmer object warming further?" So why doyou assume that any incidental photons that get sent back can actually warm the surface more? Are you really not understanding this or is it just that scary for you? Not all radiating heat will result in additional warming.. It's not 100% and there is no free lunch so if you call it net flow, than it must mean the larger portion goes up, not equal portions but the larger portion. if so then we must accept that some of that down welling will not make it for whatever reason, and then whatever is left, is expected to overcome that thermal gradient and emission/absorption you spoke of earlier and warm the surface more... You still avoid answering the question.. LOL

"And the next morning when the sun comes up -- the same amount of NEW energy will result in a higher surface temp because the RATE OF COOLING to the atmos. has decreased.."

And exactly where is the act of backradiation you have been defending so strongly? SLowing heat loss does not mean backradiation. What you just described was the atmosphere doing it's job minus backradiation...

Ya know -- if you'd stop the personal attacks and thought MORE about what was being said.. You might not be so confused.. You just defined "backradiation" above (where I added the bolding).. The downdwelling IR DOES NOT overcome the net flow up... It just REDUCES IT.. It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it???

But besides rejecting GreenHouse theory in Totalatity without a good reason, you're also confused by the different forms of heat flow.. Insulation reduces the NET COOLING of a classical CONDUCTIVE thermal energy flow.. Bidirectional exchange of Photons -- reduces the net COOLING of an ELECTROMAGNETIC (IR) energy flow.. Two different modes of heating. Two different set of rules in the Thermo textbooks..

No warming of the surface results from bidirectional or backradiation.. Just more insulation.
The SUN pumps NEW energy into the system and the loss rate is reduced.

Just like your house insulation doesn't create energy, your furnace does..
Go add some insulation and take the thermostat off the wall and let the furnace do what it did BEFORE you added the insulation.
The house will warm. That's from CONDUCTIVE heating rules. Backradiation derives from Elect.Mag. heating rules.

If I have to reduce this anymore for you -- you'll be quoting my words and denying that I said them..

Again, you can call it "net flow", hell you can call it "magic" for all I care, but you just showed that backradiation is not needed nor does it fit in the system..

LOL, and you're an arrogant ass with delusions of your own brilliance, with a massive fear of being wrong... As well as impatient with others of alternative views, and a sucker for save-ass internet scientists..

I think I will call it Net Flow because that's the proper Thermo terminology.. Sorry that makes you want to attack me. You're barely tolerable as a human being and USELESS as a voice who THINKS they are harming AGW theory a whit. You are a DENIER.. Of the worst sort... And rejecting the basics of Atmospheric Physics gives the AGW side a HUGE excuse to marginalize any skeptics..

I have no fear of you or of proper scientific debate.. Ever...

And if you paid attention to what you write, you'd see that I didn't insult you until you insulted me...

" The downdwelling IR DOES NOT overcome the net flow up... It just REDUCES IT.. It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it??? "

LOL, go back to citing SOD science and stop add-libbing... What in the hell was that? You have BS from start to finish in that.. let's start with it "it reduces it", LOL how? The energy down gobbles up the energy up? They duke it out in the neutral ground between the two? They meet in the middle and make an ether zone to warm? WTF?

Simpler than all that simpleton.. The rules for Elect.Mag. thermal exchange simply say that the NET FLUX is the difference of the photon flow. What is in the "field of the view" of the emitter gets absorbed by the absorber. Just simply ray-tracing like for lighting calculations. It actually IS LIGHT -- you just can't see it.. THUS the net flow is a simple subtraction of the EM streams aimed at each other.

Then there's this gem.."It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it???"

LOL, forgetting the fact you claim insulation re-radiates some of the energy back to it's source for a moment are you? Of course you are because that's how SOD and SPencer think works isn't it... Using the same energy twice to do the same task is not what insulation does, and if you think it is, you could effectively stop entropy at any temperature.

In the case of house insulation, it works only on CONDUCTIVE thermal flows. It's MATERIAL PROPERTIES that determine a conductive insulator.. Heating from EM IR is NOT conductive heat transfer and has different rules for propagation and emission/absorption. That's the crux of why your head is so fucked up.. You're not getting the difference in the rules for heat transfer via CONDUCTION and heat transfer via RADIATION.. The sun transfer heat thru a PERFECT VACUUM. The best insulator in the universe. IT IS LIGHT that we are talking about in back-radiation --- NOT heat energy..

So with a RADIATIVE INSULATOR --- it gets that property from the amount of photons it can muster to throw BACK at the source. Raise it's temperature a bit and it can throw back a bit more. THUS the 2nd law remains intact. NET FLOW is still from photons at the hotter source.

So does backradiation as cited by climate science exist or not? Is it re-radiating some of the same energy back to it's warmer source or not? Is it that, or is it now as you claim a simple insulator slowing heat loss sans any extra warming?

You called radiation of all things evidence of climate science backradiation, you now call insulating evidence of backradiation, yet all the while you describe nothing in either scenario regarding backradiation... DO you even know what it is you are defending anymore? Or do i sense a quiet backpeddle now?

Tell you what, you get your climate science ducks in order, and get your theory straight, and then come and try totalk down to people on it...

You're as bad as the other idiots who in their desire to "get me" can't be bothered to read their own charts.. LOL, so you want to explain how deviation from a mean gathered from 61-90, represents a record for 180 years?

ROFL..

No backpeddle.. No inconsistency in over 200 fruitless posts to your brain... My ducks are in a row and have been for our entire pointless discussion.. BIDIRECTIONAL radiation is how Electro.Mag. IR heating works. Some folks coined the term "backradiation" to apply to the "weaker stream" coming from the cooler object. It describes the simple math to compute a photon flow between objects that uses RADIATIVE energy --- not CONDUCTIVE thermal flow..

You inability to comment DIRECTLY on statements like the last one I made above is why you're flailing and assailing me.. You're frustrated.. You should be..

Tell me what you know about RADIATIVE heat transfer WITHOUT any reference to rules for CONDUCTIVE thermal transfer... If you're not willing to FOCUS on what I'm telling you -- we're done..

 

[flacaltenn]

]

Never said that the net exchange from surface to Atmos was anything but UP.. The atmos simply RESTRICTS the rate of cooling. Lowers the net exchange because heat stored in the atmos. exerts back pressure on the transfer upwards.

In the first place, net exchange is an unproven assumption of postmodern science.

In the second place, where is the hotspot demanded by your hypothesis?

"Net exchange" or Net Flow is nothing more than the PROPER term to describe heat flow and direction. CONDUCTIVE heat flow thru materials via DIRECT ENERGY transfer is more appropriately a flow. Whilst heat flows conveyed by LIGHT (EM RADIATION) are more appropriately "net exchanges" because of the bidirectional flux of EM energy between the bodies.

Basic Physics man.. Atmos Physics, Radiative Physics, and thermo..

If you don't appreciate that heat transfer VIA LIGHT (IR) works differently than heat transfer via direct material conduction --- you'd never get GreenHouse theory. And there's your problem..

Don't really care to discuss "hot spots" with anyone that rejects straight-up Radiative Physics.

I've posted 6 or 8 textbook pages testifying to bidirectional calculations for net flow of RADIATIVE transfers.. That's all that's required of me to do....

 

[IanC]

This is an hilarious thread! Could gslack be any dumber? And I see Old Rocks still doesn't understand the difference between warm and warming.

Hey flac- I have a more serious question for you. Why do you think the speed of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere affects the absorption/emission spectra? Blackbody radiation is a function of the average kinetic motion of all the molecules (temperature) but specific ab/em is based on the molecule itself. Other than slight momentum transferred (entropy is always hiding in the background) specific transfers lose no energy and 'slightly linger wavelenths' are not an option.

Missed your post Ian.. Some troll recently uncovered it for me..

I don't know that it affect the spectra of emission/abs. But speed is related to the Kelvin Temp of the gas molecules, and thus emission rates. Thus it's the other way around perhaps.. A hotter gas travels faster and emits MORE than a cooler gas.

If there's any shift in spectra -- it's tiny due to Doppler of motion and negligable -- but maybe I'm overlooking something.

BlackBody doesn't apply to a gas molecule, If it DID --- a shift in Kelvin Temp WOULD shift the emission/abs spectra slightly as shown in the traditional graphs. For a gas -- those lines of em/abs are fixed by atomic alignment. (I think)..

All objects emit blackbody radfiation. Even a GHG free atmosphere would warm the surface. Should we split hairs by considering BB radiation to be a product of conduction? Slightly inelastic collisions that produce radiation according to the kinetic speed of the participants?

Anyways, the surface absorbs all BB radiation directed at it from the atmosphere but the reverse is not true. GHGs increase the amount of surface BB radiation absorbed, and if a collision occurs with an excited molecule then that energy is added to the thermal total. Otherwise it gets spit out inn a random direction, some escaping and some returning to the surface.

We know by experiment that the 15 IR is absorbed to extinction in roughly ten meters. I would like to know how quickly it gets totally thermalized. I cannot see the mechanism by which runaway warming would occur. The eight percent of surface BB radiation that is affected by CO2 is already stopped within the first few tens of meters. Any further dispersion would be superfluous. The bottleneck is near-surface and countered by water transporting the energy to the cloud tops where air density negates much of the ability of CO2 to stop radiation produced by the releaase of latent heat.

Just sayin'.

 

[IanC]

This is an hilarious thread! Could gslack be any dumber? And I see Old Rocks still doesn't understand the difference between warm and warming.

Hey flac- I have a more serious question for you. Why do you think the speed of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere affects the absorption/emission spectra? Blackbody radiation is a function of the average kinetic motion of all the molecules (temperature) but specific ab/em is based on the molecule itself. Other than slight momentum transferred (entropy is always hiding in the background) specific transfers lose no energy and 'slightly linger wavelenths' are not an option.

And the fact you didn't read the graph is not surprising being the cowardly little punk you are...

Again, when you grow a spine talk to me...

I shouldn't feed the trolls but....

You are retarded. It doesn't matter what reference period you use to calibrate the anomalies. It only affects the offset and SDs, not the rank ordering.

The graph was presented in 2010 before they had the full year of data. Bad practice yes, but not the trick you think it is. At least they fully acknowledged what they were doing, unlike many other truncations and cherrypicking that can be found in climate science.

 

[Abraham3]

I received a complaint and threat from an AGWCult memeber that they would report my "Spamming" to the Mods in an effort to shut me up on the AGW Fraud

I usually ask, "If your AGW Theory is correct, why can't you show us a single lab experiment demonstrating how a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature, let alone changes the jet steams and heats the deep oceans"

This infuriates the AGWCult. Einsteins Relativity Theories are still subject to rigorous Laboratory testing and Michio Kaku has state that if it ever fails a single data point it must be discarded in favor of a new theory. Why isn't AGW subject to the same scientific scrutiny

My other new question is: Why do we insulate windows with Argon instead of CO2? Interesting, no? There's far more Argon than CO2 in the atmosphere and you'd think that for all of CO2 imaginary properties to trap heat, it would be used as a thermal insulator, instead we use Argon. But no one studies if micro-variances in Argon contribute to Climate Warming Change Global Googly Moogly

Oh, and I'm not shutting up so please go **** yourself

Who or what is an "AGWCult memeber"?

If you are not guilty of spamming, how much are you threatened by a promise to report you for it? From the headline on this thread, I thought someone was actually being threatened with violence. Those moderators must be some rough cookies.

Since your questions are child's play to answer, why would anyone (other than a child I suppose) become incensed that you had asked them?

Can you link us to an example of someone angry that you had asked these questions?