Creator of Infamous Hockey Stick Graph Refuses to Turn Over Data to Court

[RealDave]

So, this officially ends the "Global Warming" debate. First, Climategate where they got caught lying and now this: they have no evidence at all.

It's settled, AGW is total BS

Yet another dumbass who does not know that Climategate was debunked.

And, there were more really ignorant people that thought your stupid post was a winner.

Climategate was debunked.

Exactly!
When they talked about "hiding the decline", "Mike's nature trick" and preventing skeptics from publishing........they were just joking around.

Wow. you really are this stupid.

The trick to growing great tomatoes early is to plant them against the sunny side of your house.

A "trick" can be a clever way of doing things.

This has been debunked. The idea you still believe it proves your ignorance.

 

[RealDave]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Where's the beef (data)?

Go back in this thread as your ignorant cohorts had a fit about Michael Mann supposedly hiding data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, this officially ends the "Global Warming" debate. First, Climategate where they got caught lying and now this: they have no evidence at all.

It's settled, AGW is total BS

Yet another dumbass who does not know that Climategate was debunked.

And, there were more really ignorant people that thought your stupid post was a winner.

Climategate was debunked.

Exactly!
When they talked about "hiding the decline", "Mike's nature trick" and preventing skeptics from publishing........they were just joking around.

Wow. you really are this stupid.

The trick to growing great tomatoes early is to plant them against the sunny side of your house.

A "trick" can be a clever way of doing things.

This has been debunked. The idea you still believe it proves your ignorance.

A "trick" can be a clever way of doing things.

A clever way to hide the decline. I get it. We all get it.

This has been debunked.

What has been debunked? The corruption exposed by the leaked emails?

 

[Dale Smith]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Hey, Dave....from the Iron Mountain Report that was released by a whistle blower in 1968........

"When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power"


Here is your wake -up call, Dave.......

 

[RealDave]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 137703
Narrow banding is the hallmark of the inability to hold energy. Water vapor however, has a very large bandwidth and has an incredible ability to hold energy.

Thanks for the chart.
Do you have one that backs up your claim?

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water? CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon. The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled.

The photon has cooled?

where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water?

Magic photons are SSDD's specialty. My photons are the standard type.

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

What does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it. Water is cooler than other black bodies, therefore a warmer bodies emit a photon which is absorbed by the cooler object, in this case water, which will emit a photon at its temperature wavelength. The residency time of the photon and the temperature differential (pressure) will determine how much energy is used up during its time of residency.

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows. Use some cognitive thinking skills and do the damn math...

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it.

You might want to restate this, objects don't have wavelengths.

Water is cooler than other black bodies

Ummm....what?

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows.

That graph didn't show water absorbing at one wavelength and emitting at another.

You didn't answer, what does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

And you ignored this....

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

Its basic molecular physics. A molecule will only vibrate when its energy balance is positive and energy is looking for a way to exit. CO2 can only vibrate for a 0.009 nanoseconds because its electrical bond does not allow excess energy to be retained. This means that the molecule is virtually incapable of internal warming. Water vapor will vibrate from 590 nanoseconds to over 3 seconds allowing the heating of the molecule and the residual energy is re-emitted at a slightly lower frequency due to the consumption of energy.

All one needs to do is look at the broad spectrum of water vapor emissions and ask yourself why it is..

That's awesome!

Still waiting for your proof.

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

Show me.

View attachment 137703
Narrow banding is the hallmark of the inability to hold energy. Water vapor however, has a very large bandwidth and has an incredible ability to hold energy.

Thanks for the chart.
Do you have one that backs up your claim?

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water? CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon. The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.

Hahahaha. There is nothing correct in that last comment. Usually you get something a little bit right, probably by accident, but this time everything was wrong and by a large margin.

Were you drinking or something?

You two kill me...

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules. The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object. You can bitch about why that happens "smart Photons" all you want, but the physical laws show that there is no observable, quantitative effect.

You make statements, as if they were fact, due to models that are untestable and have no observed evidence to support them. they are simply unproven hypothesis.

Water vapor reactions and energy residency times are just now becoming understood. One paper being done by the Colorado Atmospherics lab used narrow band width LWIR and injected it into a body of water vapor (cylindrical glass tube 100' long) taking note of the increase of LWIR and in what bands at various distances from the source. At just 40% humidity, LWIR sent at 16-18um showed a positive response at 22-26um. After 24 hours in a room at 80 deg F the tube had no warming. If CO2 had the powers you all like to tout then the tube should have warmed. The energy used was equivalent to 235w/m^2 striking the surface of the earth, contained in that bandwidth. Even when it was expanded to 14um-22um (the full spectrum of CO2's possible positive forcing) the spike in radiated energy was in the 22-49um regions.

SO why would water not immediately respond by radiating the same wave length that it absorbed? What causes this?
.
edit: The tube was filled at the current atmospheric mixture of the earths atmosphere at 5,126 feet above sea level pressures.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

 

[RealDave]

There is plenty of evidence.

If there were, you would be slapping me down with it right now instead of making claims you can't support.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Prove me wrong hotshot...show me some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one piece...or keep talking making claims you can't back up and look like a dupe.

By the way...I did a quick search for any post you have made that contains the word experiment...two showed up...the one where you claimed to have posted an experiment, and the post where you told me to go find it myself...

So in addition to being a dupe...you will also lie if it suits you...you never posted any experiment, you simply made the claim trying to save some face...

IPCC reports? Scientific literature?

Have you seen the temperature charts for the warmest years?

Have you done anything other than doom your children & grandchildren to a more difficult life -because you are just a blow hard asshole?

 

[RealDave]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

I'm 20 foot tall with 15 PhD degrees in Climatology This is the internet. From your posts, you never graduated high school.

What school would admit you?

 

[Dale Smith]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

Dave...oh Dave????? I just posted some useful info....why are you avoiding it?????

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

I'm 20 foot tall with 15 PhD degrees in Climatology This is the internet. From your posts, you never graduated high school.

What school would admit you?

Your an internet troll.. Now go fuck yourself...

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is plenty of evidence.

If there were, you would be slapping me down with it right now instead of making claims you can't support.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Prove me wrong hotshot...show me some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one piece...or keep talking making claims you can't back up and look like a dupe.

By the way...I did a quick search for any post you have made that contains the word experiment...two showed up...the one where you claimed to have posted an experiment, and the post where you told me to go find it myself...

So in addition to being a dupe...you will also lie if it suits you...you never posted any experiment, you simply made the claim trying to save some face...

IPCC reports? Scientific literature?

Have you seen the temperature charts for the warmest years?

Have you done anything other than doom your children & grandchildren to a more difficult life -because you are just a blow hard asshole?

Your a dumb fuck who believes anything without verifying the facts of the matter, in short your a useful idiot and a fool.

 

[peach174]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Good then maybe you can answer my question of why our sun and planets atmospheres are changing without fossil fuels.
Don’t panic but our sun has gone blank

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking | Science Mission Directorate

 

[RealDave]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Hey, Dave....from the Iron Mountain Report that was released by a whistle blower in 1968........

"When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power"


Here is your wake -up call, Dave.......

A wake up call?

I have news, in 1968 pollution was rampant & it was

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the chart.
Do you have one that backs up your claim?

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water? CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon. The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled.

The photon has cooled?

where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water?

Magic photons are SSDD's specialty. My photons are the standard type.

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

What does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it. Water is cooler than other black bodies, therefore a warmer bodies emit a photon which is absorbed by the cooler object, in this case water, which will emit a photon at its temperature wavelength. The residency time of the photon and the temperature differential (pressure) will determine how much energy is used up during its time of residency.

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows. Use some cognitive thinking skills and do the damn math...

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it.

You might want to restate this, objects don't have wavelengths.

Water is cooler than other black bodies

Ummm....what?

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows.

That graph didn't show water absorbing at one wavelength and emitting at another.

You didn't answer, what does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

And you ignored this....

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

That's awesome!

Still waiting for your proof.

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

Show me.

View attachment 137703
Narrow banding is the hallmark of the inability to hold energy. Water vapor however, has a very large bandwidth and has an incredible ability to hold energy.

Thanks for the chart.
Do you have one that backs up your claim?

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water? CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon. The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.

Hahahaha. There is nothing correct in that last comment. Usually you get something a little bit right, probably by accident, but this time everything was wrong and by a large margin.

Were you drinking or something?

You two kill me...

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules. The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object. You can bitch about why that happens "smart Photons" all you want, but the physical laws show that there is no observable, quantitative effect.

You make statements, as if they were fact, due to models that are untestable and have no observed evidence to support them. they are simply unproven hypothesis.

Water vapor reactions and energy residency times are just now becoming understood. One paper being done by the Colorado Atmospherics lab used narrow band width LWIR and injected it into a body of water vapor (cylindrical glass tube 100' long) taking note of the increase of LWIR and in what bands at various distances from the source. At just 40% humidity, LWIR sent at 16-18um showed a positive response at 22-26um. After 24 hours in a room at 80 deg F the tube had no warming. If CO2 had the powers you all like to tout then the tube should have warmed. The energy used was equivalent to 235w/m^2 striking the surface of the earth, contained in that bandwidth. Even when it was expanded to 14um-22um (the full spectrum of CO2's possible positive forcing) the spike in radiated energy was in the 22-49um regions.

SO why would water not immediately respond by radiating the same wave length that it absorbed? What causes this?
.

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules.

Excellent! We agree, SSDD's smart photon "idea" is BS.

The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object.

Sounds interesting! Can you post this "law of thermal dynamics" that backs your claim?

 

[RealDave]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Hey, Dave....from the Iron Mountain Report that was released by a whistle blower in 1968........

"When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power"


Here is your wake -up call, Dave.......

Pollution was rampant in 1968. there were health issues because of it.

The idea you cling to this as significant has made me laugh & laugh.

So, you think pollution of our air & water can not be a threat to our survival? We can pollute all we want?

 

[mamooth]

What school would admit you?

We've asked that question of Billy many times. He refuses to answer.

He also won't explain how someone with no science education (his background is criminal law) got accepted into a science doctoral program.

That is, Billy just makes everything up. If it comes from Billy, it's always openly fraudulent.

 

[RealDave]

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

I'm 20 foot tall with 15 PhD degrees in Climatology This is the internet. From your posts, you never graduated high school.

What school would admit you?

Your an internet troll.. Now go fuck yourself...

So, you don't know what university where you are working on your doctorate?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What school would admit you?

We've asked that question of Billy many times. He refuses to answer.

He also won't explain how someone with no science education (his background is criminal law) got accepted into a science doctoral program.

That is, Billy just makes everything up. If it comes from Billy, it's always openly fraudulent.

LOL

Says the ever lying kitten...

 

[RealDave]

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Good then maybe you can answer my question of why our sun and planets atmospheres are changing without fossil fuels.
Don’t panic but our sun has gone blank

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking | Science Mission Directorate

Wow, that was a really stupid post.

Our climate is based on many factors. Our planet has been around long before man & went through any climate changes.

None of this means that man can't also be a factor.