Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[SSDD]

It seems that once again climate science demonstrates that it is in fact, climate pseudoscience and gets it all wrong.

A new paper published in the PNAS draws a great big bullseye on yet another failure of climate science...this time the failure is monumental and if climate science were anything like actual science would be signal to scrap every climate model in existence and go back to the drawing board.....of course, that won't happen, but we all know that climate science isn't really anything like actual science....don't we?

The authors of this paper point out that the present crop of climate models simply assume (a recurring theme in climate science) that the worlds oceans are 100% efficient when it comes to absorbing and emitting energy on the far infrared side of the spectrum.....far infrared defined as 15 - 100 microns. This is important because the peak absorption/emission by the killer greenhouse gas CO2 is......wait for it.......15 microns. Surprise surprise, it turns out that this is not the case at all and according to climate science, this was previously unknown. Imagine that...unknown that the energy supposedly radiated down to the ocean from the cooler atmosphere by CO2 could not be absorbed by the oceans even if it were being radiated down to the warmer ocean.

This paper finds that water is a very poor emitter of far infrared energy and in turn is also a very poor absorber of far infrared. Unsurprisingly, as nature would have it, poor emitters/absorbers of IR energy are very good reflectors of that same IR.

At this point, the $64 dollar question should be why was this previously "unknown" by climate science considering the well known fact that IR can only penetrate a few microns into the surface which means that all the IR from greenhouse gasses absorbed by the oceans is used up causing evaporation which has a cooling effect...not warming.

So, if we take the fact that the oceans are not absorbing IR in the wavelength of killer CO2 along with the fact that the wavelengths of incoming solar radiation can penetrate the oceans up to 100 meters, thinking people will come to the conclusion that any warming happening in the ocean is a result of changes in incoming solar radiation....not changes in a greenhouse gas that has no effect anyway....and if changes in solar radiation are the cause of changes in ocean heat content, then what else are changes in solar radiation responsible for?

The missing heat, isn't missing...it is gone...right out into space as indicated by increased outgoing LW radiation at the top of the atmosphere...it certainly is not in the oceans.

Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate

Couple this with a new paper to be published in Progress in Physics which provides quantitative evidence that emissivity of water vapor which is equal to absorption decreases with temperature increase....the opposite of a blackbody...which by the way, are what climate models assume the earth is....there is that assumption thing again. Us skeptics have been saying for years that climate science is built upon assumption after assumption after assumption...turns out that us skeptics are right.

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-38-05.PDF

 

[Crick]

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Significance
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow. This leads to a decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count. This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?

 

[mamooth]

I'm wondering why he lied by claiming the paper said water was a poor absorber of IR, given how nothing in the paper suggests such a crazy thing.

SSDD, why did you attempt such a brazen lie? If you're not lying, simply shame us all by pointing out where that paper talks about IR absorption.

He's still babbling about how IR can't warm the oceans because it doesn't penetrate deeply, but now he's also claiming that IR doesn't penetrate at all. SSDD, could you settle on just a single kook theory, instead of two contradicting kook theories?

 

[SSDD]

I'm wondering why he lied by claiming the paper said water was a poor absorber of IR, given how nothing in the paper suggests such a crazy thing.

SSDD, why did you attempt such a brazen lie? If you're not lying, simply shame us all by pointing out where that paper talks about IR absorption.

He's still babbling about how IR can't warm the oceans because it doesn't penetrate deeply, but now he's also claiming that IR doesn't penetrate at all. SSDD, could you settle on just a single kook theory, instead of two contradicting kook theories?

Maybe you shouldn't interrupt grownup conversations...You missed the entire point, but that's nothing new...in fact, it's probably in large part why you have fallen for the hoax....Sea water is a poor absorber of the far infrared spectrum...that being the 15 to 100 micron wavelengths....I am sure that you miss the significance of that, but it is the primary wavelength that CO2 radiates....therefore sea water can not absorb IR from CO2 even if radiation moved from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ocean...

 

[SSDD]

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Significance
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow. This leads to a decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count. This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?

You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment, but then being wrong is what you do best. Guess why that is why you have fallen for the hoax.

 

[mamooth]

Sea water is a poor absorber of the far infrared spectrum.

You have provided zero evidence for that insane claim.

And it's not tough to look up. The thing you want is a spectral reflectance curve for liquid water.

Search, search, search .... here's one. Liquid water has essentially zero reflectance at all wavelengths above 0.75 uM, a spot in the near IR. In the medium and far IR, water absorbs 100%. Hence, your conspiracy go boom.

Out of curiosity, is this another part of science that must be a vast global conspiracy, or were you just wrong? Remember, you have a fallback position. You can still abandon this error and do a fast retreat to your "but all the IR is absorbed in the first millimeter, so it can't cause warming!" bad science.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSo DDumb strikes out again. Totally stupid interpretation of a pretty straight up scientific paper. Damn, I would not let that fucking dummy near a machine with a set of instructions. It would never run again.

 

[SSDD]

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Significance
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow. This leads to a decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count. This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?

OK, just for a minute, lets pretend that you are marginally more intelligent than a bleating, insensate calf and have some small amount of critical thinking skills. This episode is a prime example of the blatant ignorance, and stupidity of those calling themselves climate scientists and those who blindly believe what they say.

I am going to guess that you highlighted this sentence [amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow.] because you find some special significance there...and I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you believe that lower far IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces will actually lead to a decrease in surface emission at far IR wavelengths.

This is the sort of abject stupidity that is unavoidable when people with an education in the soft sciences with political agendas come up against actual science and the laws of nature.

The idiot above, and you in turn believe that low far IR emissivity results in more warming. I would ask why, but it is clear why you and the pseudoscientist who wrote the paper think so. It is because you are both idiots.

Ever hear of Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Emissivity? Of course you haven't...or if you have, you have no idea what it says...ditto for the person who wrote that a decrease in surface emission at far IR wavelengths will result in reduced cooling. Kirchhoff's law says that emissivity of an object must equal its absorptivity at every wavelength. Now put your thinking cap on for just a minute and think about what that means. Emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths.

Your idiot climate scientist, like all climate scientists and climate modelers assume that the earth is a black body and that the oceans like all other surfaces are 100% efficient absorbers and emitters. So now they find that the oceans have low emissivity at far IR wavelengths so they immediately assume that that must equal more warming....because he, and you are still assuming 100% absorptivity....

Emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths... CO2's peak wavelength is 15 microns....far IR wavelength....oceans have poor emissivity at far IR wavelengths.....emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths...if the oceans have poor emissivity at far IR wavelengths, what does Kirchhoff's Law tell us about what the absorptivity of the oceans at the far IR wavelengths? It tells us that the oceans are equally poor absorbers at the far IR wavelengths...and being poor absorbers at the far IR wavelengths...the primary wavelength of CO2 emissions in particular, it is an undeniable fact that CO2 in the atmosphere...no matter how much is there is not causing warming of the oceans....even if it were possible that IR could move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer oceans.

Now you have demonstrated before that you are perfectly willing to disregard physical laws in favor of your dogma...will you also disregard Kirchhoff's Law and continue to believe that the oceans absorb plenty of far IR but are poor emitters of far IR?

 

[SSDD]

Sea water is a poor absorber of the far infrared spectrum.

You have provided zero evidence for that insane claim.

And it's not tough to look up. The thing you want is a spectral reflectance curve for liquid water.

Search, search, search .... here's one. Liquid water has essentially zero reflectance at all wavelengths above 0.75 uM, a spot in the near IR. In the medium and far IR, water absorbs 100%. Hence, your conspiracy go boom.

Out of curiosity, is this another part of science that must be a vast global conspiracy, or were you just wrong? Remember, you have a fallback position. You can still abandon this error and do a fast retreat to your "but all the IR is absorbed in the first millimeter, so it can't cause warming!" bad science.

Sorry hairball, but you are wrong again.

IR emitted by CO2 can not even penetrate the ocean surface to a depth of 10 microns...and having low emissivity, must, according to Kirchhoff's Law must also have low absorptivity.

 

[SSDD]

SSo DDumb strikes out again. Totally stupid interpretation of a pretty straight up scientific paper. Damn, I would not let that fucking dummy near a machine with a set of instructions. It would never run again.

Seems that none of you can grasp the fact that low emissivity must also mean low absorptivity...the heat is not hiding in the oceans...it is in space as evidenced by the increasing outgoing LW at the TOA.

 

[Old Rocks]

Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate

Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

2 K, 10 Wm^-2, 15% after only 25 years.

Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.

 

[SSDD]

Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.

Positive because the idiots haven't considered Kirchhoff's law....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity at every wavelength...clearly you aren't able to grasp the implications of that fact any more than the idiot who wrote it.... If sea water is a poor absorber in the far IR wavelengths...exactly which energy is the poor emissivity storing? Poor emissivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2 equals poor absorptivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2....In your own words, what does that mean to the claim that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?

 

[SSDD]

The AGW hypothesis is dying the death of 1000 cuts and you wackos are to blind to see it

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Significance
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow. This leads to a decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count. This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?

Water vapor has been shown to be a negative forcing where CO2 is concerned. As the papers point out the emissivity of the sea water is incapable of absorption.

The question should be How Did YOU get so stupid? To much kookaid?

 

[Crick]

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Significance
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow. This leads to a decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count. This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?

OK, just for a minute, lets pretend that you are marginally more intelligent than a bleating, insensate calf and have some small amount of critical thinking skills. This episode is a prime example of the blatant ignorance, and stupidity of those calling themselves climate scientists and those who blindly believe what they say.

I am going to guess that you highlighted this sentence [amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow.] because you find some special significance there...and I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you believe that lower far IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces will actually lead to a decrease in surface emission at far IR wavelengths.

Wrong. I highlighted it because it says "amplifies... warming..."

This is the sort of abject stupidity that is unavoidable when people with an education in the soft sciences with political agendas come up against actual science and the laws of nature.

That's the first time I've ever hear ocean engineering called a "soft science".

The idiot above, and you in turn believe that low far IR emissivity results in more warming. I would ask why, but it is clear why you and the pseudoscientist who wrote the paper think so. It is because you are both idiots.

Reduced emission means reduced radiative cooling. Get it?

 

[Crick]

The AGW hypothesis is dying the death of 1000 cuts and you wackos are to blind to see it

You are one profoundly stupid person.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball, but you are wrong again.

That's for _snow_, you complete imbecile. Those of 3-digit intelligence, which clearly excludes you, understand that "snow" and "water" are different things.

IR emitted by CO2 can not even penetrate the ocean surface to a depth of 10 microns...

More than that, but close enough.

and having low emissivity,

"Low emissivity" does not follow in any way from "Does not penetrate deeply". The two subjects are totally unrelated. You're just babbling.

must, according to Kirchhoff's Law must also have low absorptivity.

Except it doesn't have low emissivity, hence you fail.

Let's get back to what you're running from.

We have directly measured the spectral reflectance curve of liquid water. Therefore, we know water absorbs all longwave IR.

You can babble your idiot physics all you want, but the measurements will still show how liquid water absorbs all longwave IR.

Therefore, I ask again. Do you claim those measurements are a fraud and a conspiracy?

Oh, you're getting Kirchoff's totally wrong as well, but your wrongness there is a whole other topic. Suffice it to say how we're impressed that you can fail so completely at such a wide variety of things. It takes hard work and dedication to be as wrong as you are.

 

[SSDD]

Wrong. I highlighted it because it says "amplifies... warming..."

Again, an example of the incredible level of stupidity throughout climate science....the moron thinks it amplifies warming because he is still assuming that sea water is 100% efficient at absorbing far IR....he failed to consider Kirchhoff's law. He failed to consider....or just didn't know that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....if sea water is a very poor absorber of far IR, exactly how do you suppose the fact that it is also a poor emitter of far IR amplifys warming?

Reduced emission means reduced radiative cooling. Get it?

Not if reduced emission also equals reduced absorption....emission must equal absorption at all wavelengths...which part of that is so difficult to understand....reduced emission would only equal reduced radiative cooling if there were no corresponding decrease in absorption.

Tell me crick...what does the fact that more than 70% of the earth's surface is a very poor absorber of the peak radiative frequency of CO2 do to the AGW hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball, but you are wrong again.

That's for _snow_, you complete imbecile. Those of 3-digit intelligence, which clearly excludes you, understand that "snow" and "water" are different things.

Can't read a chart any better than crick I see....see the purple line...now see the legend in the lower right hand corner....purple = ocean....now see the absorptivity of ocean at 15 microns....now compare that to the red line which is in fact snow...

Except it doesn't have low emissivity, hence you fail.

Sorry, but your inability to read a chart doesn't alter physical laws....if sea water has low emissivity of far IR, it must also have low absorptivity of far IR...Tell me hairball, what does the fact that more than 70% of the earth's surface has very poor absorptivity to the peak radiating wavelength of CO2 do to the AGW hypothesis...and the greenhouse effect for all of that?

And by the way, materials with poor absorptivity must have high reflectivity at every wavelength...and I guess you missed the part about little being known to date about far IR....that also applies to your claim of reflectivity.

 

[mamooth]

Can't read a chart any better than crick I see....see the purple line...now see the legend in the lower right hand corner....purple = ocean....now see the absorptivity of ocean at 15 microns....now compare that to the red line which is in fact snow..

You're right, I messed up there. I should have pointed out that an emissivity plot has jack to do with reflectance. Your misunderstanding of Kirchoff's is as amusing as your misunderstanding of the Second Law.

Sorry, but your inability to read a chart doesn't alter physical laws....if sea water has low emissivity of far IR, it must also have low absorptivity of far IR.

Yet liquid water still absorbs 100% of longwave IR. Reflectance is zero. Since the real world contradicts your claims, you might want to consider that your claims are kind of totally wrong.

Again, are you claiming the past century of science in this field is all a hoax?