Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[SSDD]

There are thousands of studies, filled with empirical evidence that support AGW. That's why 99 out of 100 climate scientists accept it as settled science. That you hold the opinions you do is explainable solely by ignorance, profound dishonesty or both.

No...there are thousands of studies that support the claim of a changing climate...there are zero that provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...

And historically, 99 out of 100 scientists have always accepted pseudoscience as settled science till they don't...

 

[Crick]

You're an idiot and a liar. Your concepts on radiative heat transfer and the behavior or CO2 in the atmosphere are complete idiocy. Attempted to debate you on any of this violates the advice of not arguing with fools as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[SSDD]

You're an idiot and a liar. Your concepts on radiative heat transfer and the behavior or CO2 in the atmosphere are complete idiocy. Attempted to debate you on any of this violates the advice of not arguing with fools as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

And I can't help but notice that once again, rather than slap me down with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability, you retreat, as you always do to name calling, and logical fallacy. Interesting...don't you think?

 

[Crick]

Liar. I have buried you in empirical evidence. You simply lie and deny it exists. Where is YOUR evidence? Where do you see global temperatures dropping? What causation do YOU have for the warming of the past 150 years?

 

[RollingThunder]

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.

 

[SSDD]

Liar. I have buried you in empirical evidence. You simply lie and deny it exists. Where is YOUR evidence? Where do you see global temperatures dropping? What causation do YOU have for the warming of the past 150 years?

No...you have attempted to bury me under claims that you have provided the sort of evidence I asked for...when in reality, it is just more dishonesty on your part...note your claim as a reference...you claim to have provided empirical evidence..which you have...as with all warmers, you provide evidence that the climate changes...but what you haven't, nor can you produce is observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is causing it...you are either a deliberate liar...or so intellectually challenged that you can't differentiate between evidence that the climate changes and evidence that man is causing said change....or my personal suspicion..both...


The warming of the past 150 years is just a continuation of the warming that brought the world out of the little ice age. As to causation..we aren't sure...we are sure of very little with regard to what drives the climate...hell, we are just now beginning to get a handle on the long cycles and are still some time away from recognizing all the short cycles and a long time away from understanding how they affect and interact with each other...and are just scratching the surface with regard to how energy moves through the entire system...anyone who believes they can point a finger at a specific cause for the climate is either an abject idiot or a bald faced liar...

 

[SSDD]

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.

So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.

 

[jc456]

And the anti-science retard spews more denier cult insanity.

Why is that insanity?

Because the reality is that the world scientific community almost unimously affirms the reality of human caused global warming/climate changes based on overwhelming amounts of scientific evidence from many different fields of science. Evidence strong and obvious to convince most government and business leaders, the Pentagon, and the majority of the population. At this point, only the insane fools who are blinded by their crackpot rightwingnut corporatist 'libertarian' political/economic ideologies (and/or the paid stooges for some of the oil, coal and gas billionaires and top corporate executives) can say with a straight face: "to date there has been no evidence of man made influence on climate. It just doesn't exist". That kind of rejection of reality, whether self induced for greed or ideology, is definitely insane.....that is the legal definition of insanity.

insanity - n. - mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.

Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]

Sorry thunder, but once again, all you have proved is that you clearly don't have any idea what actual empirical evidence that humans are causing the global climate to change might look like.. Hell thunder, look at what you provide as evidence...

"Scientific opinion on climate change"

Got any idea what the operational word might be in that sentence?...OPINION...what you provide as evidence of human caused climate change is stated to be opinion right there in the title...It doesn't mention anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that we are causing a change in the global climate...it states an opinion...an opinion not supported by the first piece of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence. The whole piece is full of weasel words...likely...opinion....probable...judgement... The only thing they say that is unequivocal..that would be because there is evidence to support the claim is that the climate changes...and there is ample evidence to support that..but there isn't the first shred of evidence to support the claim that what changes we are seeing are man made vs natural variability.

Then you move on to this:

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.

Again....the operational word there is OPINION..once again...a statement of opinion...not a presentation of actual, observed, measured, quantified evidence...a statement of opinion and nothing more.

"insanity - n. - mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality."

You look at the above statements and apparently see observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of man made climate change....but an actual look at the content reveals that it is nothing more than opinion...opinion as stated by the author. You see observed, measured, quantified evidence when the author states that it is opinion. Reality is that the claim of man made climate change is opinion...fantasy is that there is actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the opinion. If such evidence existed, then it would not be opinion.. Just a quick glance at what you believe to be evidence is not...therefore, it is demonstrably you who is unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. If you had a grasp on reality, then you would realize that you are posting opinion rather than actual evidence.

Your moronic inability to comprehend the actual meaning of language, and your stupid attempts to spin reality around your clueless or deliberate misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'opinion', and your idiotic denial of the existence of scientific evidence that you have seen, are all just further proof of your utter insanity and of the fact that you are a denier cult troll, SSoooDDumb.

so what is your definition of opinion? Is it indeed as SSDD stated, the word 'observed'? So you believe an opinion is fact? is that it? please, cough, stop......

 

[jc456]

Liar. I have buried you in empirical evidence. You simply lie and deny it exists. Where is YOUR evidence? Where do you see global temperatures dropping? What causation do YOU have for the warming of the past 150 years?

sure you have, cough,

 

[jc456]

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.

did you say something? All I hear is white noise. get it white noise?

 

[RollingThunder]

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.

So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.

did you say something? All I hear is white noise. get it white noise?

And there go some good example of 'empty noise'.....all the way from the meaningless deranged drivel they post to the vacuity inside of their heads.

Meanwhile, This thread and its idiotic OP were still quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

 

[jc456]

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.

So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.

did you say something? All I hear is white noise. get it white noise?

And there go some good example of 'empty noise'.....all the way from the meaningless deranged drivel they post to the vacuity inside of their heads.

Meanwhile, This thread and its idiotic OP were still quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Or Not!

 

[RollingThunder]

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.

So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.

did you say something? All I hear is white noise. get it white noise?

And there go some good example of 'empty noise'.....all the way from the meaningless deranged drivel they post to the vacuity inside of their heads.

Meanwhile, This thread and its idiotic OP were still quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Or Not!

Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.

And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.

 

[jc456]

This thread and its idiotic OP were quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Everything the denier cultists have posted since then is just empty noise.

So says the guy who wouldn't recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence if it bit him on the ass.

did you say something? All I hear is white noise. get it white noise?

And there go some good example of 'empty noise'.....all the way from the meaningless deranged drivel they post to the vacuity inside of their heads.

Meanwhile, This thread and its idiotic OP were still quite thoroughly debunked in post #10 on the first page.

Or Not!

Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.

And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.

Or Not!

 

[RollingThunder]

Or Not!

Only in your insane asylum, JustCrazy, only in your insane asylum.

Too bad you are so completely out of touch with the real world, you poor delusional retard.

 

[jc456]

Or Not!

Only in your insane asylum, JustCrazy, only in your insane asylum.

Too bad you are so completely out of touch with the real world, you poor delusional retard.

so still nothing I see. OP stands.

 

[SSDD]

[
Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.

And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.

Sorry thunder....roy was debunked post haste on that little experiment...the manufacturer of the infrared thermometer he was using contacted him and told him point blank that the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..like so many climate change believers, he is apparently easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.

And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.

Sorry thunder....roy was debunked post haste on that little experiment...the manufacturer of the infrared thermometer he was using contacted him and told him point blank that the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..like so many climate change believers, he is apparently easily fooled by instrumentation.

the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..

It was measuring temperature. How did it manage to do that?

 

[polarbear]

[
Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.

And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.

Sorry thunder....roy was debunked post haste on that little experiment...the manufacturer of the infrared thermometer he was using contacted him and told him point blank that the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..like so many climate change believers, he is apparently easily fooled by instrumentation.

the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..

It was measuring temperature. How did it manage to do that?

It is measuring IR radiation but the problem with doing that with the IR gun Spencer used is that the temperature is computed by the instrument assuming an emissivity of 0.9 for everything it is pointed at.
And in add in addition to that the instrument reading does not give you a true reading of the watts/m^2 of a distant spot...which increases in size at larger distances and assumes that the entire area radiates nearly at the same intensity as the hotter spots in it. In other words the cooler regions don`t affect the reading as much as they should.
So if he points it straight up at the sky pick a distance and use 1/24 th of it as the spot radius and square it times pi. How sure are you that the entire area in that (huge) spot is at the same temperature?
Maybe some where in the middle of a huge desert at a cloudless night sky it is...but no way would it be at a uniform temperature when the terrain is not all the same...with parking lots, buildings, or forest with clearings, farm fields, rivers and lakes etc. Get the picture?
I`m also quite certain he would have seen a whole lot less "back radiation" in the mid-west and the western parts of the USA:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Actually....definitely debunked! The backradiation from CO2 to the Earth's surface is a scientific fact that even denialist scientists like Dr. Roy Spenser have to acknowledge.

And you poor anti-science retards have no evidence at all to support your lies and fraudulent claims.

Sorry thunder....roy was debunked post haste on that little experiment...the manufacturer of the infrared thermometer he was using contacted him and told him point blank that the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..like so many climate change believers, he is apparently easily fooled by instrumentation.

the thermometer was not measuring back radiation..

It was measuring temperature. How did it manage to do that?

It is measuring IR radiation but the problem with doing that with the IR gun Spencer used is that the temperature is computed by the instrument assuming an emissivity of 0.9 for everything it is pointed at.
And in add in addition to that the instrument reading does not give you a true reading of the watts/m^2 of a distant spot...which increases in size at larger distances and assumes that the entire area radiates nearly at the same intensity as the hotter spots in it. In other words the cooler regions don`t affect the reading as much as they should.
So if he points it straight up at the sky pick a distance and use 1/24 th of it as the spot radius and square it times pi. How sure are you that the entire area in that (huge) spot is at the same temperature?
Maybe some where in the middle of a huge desert at a cloudless night sky it is...but no way would it be at a uniform temperature when the terrain is not all the same...with parking lots, buildings, or forest with clearings, farm fields, rivers and lakes etc. Get the picture?
I`m also quite certain he would have seen a whole lot less "back radiation" in the mid-west and the western parts of the USA:

the instrument assuming an emissivity of 0.9 for everything it is pointed at.

And even with the wrong emissivity, it still manages to measure "colder photons", back-radiation.

I`m also quite certain he would have seen a whole lot less "back radiation" in the mid-west and the western parts of the USA:

And why is that?