Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[wirebender]

There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory. What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs. You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir. From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.

Did you even look at the energy budget upon which the whole AGW hoax is built? Which part of it are you not grasping? It clearly shows 166 watts per square meter from the sun being absorbed by the earth. Then on the other side of the graphic it clearly shows 323 watts per square meter in back radiation being absorbed by the surface of the earth. Then it shows 356 watts per square meter being emitted by the surface of the earth. When you have only one energy source, and it is providing 166 watts per square meter and you are emitting 356 watts per square meter, somewhere you are making the claim of free energy.

The graphic clearly shows and states that the 323 watts per square meter in so called backradiation is being absorbed by the earth and thus allowing the earth to radiate more than two times the amount of energy that it recieves from the sun. Where is the energy beyond the 166 watts per square meter coming from? There is only one energy source and that is the sun so the total amount of energy available at the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter. Where does the rest fome from? Explain in detail.

 

[wirebender]

But it's not statistically significant. That's the key thing. The actual hockey stick based on the input paleo records was statistically signficant. The result you get from feeding in random numbers is not.

The national academy stated pretty clearly that strip bark proxies were not appropriate for what mann was trying to show. His hockey stick is a fraud. It is the most debunked piece of pseudoscience of the modern era.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What ol' Fritz is doing is a fancy form of lying. He states the percentage of the annual carbon flux that is produced by man, as a part of the carbon that the ocean and biosphere puts into the atmosphere, without also pointing out that the ocean and biosphere actually absorb a larger amount than it emits.

Anyone can google Carbon Cycle and see this for himself. Liars like Fritz like to use half truths to create total lies.

Is this "Theory"

"Do incremental contributions by human activities to atmospheric CO2 cause "global warming?"

Day 4: Still no Theory

It's just not science, Sparky

"It's not science" = hopes and dreams.

I mean hell, it could be wrong. Perhaps greenhouse gasses suspended in air behave differently than greenhouse gasses in fish tanks. And there is the whole ppm question of how much does what.

Question is, do you feel lucky punk?

Sorry, just had to try to use a movie quote lol.

Which is why AGW "Science" just ain't science.

Again, we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, we can replicate the Sun, we can land men on the Moon, why can't any Warmer state his hypothesis that is supposedly "Settled"

What is it that's "Settled"?

 

[RWatt]

But it's not statistically significant. That's the key thing. The actual hockey stick based on the input paleo records was statistically signficant. The result you get from feeding in random numbers is not.

The national academy stated pretty clearly that strip bark proxies were not appropriate for what mann was trying to show. His hockey stick is a fraud. It is the most debunked piece of pseudoscience of the modern era.

Strip bark proxies have nothing to do with whether hockey sticks can be made form random input. They can't be made from random input, unless you ignore statistical significance.

 

[RWatt]

The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun AND being absorbed by the ground in addition to the energy from the sun. The energy budget clearly shows 356 Watts per square meter of surface radiation emanating from the surface of the earth when the sun is providing only 166 watts per square meter.

That's true, here are some ground measurements of backradiation:

 

[wirebender]

Strip bark proxies have nothing to do with whether hockey sticks can be made form random input. They can't be made from random input, unless you ignore statistical significance.

Strip bark proxies, are not suitable for the sort of work mann was doing. They rendered meaningless results. It is as if he took temperature readings to measure distance.

 

[wirebender]

That's true, here are some ground measurements of backradiation:

Again, the measurements are meaningless. Which part of the fact that the calculations used by the instruments assume that the instrument is being pointed at a blackbody radiating into a space that is zero degrees kelvin that you don't understand?

An uncooled radiometer will not indicate backradiation because the emitter (atmosphere) is warmer than the surrounding space. A cooled radiometer will recieve an accurate radiation signal, but it doesn't tell you anything about the actual atmosphere because it, being cooled to a temperature lower than that of the emitter is receiving energy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, being cooled, it is much colder than the earth so again, you don't get any information about the actual atmosphere.

Aside from that, emission spectra from CO2, and any other gas are bar spectra, meaning that if you look at them with a spectrometer, you see the absorption and emission lines in the spectra. Blackbody radiation has no such absorption and emission lines. This also invalidates any sort of measurement that claims to indicate downdwelling radiation.

If back radiation existed, and was, in fact, radiating twice the energy of the sun towards the earth, as is claimed, do you believe that you could point a parabolic dish at that very radiation and achieve a cooling effect? Do you really believe that?

By the way, did you look at the bottom of your graphic? It says that the readings are W m -2 Not W m 2. Tell me, what do you think that means?

 

[wirebender]

.5% a year over forty years is 20%.

And zero multiplied by 20% or 40% or 80% or 10,000% is what? Carbon dioxide does not, and can not drive the planet's climate. It doesn't store heat and it doesn't make the planet warmer. It is, however, the subject of a politically expedient hoax.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Day 5

Still no sign of a theory, hypothesis, crazy notion or hunch.

Searchers are giving up hope that one will ever be posted.

We need a "Missing" poster we can put up at colleges, universities, IPCC and NOAA

Missing: Have you see the Warmers Theory?

 

[sparky]

my theory is humans will live like a pig in it's own feces and like it

 

[konradv]

There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory. What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs. You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir. From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.

Did you even look at the energy budget upon which the whole AGW hoax is built? Which part of it are you not grasping? It clearly shows 166 watts per square meter from the sun being absorbed by the earth. Then on the other side of the graphic it clearly shows 323 watts per square meter in back radiation being absorbed by the surface of the earth. Then it shows 356 watts per square meter being emitted by the surface of the earth. When you have only one energy source, and it is providing 166 watts per square meter and you are emitting 356 watts per square meter, somewhere you are making the claim of free energy.

The graphic clearly shows and states that the 323 watts per square meter in so called backradiation is being absorbed by the earth and thus allowing the earth to radiate more than two times the amount of energy that it recieves from the sun. Where is the energy beyond the 166 watts per square meter coming from? There is only one energy source and that is the sun so the total amount of energy available at the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter. Where does the rest fome from? Explain in detail.

I have never made a claim that could be construed as "getting free energy". All the energy comes from the sun. The only difference is to what degree GHGs slow the reflection of IR back to space. The rest of your post just seems to be there to confuse rather than elucidate. Why can't you argue about I did say and not make up things I didn't? Failure to argue the point in question doesn't help your position, IMO.

 

[konradv]

Day 5

Still no sign of a theory, hypothesis, crazy notion or hunch.

Searchers are giving up hope that one will ever be posted.

We need a "Missing" poster we can put up at colleges, universities, IPCC and NOAA

Missing: Have you see the Warmers Theory?

Maybe it's with Frank's brain! That hasn't been seen in years either!

 

[konradv]

.5% a year over forty years is 20%.

And zero multiplied by 20% or 40% or 80% or 10,000% is what? Carbon dioxide does not, and can not drive the planet's climate. It doesn't store heat and it doesn't make the planet warmer. It is, however, the subject of a politically expedient hoax.

Seems we have to take that on faith!!! Which side is supposed to be a religion, again? I guess we just have to pray that every scientist that ever demonstrated that CO2 absorbs IR is wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Day 5

Still no sign of a theory, hypothesis, crazy notion or hunch.

Searchers are giving up hope that one will ever be posted.

We need a "Missing" poster we can put up at colleges, universities, IPCC and NOAA

Missing: Have you see the Warmers Theory?

Maybe it's with Frank's brain! That hasn't been seen in years either!

And yet I can still see that you've not posted a "theory"

Go figure.

 

[Old Rocks]

There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory. What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs. You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir. From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.

Anyone can fool Fritz

 

[konradv]

Day 5

Still no sign of a theory, hypothesis, crazy notion or hunch.

Searchers are giving up hope that one will ever be posted.

We need a "Missing" poster we can put up at colleges, universities, IPCC and NOAA

Missing: Have you see the Warmers Theory?

Maybe it's with Frank's brain! That hasn't been seen in years either!

And yet I can still see that you've not posted a "theory"

Go figure.

You never tire of lying, do you? Everyone knows theories have been posted. What the hell have we been discussing, anyway? Anyone that buys your BS has to be as willfully blind as you are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe it's with Frank's brain! That hasn't been seen in years either!

And yet I can still see that you've not posted a "theory"

Go figure.

You never tire of lying, do you? Everyone knows theories have been posted. What the hell have we been discussing, anyway? Anyone that buys your BS has to be as willfully blind as you are.

should be a piece of cake for you to repost it then, right?

 

[wirebender]

I have never made a claim that could be construed as "getting free energy". All the energy comes from the sun.

OK. lets take this real slow so that you might be able to get it. Here is the energy budget upon which both the claim of AGW and a greenhouse effect are based.

If all the energy comes from the sun and 166 watts per square meter from the sun is being absorbed by the surface of the earth, how is it that the earth can radiate more than two times that amount of energy (396 watts per square meter) if there is no additional energy being put into the system?

See the yellow ray from the sun? At the top it says incoming solar radiation 341.3. That means, according to the graph 343.1 watts per square meter of energy is coming in from the sun. Now look at the bottom. It says, right there, as clear as can be made that 166 watts per square meter of the incoming radiation from the sun is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Since the sun is the only energy source, and the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter, the maximum amount of energy that can be radiated by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter and that would be only if the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector and reflecting every bit of energy that it absorbs from the sun. 166 watts per square meter. That is the amount absorbed by the surface of the earth from the only energy source and therefore that is all that is available to be radiated.

Now, look over on the right side of the graphic. 323 is the number and it is labeled back radiation. That means, in case you are confused, that the claim is that 323 watts per square meter is being radiated back to the earth and the graphic clearly states that it is being absorbed by the surface of the earth. Nearly double the amount of energy from the ONLY energy source is being reflected back to the surface of the earth and according the graph, allowing the earth to radiate 396 watts per square meter. 396 watts per square meter is more than double the amount of energy that is coming in from the sun.

If you aren't claiming free energy, how does a surface that absorbs 166 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source manage to radiate more than double that amount? Explain it. Describe what phisical law would allow such a thing and for God's sake, tell me why, if the energy from the sun is being doubled, why we don't simply collect that magical excess and use it to satisfy our energy needs?

The only difference is to what degree GHGs slow the reflection of IR back to space.

Sorry guy, you are off the reservation again and simply making up a senario that makes more sense to you than the actual hypothesis. Look again at the 323 colum with the arrow pointing down labeled back radiation. Look at the bottom of that colum. In clear english, written in easily read contrasting letters, it says "ABSORBED BY SURFACE".

Tell me konrad, is english a second or perhaps third language for you? What do the words "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" mean to you? How do you interpet ABSORBED BY SURFACE to mean something other than the energy is being absorbed by the surface?

Then right next to that colum labled 323 is a colum labeled 396 with an arrow pointing up and again, under the colum, in clear contrasting letters, it says surface radiation. Once more, what do the words surface radiation with an arrow pointing up mean to you?

Now, before you forget, look back over on the left and see the yellow bar touching the earth labled 166 and at the bottom of it the words absorbed by surface. Since you don't seem to accept that "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" on the right side of the graphic actually means energy absorbed by the surface, why do you believe that "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" on the left side actually means energy absorbed by the surface? What is the difference. Is there some secret code on the page that tells you that text that reads "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" on the left side of the page means the energy is being absorbed by the surface but on the right side of the page "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" means something else entirely?

Back to the yellow column that says 166. Once again, that is all the energy available because that is all that is being claimed is reaching the surface of the earth from the sun. Now look again at the column marked, again, in clear, easily read contrasting letters "SURFACE RADIATION" with an arrow pointing up into the sky and the number 396 right above the words. That tells me that the graphic is indicating that 396 watts per square meter is being radiated from the surface of the earth back towards the sky.

But wait, only 166 watts per square meter are being absorbed by the surface from the sun. How then, does the surface of the earth, which is by no stretch of the imagination a perfect reflector of the incoming energy manage to radiate 396 watts per square meter when it is only receiving 166 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source. Explain that to me konrad. Explain it to me and explain why your hypothesis is not the hypothesis being put forward by the top dogs in the field of climate science?

The rest of your post just seems to be there to confuse rather than elucidate.

Far from trying to confuse, I am describing precisely what the graphic is saying. If I am missing something, by all means elucidate. Describe in detail where I am diverging from what the graphic is saying.

I am sure that being confronted with what climate science is actually saying must be confusing to you becuase, in reality, it makes no sense at all. In fact, it makes so little sense that folks like you and rocks, and many others are making up your own hypotheses and trying to pass them off as actual climate science.

Why can't you argue about I did say and not make up things I didn't? Failure to argue the point in question doesn't help your position, IMO.

Thus far, you have not said anything that makes any sense at all in the context of this graphic which is the energy budget upon which both the hypothesess of AGW and the greenhouse effect are based. The whole point is that you are ignoring what climate science says in favor of your own fabricated greenhouse senario which completely destroys your position. You don't even beleive the hypothesis yourself but politically you must hate industry so you make up your own version which, I suppose, in your own mind makes perfect sense.

Explain yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Theory?

Here's the theory...see these tree rings...look closely...closely...you are getting sleepy..so sleepy...your eye lids are so heavy from ManMade Global Warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe it's with Frank's brain! That hasn't been seen in years either!

And yet I can still see that you've not posted a "theory"

Go figure.

You never tire of lying, do you? Everyone knows theories have been posted. What the hell have we been discussing, anyway? Anyone that buys your BS has to be as willfully blind as you are.

Lots of words, still nothing remotely resembling a theory.

Can't find one on Goggle either, right?