Energy Budgets Without Backradiation

[SSDD]

Your rejection of the greenhouse effect clearly marks you as an ignorant buffoon who's adopted a conclusion based solely on your politics and having NOTHING to do with the evidence. Truly, seriously, undeniably pathetic.

The fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can not predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere is ample reason to reject it. If the physics were correct, you could predict the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere... Politics has nothing to do with it.....you, on the other hand hold your position entirely based on politics as there is no science credible enough to warrant belief in AGW.

As for evidence...can you show me any actual measurement of the greenhouse effect? No? That''s what I thought. You have no evidence...you have faith and politics.

 

[Abraham3]

Oh get real for god's sake. You've already been shown beaucoup evidence of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation. That's proof and you're an idiot to think otherwise. Actually whether or not you think otherwise, you're an idiot, but your rejection of the greenhouse effect makes it a closed case.

 

[SSDD]

Oh get real for god's sake. You've already been shown beaucoup evidence of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation. That's proof and you're an idiot to think otherwise. Actually whether or not you think otherwise, you're an idiot, but your rejection of the greenhouse effect makes it a closed case.

Well, I admit that I have been shown a whole lot of what passes for evidence among the mind numb alarmist cult, but nothing that actually rises to the level of actual evidence. Your tripe relies almost entirely on models, based on assumptions, based on quaint 19th century "science".

That so called greenhouse gasses absorb radiation is interesting, but not proof of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Again, can you provide any actual measurement of the greenhouse effect? Can you provide any actual measured evidence that X amount of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere causes Y warming? Can you explain why the greenhouse effect as described by climate science only works on earth and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere?

Can you explain why you would continue to believe in a hypothesis that supposedly explains the temperature of a planet that only works on one planet? Do you believe the physics of energy movement in earth are somehow different on the other planets? Does the magic that alters the physics reside here, or does it reside on the other planets? The simple fact that the greenhouse effect can not predict the temperature of a single other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere is more than enough reason to reject it and look for, at the very least, a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature, not only here, but on the other planets as well...and who would have guessed, there are several out there. Your greenhouse hypothesis is not one of them.

 

[Abraham3]

Maybe it's time to return you to the Ignore List. Debating science accepted by the rest of the world 150 years ago is a waste of everyone's time. I could be doing something productive and you could be getting your therapy.

 

[SSDD]

Maybe it's time to return you to the Ignore List.

From your point of view, I agree. It must be embarassing to have someone that you call an idiot asking questions that you can't answer. Having the multitude of failures of your hypothesis pointed out to you must be distracting.

Debating science accepted by the rest of the world 150 years ago is a waste of everyone's time.

Accepting science that was accepted 150 years ago and being unwilling to discard it because it has failed is just plain stupid, and a waste of money and a danger to economies, and the very lives of the people who can least afford it. The hypothesis has failed.

Consider the number of beliefs held by science 150 years ago that today are no more than quaint anecdotes pointing out what people used to believe. 150 years later, that greenhouse effect still hasn't been measured or quantified and yet, there are idiots that still believe. Do you subscribe to aethers, and phrenology, and humors as well?

Again, can you show me an actual measurement of the greenhouse effect? Can you show repeatable experiments that demonstrate that adding X amount of any of the so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere will cause Y amount of warming? Can you even tell me what the actual albedo of the earth is? You can't actually provide anything like evidence that rises to the level of evidence suggested by the scientific method...and you can't give a scientifically sound, rational explanation of why the hypothesis has not been discarded due to its multitude of failures.

I could be doing something productive and you could be getting your therapy.

You could be asking yourself why you are unable to answer my questions if the hypothesis is sound, and the science is actually settled.

 

[IanC]

But that complexity does not refute what you found in the lab. It simply makes it an element in a complex process. And all the other elements in that process (and even combinations thereof) can be studied in the lab as well. You seem to think that real world climate processes are inherently and unassailably unknowable. That is not the case. You're just using the claim as a defense mechanism; just like SSDD's or Westwall's claim that because evidence shows some value to range between +1,000 and +10,000, the size of the uncertainty means we cannot claim the value is non-zero.

that actually sounds like your own thought rather than someone elses's talking point.

CO2 does have a small effect. Mainstream skeptics and lukewarmers all concur with that. What we disagree with are the exaggerations and the unsupported conclusions of doom.

Even though the Earth was warming before we started burning sequesterrd carbon you guys blame everything on CO2. How warm would we be? Hard to say but a lot of ice melted between 1850 and 1950. Warm periods have always been good for man yet you screech that we are all going to die.

Btyp. Clouds are very uncertain right now. They cannot be reproduced in the lab. And they are too small to be modelled. Clouds are the product of local conditions and affect local albedo.
Small changes in clouds swamp the tiny effect of CO2. You guys have convinced yourselves that the tail wags the dog. The water cycle rules. More importantly the water cycle responds to local conditions.

 

[Abraham3]

Your position that net feedbacks are negative has a problem explaining the warming of the last 150 years. Do you have a solution for that?

 

[IanC]

Your position that net feedbacks are negative has a problem explaining the warming of the last 150 years. Do you have a solution for that?

I don't profess to know the conditions that caused the MWP, LIA or modern warming. I just know they happened. You don't know either. I find it ridiculous that your side says that circa 1950 none of those conditions matter anymore and that CO2 now controls the climate. That theory is patently false and the spurious correlation of the 80's and 90's has been refuted by the 00's and 10's. Feynman writ large.

 

[IanC]

You have tunnel vision and a distinct aversion to understanding what people say. I said that CO2 has doubled 8.x times. One quarter of 33C is 8.xC. I would give you full marks for asking what is special about parts per million instead of some other unit but instead you went full stupid and said I attributed everything to Co2.

Any composition of atmosphere will warm the surface. The denser it is, the warmer the surface. The actual composition will affect the radiative properties.which will increase or decrease the warming.

You can show in a lab how Earth atmosphere devoid of CO2 is 8 degrees cooler than one with 400PPM?

Cooler? YES! The exact amount depend on what downhill changes happen from removing CO2. Life, if it existed would certainly be different.

Right now roughly 8% of outgoing radiation is dispersed by CO2. If it directly exited to space we would be cooler.

No response Frank? I cannot figure out if you are just complaining about the numbers allocated to CO2 or if you are saying there is no effect at all. Surely you must agree that CO2 makes some impacct on the radiative balance even if you think it is a small amount.

 

[SSDD]

You can show in a lab how Earth atmosphere devoid of CO2 is 8 degrees cooler than one with 400PPM?

Cooler? YES! The exact amount depend on what downhill changes happen from removing CO2. Life, if it existed would certainly be different.

Right now roughly 8% of outgoing radiation is dispersed by CO2. If it directly exited to space we would be cooler.

No response Frank? I cannot figure out if you are just complaining about the numbers allocated to CO2 or if you are saying there is no effect at all. Surely you must agree that CO2 makes some impacct on the radiative balance even if you think it is a small amount.

Go visit the open peer review web site and read the 3 papers I referenced above..then if you like, read the summary, also referenced. Those guys show actual proof that CO2 isn't causing any temperature change. Look at the proof, and then if you have a problem with it, state your case....it is, after all, open peer review there for anyone to make their challenge. They will either answer your criticism, or alter the findings in the paper if they find that you have found a valid problem with either their data or their methodology. I doubt very seriously that very many of the published papers the alarmists like to reference could make it past open peer review as opposed to the pal review system in place....considering the number of retractions....

Here they are again:

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere I. Phase Change Associated With Tropopause

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere.

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere III. Pervective Power

Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3

 

[IanC]

Cooler? YES! The exact amount depend on what downhill changes happen from removing CO2. Life, if it existed would certainly be different.

Right now roughly 8% of outgoing radiation is dispersed by CO2. If it directly exited to space we would be cooler.

No response Frank? I cannot figure out if you are just complaining about the numbers allocated to CO2 or if you are saying there is no effect at all. Surely you must agree that CO2 makes some impacct on the radiative balance even if you think it is a small amount.

Go visit the open peer review web site and read the 3 papers I referenced above..then if you like, read the summary, also referenced. Those guys show actual proof that CO2 isn't causing any temperature change. Look at the proof, and then if you have a problem with it, state your case....it is, after all, open peer review there for anyone to make their challenge. They will either answer your criticism, or alter the findings in the paper if they find that you have found a valid problem with either their data or their methodology. I doubt very seriously that very many of the published papers the alarmists like to reference could make it past open peer review as opposed to the pal review system in place....considering the number of retractions....

Here they are again:

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere I. Phase Change Associated With Tropopause

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere.

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere III. Pervective Power

Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3

No one is stopping you from making a point and backing it up with a quote from one of your links. If I find it interesting I may look at the source when I am on a computer.

 

[SSDD]

No response Frank? I cannot figure out if you are just complaining about the numbers allocated to CO2 or if you are saying there is no effect at all. Surely you must agree that CO2 makes some impacct on the radiative balance even if you think it is a small amount.

Go visit the open peer review web site and read the 3 papers I referenced above..then if you like, read the summary, also referenced. Those guys show actual proof that CO2 isn't causing any temperature change. Look at the proof, and then if you have a problem with it, state your case....it is, after all, open peer review there for anyone to make their challenge. They will either answer your criticism, or alter the findings in the paper if they find that you have found a valid problem with either their data or their methodology. I doubt very seriously that very many of the published papers the alarmists like to reference could make it past open peer review as opposed to the pal review system in place....considering the number of retractions....

Here they are again:

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere I. Phase Change Associated With Tropopause

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere.

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere III. Pervective Power

Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3

No one is stopping you from making a point and backing it up with a quote from one of your links. If I find it interesting I may look at the source when I am on a computer.

Doesn't really matter whether you are interested or not. You asked for alternatives...I have provided them. Those 3 papers are some of the most interesting reading I have done in a while...actual science going on there and real proof that CO2 isn't having an effect on the temperature.

 

[IanC]

Go visit the open peer review web site and read the 3 papers I referenced above..then if you like, read the summary, also referenced. Those guys show actual proof that CO2 isn't causing any temperature change. Look at the proof, and then if you have a problem with it, state your case....it is, after all, open peer review there for anyone to make their challenge. They will either answer your criticism, or alter the findings in the paper if they find that you have found a valid problem with either their data or their methodology. I doubt very seriously that very many of the published papers the alarmists like to reference could make it past open peer review as opposed to the pal review system in place....considering the number of retractions....

Here they are again:

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere I. Phase Change Associated With Tropopause

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere.

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere III. Pervective Power

Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3

No one is stopping you from making a point and backing it up with a quote from one of your links. If I find it interesting I may look at the source when I am on a computer.

Doesn't really matter whether you are interested or not. You asked for alternatives...I have provided them. Those 3 papers are some of the most interesting reading I have done in a while...actual science going on there and real proof that CO2 isn't having an effect on the temperature.

I asked you to be a spokesman for you point of view. If you don't want to be one that is just fine.

 

[SSDD]

No one is stopping you from making a point and backing it up with a quote from one of your links. If I find it interesting I may look at the source when I am on a computer.

Doesn't really matter whether you are interested or not. You asked for alternatives...I have provided them. Those 3 papers are some of the most interesting reading I have done in a while...actual science going on there and real proof that CO2 isn't having an effect on the temperature.

I asked you to be a spokesman for you point of view. If you don't want to be one that is just fine.

I don't claim to be a scientist...I can recognize a fraudulent hypothesis when I see one, and I believe I can recognize proof that CO2 is not having any effect on the climate when I see it. I can understand why you might not want to see anything like that.

 

[IanC]

So keep it to youself then. Deprive us from being exposed to The Truth. I just thought you would enjoy talking about it. I was wrong.

 

[SSDD]

So keep it to youself then. Deprive us from being exposed to The Truth. I just thought you would enjoy talking about it. I was wrong.

I read the material, it is pointless to talk about it if you haven't. Read it and either tell me what you think is wrong with it or that you apologize for calling me nuts for not thinking that CO2 can cause the atmosphere to warm.

 

[IanC]

So keep it to youself then. Deprive us from being exposed to The Truth. I just thought you would enjoy talking about it. I was wrong.

I read the material, it is pointless to talk about it if you haven't. Read it and either tell me what you think is wrong with it or that you apologize for calling me nuts for not thinking that CO2 can cause the atmosphere to warm.

Talk about it or don't. Either is dine (edit- fine, autocorrect)

 

[SSDD]

So keep it to youself then. Deprive us from being exposed to The Truth. I just thought you would enjoy talking about it. I was wrong.

I read the material, it is pointless to talk about it if you haven't. Read it and either tell me what you think is wrong with it or that you apologize for calling me nuts for not thinking that CO2 can cause the atmosphere to warm.

Talk about it or don't. Either is dine

Don't want to see proof that you have been wrong. I understand.

 

[IanC]

I read the material, it is pointless to talk about it if you haven't. Read it and either tell me what you think is wrong with it or that you apologize for calling me nuts for not thinking that CO2 can cause the atmosphere to warm.

Talk about it or don't. Either is dine

Don't want to see proof that you have been wrong. I understand.

No one is going to read them without traders to show that they are interesting.

Besides, I have seen your 'proof' before.I don't hold out much hope.

 

[polarbear]

But that complexity does not refute what you found in the lab. It simply makes it an element in a complex process. And all the other elements in that process (and even combinations thereof) can be studied in the lab as well. You seem to think that real world climate processes are inherently and unassailably unknowable. That is not the case. You're just using the claim as a defense mechanism; just like SSDD's or Westwall's claim that because evidence shows some value to range between +1,000 and +10,000, the size of the uncertainty means we cannot claim the value is non-zero.

that actually sounds like your own thought rather than someone elses's talking point.

CO2 does have a small effect. Mainstream skeptics and lukewarmers all concur with that. What we disagree with are the exaggerations and the unsupported conclusions of doom.

Even though the Earth was warming before we started burning sequesterrd carbon you guys blame everything on CO2. How warm would we be? Hard to say but a lot of ice melted between 1850 and 1950. Warm periods have always been good for man yet you screech that we are all going to die.

Btyp. Clouds are very uncertain right now. They cannot be reproduced in the lab. And they are too small to be modelled. Clouds are the product of local conditions and affect local albedo.
Small changes in clouds swamp the tiny effect of CO2. You guys have convinced yourselves that the tail wags the dog. The water cycle rules. More importantly the water cycle responds to local conditions.

That`s why AGW lumps CO2 together with water vapor and when they don`t then they wildly exaggerate the amount apportioned to CO2.
Most people accept this diagram as if it were actual spectral data:

It isn`t it`s just another MODTRAN model out put.
There are direct measurements by Heinz Hug and others and they show:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]

And now we got actual data for 16 years in a row confirming what Heinz Hug stated, while alarmists still cling to MODTRAN
Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: februari 2013

Modtran gives a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm. This serves as the starting point of CO2 global warming alarmism by giving the trace gas CO2 a substantial warming effect as a powerful "greenhouse gas" GHG. Experimental evidence of this is effect is lacking. Without the 3.7 W/m2 produced by Modtran, there would be no IPCC and no CO2 alarmism.

Had MODTRAN been correct it would have shown up in the observed net OLR as a trend, but it has not.

Net Radiation : Global Maps

These maps show monthly net radiation in watts per square meter. Places where the amounts of incoming and outgoing energy were in balance are yellow. Places where more energy was coming in than going out (positive net radiation) are red. Places where more energy was going out than coming in (negative net radiation) are blue-green. The measurements were made by the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.

To see the time series from July 2006 to January 2014 you have to click on the link above and play the GIF.


There is another one for water vapor, the main driver:
Water Vapor : Global Maps

And for temperature:
Land Surface Temperature : Global Maps