In Support of the A in AGW

[SSDD]

Except that you ignore the fact that for most of earth's history the average mean global temperature has been about 8 degrees warmer than the present...and that just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is still clawing its way out of, the atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm...and prior to that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 2000ppm, and prior to that an ice age started when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 3000ppm and before that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm.

Again, having demanded evidence you hastily spit out what you requested, and, without further ado, threw in irrelevancies, as if past CO2 levels had anything to do with our current eco system, adapted to quite different temperatures, along with other morsels the climate hoaxters fed you, with very little connection to scientifically proven fact. Also, almost compulsively, you leave behind a trail of evidence for the fact that you are just hysterically blabbing, without thought and deliberation:

You think that some different sort of physics is at work today? You think CO2 somehow absorbed and emitted differently in the past? You guys are claiming that are claiming that 40ppm of additional CO2 is wreaking havoc on the climate and will eventually cause runaway warming via magic multipliers but when atmospheric O2 was orders of magnitude more than the present, we saw no such run away warming and in fact ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 well over 1000ppm multiple times.

So, how many "orders of magnitude higher", exactly, is 4000 compared to 400ppm? Yeah, you're doing your moniker proud.

Hey, if you look real hard, you might find some spelling and punctuation errors while you are busy not bringing forward any observed, measured, quantified data collected from the real world supporting the A in AGW... Boy, you really showed me

 

[SSDD]

.otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing.

Except for that teentsy little issue of how the data contradicts the 'natural variation' theory.

You poor idiot woman...output from failing computer models is not data....it is fiction. Haven't you noticed the abject lack of DATA of the observed, measured, quantified sort that supports the A in AGW? HELLO...that's what this thread is about...if you have data that shows that anything whatsoever is happening in the climate right now that it is outside of natural variability, by all means, bring it forward...I started a whole thread so you goobers could post it and so far....nothing at all. Lets see it hairball...actual observed, measured, quantified data that shows that the climate we are experiencing now is outside the bounds of natural variability.

"Natural variation" requires stratospheric warming go along with global warming. Instead, cooling. Your theory,

destroyed.

You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof? It is my understanding that a season of very efficient thunderstorms could accomplish some cooling in the stratosphere which, by the way, there has been precious little of since the early 1990's...Volcanic aerosols could also hypothetically cause stratospheric cooling....slight changes in solar output could result in stratospheric cooling...hell, the scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory say that wide spread use of hydrogen fuel cells could result in stratospheric cooling... The fact is, hairball that we don't know enough to have a handle on stratospheric cooling...we don't know all of the reasons the stratosphere might cool yet so it is nothing more than alarmism to claim a particular cause at this time for reasons that are no better than political expediency.

The he idea that CO2 or other trace gasses could cause stratospheric cooling still remains in the realm of hypothesis...it certainly has not been proven...so you offer up an unproven hypothesis to support your unproven hypothesis?...typical....classic hairball.

So, are you ever going to address the issue of your ongoing fraud, and tell us where your magical mystery graphs came from?

Already given them to you but since they don't support your dogma...you will continue to complain about them...But here are some more for you...the fact that OLR is increasing is no secret and you seem to be the only warmer arguing the fact...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The basic AGW premise is, CO2 will cause some warming. That warming will cause an increase of water vapor in the mid troposphere and force latent heat back to the earths surface creating a runaway loop of increasing heat.

Lets take it a part piece by piece.

CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.

If this was the only avenue of heat release the premise might hold water, but water is not acting like they thought.

Water vapor is not retarded by CO2. The photons slowed by CO2 are absorbed by water in the lower atmosphere and that warmer water begins to rise, unabated by CO2. This water vapor rises until its heat is released to space and water vapor re-nucleates into a droplet, falling back to earth. Some of this water attaches to heat in the mid troposphere and stratosphere causing further cooling of the upper layers.

Outgoing LWIR (long wave infrared radiation) is released at much the same rate as it was during lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and has resulted in only half of the warming that is expected by CO2 alone, this doesn't assign anything to other avenues of warming or cooling yet, further negating temperature rise that can be attributed to CO2.

Water vapor is acting as a NEGATIVE forcing in our atmosphere, not a positive one as predicted by AGW models. This is one of the main reasons that every single model fails empirical, real world, review and fail to project or predict anything correctly.

Dr J Christy

One of the main premises of AGW is a mid-tropospheric hot spot, as shown by the failed modeling. This has never manifested itself in the real world as show by Dr David Evans, Dr Roy Spencer and every satellite data set.

Dr D Evans

The absence of the hot spot indicates that water vapor is not trapping heat like the hypothesis dictates and no runaway build up is occurring. It is, infact,doing exactly the opposite of the hypothesis as outgoing LWIR measurements show at TOA (Top Of Atmosphere).

CO2 is not driving anything by empirical, real world, evidence and calling it pollution is really an uniformed and unscientific position. Without water amplification there is no anthroprogenic cause and regulating CO2 for any reason is pure political horse manure.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.

Got to say Billy, that if CO2 in fact, did that, a tropospheric hot spot would be inevitable...and there would be decreasing outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere as CO2 increased...it isn't happening.

CO2 doesn't act like a blanket....CO2 behaves like holes in a blanket...Radiative cooling is faster than conductive cooling.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.

Got to say Billy, that if CO2 in fact, did that, a tropospheric hot spot would be inevitable...and there would be decreasing outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere as CO2 increased...it isn't happening.

CO2 doesn't act like a blanket....CO2 behaves like holes in a blanket...Radiative cooling is faster than conductive cooling.

You miss the point. The physics is sound and proven in the lab. Its the fact that water vapor is not "collecting" in the mid troposphere. The amount of convective cooling increase is massive compared to the minute amount of retarding and offsets the radiative slow down.

The big hole in AGW is trapping of water vapor. CO2 cant do that and the atmosphere is using other avenues of heat escape to balance. Outgoing LWIR at TOA is relatively unchanged due to this.

 

[SSDD]

I just don't buy that it retards heat escape in the atmosphere... as the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere..the amount of OLR at the TOA seems to be increasing...this would suggest that CO2 aids in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere...It makes no sense at all to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

By the way...I sent you an IM a few minutes ago...did you get it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just don't buy that it retards heat escape in the atmosphere... as the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere..the amount of OLR at the TOA seems to be increasing...this would suggest that CO2 aids in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere...It makes no sense at all to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

By the way...I sent you an IM a few minutes ago...did you get it?

It simply slows the process up the dry column. Think of it like placing a filter in a water pipe. Without the filter the pressure is evenly dispersed and there is no restriction. CO2 acts like a filter slowing some and allowing others to pass unrestricted. The pressure will then increase before the filter due to this minute restriction.

This pressure must be released and it seeks out the path of least resistance. If there were no other outlet for it, the pressure would remain and increase over time. (this is the AGW hypothesis) But along comes water vapor which absorbs some of the heat and then rises relieving the pressures through convection. Its roughly a 2-1 ratio convection vs radiative release, but they both are radiative at TOA.

 

[SSDD]

I just don't buy that it retards heat escape in the atmosphere... as the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere..the amount of OLR at the TOA seems to be increasing...this would suggest that CO2 aids in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere...It makes no sense at all to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

By the way...I sent you an IM a few minutes ago...did you get it?

It simply slows the process up the dry column. Think of it like placing a filter in a water pipe. Without the filter the pressure is evenly dispersed and there is no restriction. CO2 acts like a filter slowing some and allowing others to pass unrestricted. The pressure will then increase before the filter due to this minute restriction.

This pressure must be released and it seeks out the path of least resistance. If there were no other outlet for it, the pressure would remain and increase over time. (this is the AGW hypothesis) But along comes water vapor which absorbs some of the heat and then rises relieving the pressures through convection. Its roughly a 2-1 ratio convection vs radiative release, but they both are radiative at TOA.

The path of least resistance is a straight path from ground to space....your way only works if you believe that the energy escaping from the ground is taking some other route...I don't buy back scatter, back radiation, back. anything...I see CO2 as a facilitator for moving energy on in a manner that is much faster than conduction...IE..holes in the blanket rather than being some part of the fabric of the blanket....the atmosphere would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses and conduction were the only way of moving heat out

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just don't buy that it retards heat escape in the atmosphere... as the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere..the amount of OLR at the TOA seems to be increasing...this would suggest that CO2 aids in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere...It makes no sense at all to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

By the way...I sent you an IM a few minutes ago...did you get it?

It simply slows the process up the dry column. Think of it like placing a filter in a water pipe. Without the filter the pressure is evenly dispersed and there is no restriction. CO2 acts like a filter slowing some and allowing others to pass unrestricted. The pressure will then increase before the filter due to this minute restriction.

This pressure must be released and it seeks out the path of least resistance. If there were no other outlet for it, the pressure would remain and increase over time. (this is the AGW hypothesis) But along comes water vapor which absorbs some of the heat and then rises relieving the pressures through convection. Its roughly a 2-1 ratio convection vs radiative release, but they both are radiative at TOA.

The path of least resistance is a straight path from ground to space....your way only works if you believe that the energy escaping from the ground is taking some other route...I don't buy back scatter, back radiation, back. anything...I see CO2 as a facilitator for moving energy on in a manner that is much faster than conduction...IE..holes in the blanket rather than being some part of the fabric of the blanket....the atmosphere would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses and conduction were the only way of moving heat out

Physics shows that all matter radiates in all directions at every temperature. Warmer objects will over power the cooler ones (1st law) and cooler ones do not impact the warmer ones (second law).. AGW violates the second law.

The path of least resistance is not always a straight line. Basic electronics should teach that well.

 

[SSDD]

Physics shows that all matter radiates in all directions at every temperature. Warmer objects will over power the cooler ones (1st law) and cooler ones do not impact the warmer ones (second law).. AGW violates the second law.

I believe the correct phrase is that physics "says" that matter radiated in all directions at every temperature...in a vacuum...there has never been a measurement made at ambient temperature of energy moving from cool to warm out in the observable world.

The path of least resistance is not always a straight line. Basic electronics should teach that well.

If we were talking about water cutting through clay vs rock I would agree with you but not on energy moving through the atmosphere...conduction is the slow route to the TOA....radiation is the fast track....

 

[mamooth]

You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof?

We're back again to that thing where you fail at understanding how science works, and have a meltdown because nobody accepts your weird illogical PC version of science.

Again, your "YOU HAVEN'T ELIMINATED EVERY LAST POSSIBILITY THAT MY MAGICAL CLAIMS COULD BE CORRECT!" is not science.

If you've got a theory that shows how naturally-caused warming can go along with the directly observed stratospheric cooling, write it up. Demonstrate how it explains the observed data better than the current theories. If you can do that, your theory will be accepted.

If you won't, all you've got is pouty cult flapyap, and everyone will just keep laughing at you.

 

[SSDD]

You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof?

We're back again to that thing where you fail at understanding how science works, and have a meltdown because nobody accepts your weird illogical PC version of science.

Simply pulling claims out of your ass is not science hairball....and you do it a great deal. If you are going to claim that every time the earth has warmed, the stratosphere has warmed you are going to need some proof....and we both know that there is none....hell, you already claimed that only greenhouse gasses could cause stratospheric cooling and there are several things that can cause such cooling besides trace gasses in the atmosphere...the idea that greenhouse gasses can cool the atmosphere is hypothesis...not proven..

Again, your "YOU HAVEN'T ELIMINATED EVERY LAST POSSIBILITY THAT MY MAGICAL CLAIMS COULD BE CORRECT!" is not science.

I didn't ask you to rebut anything I have said...what I asked for was observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world in support of the A in AGW....since you have none...you are merely attempting to derail the conversation and distract from the fact that you guys can't produce any.

 

[Crick]

The basic AGW premise is, CO2 will cause some warming. That warming will cause an increase of water vapor in the mid troposphere and force latent heat back to the earths surface creating a runaway loop of increasing heat.

Lets take it a part piece by piece.

CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.

If this was the only avenue of heat release the premise might hold water, but water is not acting like they thought.

Water vapor is not retarded by CO2. The photons slowed by CO2 are absorbed by water in the lower atmosphere and that warmer water begins to rise, unabated by CO2. This water vapor rises until its heat is released to space and water vapor re-nucleates into a droplet, falling back to earth. Some of this water attaches to heat in the mid troposphere and stratosphere causing further cooling of the upper layers.

Outgoing LWIR (long wave infrared radiation) is released at much the same rate as it was during lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and has resulted in only half of the warming that is expected by CO2 alone, this doesn't assign anything to other avenues of warming or cooling yet, further negating temperature rise that can be attributed to CO2.

Water vapor is acting as a NEGATIVE forcing in our atmosphere, not a positive one as predicted by AGW models. This is one of the main reasons that every single model fails empirical, real world, review and fail to project or predict anything correctly.

View attachment 72607
Dr J Christy

One of the main premises of AGW is a mid-tropospheric hot spot, as shown by the failed modeling. This has never manifested itself in the real world as show by Dr David Evans, Dr Roy Spencer and every satellite data set.

View attachment 72605
Dr D Evans

The absence of the hot spot indicates that water vapor is not trapping heat like the hypothesis dictates and no runaway build up is occurring. It is, infact,doing exactly the opposite of the hypothesis as outgoing LWIR measurements show at TOA (Top Of Atmosphere).

CO2 is not driving anything by empirical, real world, evidence and calling it pollution is really an uniformed and unscientific position. Without water amplification there is no anthroprogenic cause and regulating CO2 for any reason is pure political horse manure.

what a waste of time you are.

1) Define "atmospheric coulomb"
2) There is almost NO loss of atmospheric thermal energy to space as THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WATER VAPOR IN THE STRATOSPHERE Sir Fucking Atmospheric Physicist Lying Sack of Shit.
3) You go downhill from there.

 

[SSDD]

what a waste of time you are.

1) Define "atmospheric coulomb"
2) There is almost NO loss of atmospheric thermal energy to space as THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WATER VAPOR IN THE STRATOSPHERE Sir Fucking Atmospheric Physicist Lying Sack of Shit.
3) You go downhill from there.

Good for you..you found a misspelled word...got a special victory dance for that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The basic AGW premise is, CO2 will cause some warming. That warming will cause an increase of water vapor in the mid troposphere and force latent heat back to the earths surface creating a runaway loop of increasing heat.

Lets take it a part piece by piece.

CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.

If this was the only avenue of heat release the premise might hold water, but water is not acting like they thought.

Water vapor is not retarded by CO2. The photons slowed by CO2 are absorbed by water in the lower atmosphere and that warmer water begins to rise, unabated by CO2. This water vapor rises until its heat is released to space and water vapor re-nucleates into a droplet, falling back to earth. Some of this water attaches to heat in the mid troposphere and stratosphere causing further cooling of the upper layers.

Outgoing LWIR (long wave infrared radiation) is released at much the same rate as it was during lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and has resulted in only half of the warming that is expected by CO2 alone, this doesn't assign anything to other avenues of warming or cooling yet, further negating temperature rise that can be attributed to CO2.

Water vapor is acting as a NEGATIVE forcing in our atmosphere, not a positive one as predicted by AGW models. This is one of the main reasons that every single model fails empirical, real world, review and fail to project or predict anything correctly.

View attachment 72607
Dr J Christy

One of the main premises of AGW is a mid-tropospheric hot spot, as shown by the failed modeling. This has never manifested itself in the real world as show by Dr David Evans, Dr Roy Spencer and every satellite data set.

View attachment 72605
Dr D Evans

The absence of the hot spot indicates that water vapor is not trapping heat like the hypothesis dictates and no runaway build up is occurring. It is, infact,doing exactly the opposite of the hypothesis as outgoing LWIR measurements show at TOA (Top Of Atmosphere).

CO2 is not driving anything by empirical, real world, evidence and calling it pollution is really an uniformed and unscientific position. Without water amplification there is no anthroprogenic cause and regulating CO2 for any reason is pure political horse manure.

what a waste of time you are.

1) Define "atmospheric coulomb"
2) There is almost NO loss of atmospheric thermal energy to space as THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WATER VAPOR IN THE STRATOSPHERE Sir Fucking Atmospheric Physicist Lying Sack of Shit.
3) You go downhill from there.

A waste of time is answering you or hairball. Your talking points is all you have and your good with that..You cant even describe the basic physical concept of AGW..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof?

We're back again to that thing where you fail at understanding how science works, and have a meltdown because nobody accepts your weird illogical PC version of science.

Again, your "YOU HAVEN'T ELIMINATED EVERY LAST POSSIBILITY THAT MY MAGICAL CLAIMS COULD BE CORRECT!" is not science.

If you've got a theory that shows how naturally-caused warming can go along with the directly observed stratospheric cooling, write it up. Demonstrate how it explains the observed data better than the current theories. If you can do that, your theory will be accepted.

If you won't, all you've got is pouty cult flapyap, and everyone will just keep laughing at you.

You really are clueless of scientific process.. AGW is not a theroy and has not been elevated to this level as it fails empirical evidence and real world review.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ive been reading through the threads today and not one of the alarmist here have a clue what the basic hypothesis of Anthroprogenic Global Warming is.

They dont have a dam clue!

How can you defend that which you dont have even the basic knowledge of?

Its Stunning, the shear ignorance of the alarmists here.

 

[Olde Europe]

.otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing.

Except for that teentsy little issue of how the data contradicts the 'natural variation' theory.

"Natural variation" requires stratospheric warming go along with global warming. Instead, cooling. Your theory, destroyed.

As best I know, if we saw global warming due to higher solar irradiation, we'd see stratospheric warming. If we experienced warming due to, say, higher "natural" CO2 emissions, volcanoes or such, we'd see stratospheric cooling just as we're seeing right now.

The better point probably would be that "natural variation" isn't a magic claim that brings about its own evidence so as to be true and proven at all times, but climate altered due to natural variation follows some sort of forcing that ought to be detectable. There is no relevant natural forcing at the time, certainly none that would cause warming. And that's why that non-theory - rather a brazen assertion - of "natural variation" is patently ridiculous, a mere distraction and a fraud.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Gavin Schmidt is trying like hell to hide the divergence and failures of the models. A post by Steve McIntyre shows the deceptions they are trying to push today.. Its an excellent read..

Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”

 

[PK1]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.