Arctic Ice

[SSDD]

CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.

Just more raw, anti-science denier cult insanity!

Says the emotionally disturbed glassy eyed chanting cult member.

 

[Crick]

CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.

This is, of course, based on your nonsensical claim that the atmosphere will not radiate towards the surface of the planet; an idea that has occurred to not a single other human being on the planet and which is flatly refuted by every shred of thermodynamic science in existence.

You're stupid and insane.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.

This is, of course, based on your nonsensical claim that the atmosphere will not radiate towards the surface of the planet; an idea that has occurred to not a single other human being on the planet and which is flatly refuted by every shred of thermodynamic science in existence.

You're stupid and insane.

And yet, all the kings horses and all the kings men can't seem to measure your imaginary back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature....only with an instrument cooler than the atmosphere, and once again, that isn't back radiation..that is merely energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...

it can't be measured and yet you believe....clearly it is you who are stupid...and gullible..

 

[Crick]

When those instruments are manufactured, they are calibrated with a source whose output is calculated from first principles. Those instruments pass those calibrations. Your contention is ignorant nonsense.

Let's say I have two bodies, A and B made of the same material, placed within sight of each other in a large empty universe. A is hotter than B

Mainstream science says:

• A radiates in all directions based on its temperature
• B radiates in al directions based on its temperature
• A receives some of B's emissions
• B receives some of A' emissions
• The NET exchange leads to A cooling off and B growing warmer

Same Shit Different Day says:

• A radiates selectively, sending B an amount of radiation equivalent to it's unobstructed emissions MINUS B's unobstructed emissions
• B radiates selectively, sending A no radiation whatsoever
• Their aim and energy throttling are perfect, no matter what the distance between them or their relative motion. That is, They could be moving past each other at just slightly below light-speed but will still be able to PREDICT what the other body's position and temperature will be when it is struck at some future moment by current emissions. And, it is able to use this information to throttle and aim its own emissions quickly enough to follow a near light-speed encounter or an object on the other side of the universe.
• B receives A's restricted emissions
• A receives nothing from B
• The NET exchange leads to A cooling off and B growing warmer at PRECISELY the same rate as predicted by mainstream science.

Now then, why don't you look up William of Occam and his razor and let us know what HE would have to say about this choice?

 

[SSDD]

When those instruments are manufactured, they are calibrated with a source whose output is calculated from first principles. Those instruments pass those calibrations. Your contention is ignorant nonsense.

They measure nothing more than the temperature changes of an internal thermopile...they are not measuring back radiation, and no amount of internal gymnastics will ever make that claim true...

 

[Crick]

I'm afraid that's only true in SameShitWorld. Out here, it's perfectly possible because it happens every instant of every day.

 

[SSDD]

I'm afraid that's only true in SameShitWorld. Out here, it's perfectly possible because it happens every instant of every day.

What happens every day is idiots fool themselves with instrumentation....again, the only thing being measured is the temperature changes of an internal thermopile...all that data can possibly prove is that the temperature of the thermopile changed...nothing more...and only an abject idiot would assume that there is only one reason the temperature of that thermopile would change...

 

[Crick]

Let's hear all the other reasons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to question all the climate information that came out of the government during the Obama Administration; it needs to be rechecked and then checked again.

 

[Crick]

From Evans et al 2006. Methodology
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
2. METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm^-1 and 0.02 cm^-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogen cooled, narrow-band, mercury cadmium telluride (MCT) detector with a 1 mm^2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm^-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10^-9 W/(cm^2 sr cm^-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

Now then, let's hear your complaints.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Chart with no temperature axis "proves" CO2 raises temperature.

Sure

 

[SSDD]

From Evans et al 2006. Methodology
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
2. METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm^-1 and 0.02 cm^-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogen cooled, narrow-band, mercury cadmium telluride (MCT) detector with a 1 mm^2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm^-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10^-9 W/(cm^2 sr cm^-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

View attachment 115887

Now then, let's hear your complaints.

No complaint....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.

 

[SSDD]

Chart with no temperature axis "proves" CO2 raises temperature.

Sure

He also didn't note that, as I have been telling him since I got here that the instrument is cooled with liquid nitrogen... that in order to measure what is mistakenly called back radiation from the atmosphere you have to have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't measuring back radiation, you are just measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an identical instrument with the cooling system off right next to the cooled one and it won't register any back radiation at all.. because it is warmer than the atmosphere and energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

 

[Crick]

No complaint....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.

Terribly sorry old chap, but you cannot refute hard science with fantasy bullshit and that is EXACTLY what your contentions re radiative heat transfer are: FANTASY BULLSHIT.

 

[SSDD]

No complaint....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.

Terribly sorry old chap, but you cannot refute hard science with fantasy bullshit and that is EXACTLY what your contentions re radiative heat transfer are: FANTASY BULLSHIT.

And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...believing that you can is the fantasy....as evidenced by your attempt to claim that sensors that measure nothing more than the temperature changes of an internal thermopile are measuring back radiation....they aren't...the numbers they provide are nothing more than the results of running the amount and rate of the temperature change through a flawed mathematical model...one based on another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....

 

[Crick]

Sorry, but mainstream science says you're talking out your anal orifice. That data is good. The greenhouse effect is quite real. Human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. Period.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry, but mainstream science says you're talking out your anal orifice. That data is good. The greenhouse effect is quite real. Human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. Period.

Mainstream science has said a lot of things that turned out to be false...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science..

 

[mamooth]

And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere..

And I've pointed out you're a lying sack of shit, as cheap uncooled consumer electronics show that backradiation with great precision.

Everyone knows you're lying about this. So why do you persist with your charade?

 

[SSDD]

And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere..

And I've pointed out you're a lying sack of shit, as cheap uncooled consumer electronics show that backradiation with great precision.

Everyone knows you're lying about this. So why do you persist with your charade?

Sorry hairball...but you are wrong...as usual.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball...but you are wrong...as usual.

How about you explain why, instead of just crying at me?

You can't use your "thermopiles!" excuse, because they have no thermopiles.

These cameras clearly show details of the cold sky that's miles away, so clearly it's not from local heating of the camera.

Your theory says it can't work. But it does, so your theory is clearly wrong.

Until you can tell us how a common uncooled IR camera gets detailed images of a cold sky that's miles away, your theory will remain obvious dogshit.