In Support of the A in AGW

[SSDD]

Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.

Don't forget the ultimate important outcome of observation, measurement, and quantification is the model. As in relativity and quantum mechanics, the model is ultimately more important than the original measurements because it has predictive powers that simple observation lacks.

Who can ever forget how miserably the models have failed....there is a string of failures going back decades despite constant tweaking of the models and tweaking of the data base in an attempt to alter reality to fit the models.... Oh...that's right warmers forget it on a daily basis....sometimes multiple times per hour apparently..

 

[SSDD]

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.

Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...

 

[SSDD]

So, why don't you provide a link to the climate hoaxter site that gave you the quote and instructed you to think that it "disproves CO2 as a source of heat"? Thanks in advance.

Why don't you post some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that's what this thread is about isn't it?...

Never mind...there is none and you just can't bring yourself to admit that you believe while there is zero evidence to support that belief.

 

[Wuwei]

Na since you already lost that....resonance radio frequencies are not IR....but thanks for playing......either you can provide observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW or you can't....clearly you can't...why not just admit it rather than spend all this time trying to divert?

So you are claiming that the CMB, thermal energy, is resonance radio frequencies. That is absurd and you know it. Please cite a source that says the CMB striking a warm antenna dish on earth is anything other than thermal IR.

...then aeronautical engineers apply physics to their model wings, tails ...

Of course, but you don't believe in the mathematical model of quantum mechanics. That is far more fundamental than an airplane wing.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...

Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. We went over that before a thousand times. You forgot?

 

[Wuwei]

Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.

Don't forget the ultimate important outcome of observation, measurement, and quantification is the model. As in relativity and quantum mechanics, the model is ultimately more important than the original measurements because it has predictive powers that simple observation lacks.

Who can ever forget how miserably the models have failed....there is a string of failures going back decades despite constant tweaking of the models and tweaking of the data base in an attempt to alter reality to fit the models.... Oh...that's right warmers forget it on a daily basis....sometimes multiple times per hour apparently..

In the realm of this solar system, today's understanding of quantum mechanics has never failed. You continually come out with silly statements in science, where 100% of today's physicists would disagree with you.

 

[Wuwei]

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.

Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...

We went over Stefan-Boltzman law many times. You still don't understand it. As I said many times before, Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. 100% of all physical scientists understand that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I cherry picked science? How the fk can you say that when I quoted you right out of the official warmer document AR5? how is it IIIIIIIIIIII cherry picked? You're just a soar loser. you got jobbed by the IPCC and now you can't figure out how to rip that paper bag over your head. AR5 disproves CO2 as a source of heat as stated in their own document.

"As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5.

For pity's sake!

For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18], respectively.

AR5, WG1, p 162.​

So, why don't you provide a link to the climate hoaxter site that gave you the quote and instructed you to think that it "disproves CO2 as a source of heat"? Thanks in advance.

AR5, the document that said the oceans are absorbing 93% of the "excess heat"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.

Solar spectrum (A) above the atmosphere, (B) near the Earth's surface and (C) the spectrum detectable by the eye, The x-axis is wavelength in microns. The difference between A and B represents the albedo; the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected to space. No spectrum of that seems to be available, but I'm still trying to find one. According to the K/T diagram the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere amounts to 67 W/m2 with only 10 W/m2 of that absorbed by the stratosphere.



Carbon Dioxide Infrared Spectrum

There are several transitions of the CO2 molecule that contribute to its IR spectrum and which are relevant to the understanding of its role in global warming. For an apparently simple triatomic molecule its IR spectrum is quite complex. The relevant transitions are shown in Figure 1.

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

Much more at this site. Yes, Virginia, there are GHGs and they impact the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, as we are finding out right now.

I love it... You equate potential with 'does' when empirical evidence shows it does not.

'Empirical' evidence that you never link to. LOL. All that education, and you don't know how to find a site that would demonstrate your 'empirical' evidence. Amazing.

I posted the real world data in post 4 of this thread showing the premise you gave as false.. Yet you ignore it, why?

Your premise must have results that are observable and defineable in the real world.. Models are fantasy land and not empirical evidence of any kind.

The ignorance of the left is so stunning. And that many now in the republican party who are on the total control band wagon now should send shivers down every man,woman, and child's spines.The left wing power trip depends on the AWG lie. With it being so central to their power mongering you would of thought they could have been more precise in its creation and more careful that it would not be so easily dispelled as a lie...

To date not one of the alarmists here have been able to show causation. Many possible hypothesis exist but none provable by empirical evidence and observed data. Correlation does not imply causation. This simple phrase in science is being ignored by the AGW faithful.

AGW is a Gaia Religion and has no basis in fact.

 

[SSDD]

Na since you already lost that....resonance radio frequencies are not IR....but thanks for playing......either you can provide observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW or you can't....clearly you can't...why not just admit it rather than spend all this time trying to divert?

Already been through this....review at .... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7749.pdf....full explanation for you of how CMB is detected via resonance frequency....

Not going to argue that point with you any further....if you want to detect the actual CMB signal...you must cool your receiver to about 3K

So you are claiming that the CMB, thermal energy, is resonance radio frequencies. That is absurd and you know it. Please cite a source that says the CMB striking a warm antenna dish on earth is anything other than thermal IR.

Nope....CMB is IR but it can be detected via resonance frequencies in the neighborhood of 150GHz....again, refer to the link above....full explanation...sorry this is so difficult for you....might it be that you aren't as smart as you think you are?

...then aeronautical engineers apply physics to their model wings, tails ...

Of course, but you don't believe in the mathematical model of quantum mechanics. That is far more fundamental than an airplane wing.

When the model fails....it is due to faulty understanding/application of the physics involved whether it is for an aircraft wing, or a climate model...Climate models have been failing spectacularly since their first use...cause?....faulty understanding/application of atmospheric physics.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...

Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. We went over that before a thousand times. You forgot?

So you keep saying, and I suspect you will continue to say...however, energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made....you forgot?

 

[SSDD]

Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.

Don't forget the ultimate important outcome of observation, measurement, and quantification is the model. As in relativity and quantum mechanics, the model is ultimately more important than the original measurements because it has predictive powers that simple observation lacks.

Who can ever forget how miserably the models have failed....there is a string of failures going back decades despite constant tweaking of the models and tweaking of the data base in an attempt to alter reality to fit the models.... Oh...that's right warmers forget it on a daily basis....sometimes multiple times per hour apparently..

In the realm of this solar system, today's understanding of quantum mechanics has never failed. You continually come out with silly statements in science, where 100% of today's physicists would disagree with you.

Quantum physics can't even explain the composition of the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix....The fact remains that the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity and climate science has zero observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the real world to support the A in AGW....and the models are failures......that is the state of climate science today...clearly the QM isn't helping climate science build a climate model that works...

 

[SSDD]

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.

Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...

We went over Stefan-Boltzman law many times. You still don't understand it. As I said many times before, Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. 100% of all physical scientists understand that.

What you seem to keep forgetting is that SB states that radiation moves form any object at any temperature in a vacuum...is the atmosphere a vacuum?

 

[SSDD]

Interesting to note that in the other threads, the claims of massive mountains of observed, measured, quantified evidence go on...while in this thread, specifically aimed at seeing just one piece of such evidence remains unanswered....testament to the lying nature of warmists...even when shown conclusively that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW, you continue to believe....or just lie....my bet is that you just lie.

 

[Wuwei]

Already been through this....review at .... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7749.pdf ....full explanation for you of how CMB is detected via resonance frequency....

Not going to argue that point with you any further....if you want to detect the actual CMB signal...you must cool your receiver to about 3K

Nope....CMB is IR but it can be detected via resonance frequencies in the neighborhood of 150GHz....again, refer to the link above....full explanation...sorry this is so difficult for you....might it be that you aren't as smart as you think you are?

You missed my point. It is so simple. The reflecting dish is never cooled and is hundreds of degrees warmer than the source. The CMB must hit a warmer reflecting dish, otherwise it can't get to a detector of any sort.

When the model fails....it is due to faulty understanding/application of the physics involved whether it is for an aircraft wing, or a climate model...Climate models have been failing spectacularly since their first use...cause?....faulty understanding/application of atmospheric physics.

The CMB demonstrates that cold radiation can strike a warm (radio antenna) object. Back-scatter is a fundamental premise of keeping the earth warm. If you reject back-scatter, you disagree with the physics of 100 years ago. And you disagree with 100% of all physical scientists today. And you have no way to explain how the earth can stay in radiative equilibrium.

 

[Wuwei]

energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made

What you mean is that you don't understand the science involved, and you disagree with every scientist. So you have no argument to support your OP.

 

[Wuwei]

Quantum physics can't even explain the composition of the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix....

That is totally untrue. That was known decades ago. If you really think it's ad hoc cite a source.

...clearly the QM isn't helping climate science build a climate model that works.

QM does help the A in AGW... It illustrates the mechanism of back-scatter.

 

[SSDD]

You missed my point. It is so simple. The reflecting dish is never cooled and is hundreds of degrees warmer than the source. The CMB must hit a warmer reflecting dish, otherwise it can't get to a detector of any sort.

You miss the point...the signal detected was radio waves...not IR...

The CMB demonstrates that cold radiation can strike a warm (radio antenna) object. Back-scatter is a fundamental premise of keeping the earth warm. If you reject back-scatter, you disagree with the physics of 100 years ago. And you disagree with 100% of all physical scientists today. And you have no way to explain how the earth can stay in radiative equilibrium.

And the point still whooshes right over your head....The signal detected was a radio signal...to actually detect CMB, one must have an instrument cooled to about 3K...this really isn't that difficult...CMB was first detected via resonance radio frequency...not actual CMB...

 

[SSDD]

energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made

What you mean is that you don't understand the science involved, and you disagree with every scientist. So you have no argument to support your OP.

Nope...what I mean is that energy moving from cool to warm has never been detected at ambient temperature....that is a fact...and clearly you don't understand as much as you think because you are still arguing about a detector that was collecting radio waves..at about 150 Ghz...

 

[Wuwei]

What you seem to keep forgetting is that SB states that radiation moves form any object at any temperature in a vacuum...is the atmosphere a vacuum?

You are making up physics again.