More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[TyroneSlothrop]

American leaders should read their official climate science report
Posted on 27 November 2017 by John Abraham
The United States Global Change Research Program recently released a report on the science of climate change and its causes. The report is available for anyone to read; it was prepared by top scientists, and it gives an overview of the most up to date science.

If you want to understand climate change and a single document that summarizes what we know, this is your chance. This report is complete, readily understandable, and accessible. It discusses what we know, how we know it, how confident we are, and how likely certain events are to happen if we continue on our business-as-usual path.


To summarize, our Earth has warmed nearly 2°F (1°C) since the beginning of the 20th century. Today’s Earth is the warmest it has ever been in the history of modern civilization.

Global average surface temperatures over the past 1,700 years. Illustration: United States Global Change Research Program

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

American leaders should read their official climate science report
Posted on 27 November 2017 by John Abraham
The United States Global Change Research Program recently released a report on the science of climate change and its causes. The report is available for anyone to read; it was prepared by top scientists, and it gives an overview of the most up to date science.

If you want to understand climate change and a single document that summarizes what we know, this is your chance. This report is complete, readily understandable, and accessible. It discusses what we know, how we know it, how confident we are, and how likely certain events are to happen if we continue on our business-as-usual path.


To summarize, our Earth has warmed nearly 2°F (1°C) since the beginning of the 20th century. Today’s Earth is the warmest it has ever been in the history of modern civilization.

Global average surface temperatures over the past 1,700 years. Illustration: United States Global Change Research Program

I love that hockey stick!!!
That's why Michael Mann won his Nobel Prize........

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I love that hockey stick!!!
That's why Michael Mann won his Nobel Prize........

The National Research Council committee report found:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love that hockey stick!!!
That's why Michael Mann won his Nobel Prize........

The National Research Council committee report found:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

Absolutely!
Erasing the MWP and LIA helps that conclusion.......

 

[skookerasbil]

https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2017-11-28-siberia-colder-than-minus-60-degrees-in-November


More AGW k00k losing...........

 

[skookerasbil]

I love that hockey stick!!!
That's why Michael Mann won his Nobel Prize........

The National Research Council committee report found:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.

"array of evidence"

 

[Billy_Bob]

I love that hockey stick!!!
That's why Michael Mann won his Nobel Prize........

The National Research Council committee report found:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.

Mann Et Al is a fraud. It attempts to remove warming periods that were just as fast and more pronounced than our current period. But then, that was the whole point of the fraud, to make people like you believe that what we are experiencing is somehow man caused and in need of their control to fix.. Its a Lie.. But do continue dupe!

But if we put it into a bit more context we find that even that lie cant fix their and your kind of stupid..

 

[SSDD]

Tell me tyrone....exactly what do you find funny about the fact that there are no data measured with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny that anyone believes with no evidence, but since you are a believer, what do you find funny about an absolute lack of evidence?

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm..........who's not winning??


http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/study-satellites-show-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/

 

[IanC]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

We are talking EM ENERGY not visible light..

But keep talking yourself in circles.. Its funny that you don't even understand basic EM wave emissions and what we call WAVE CANCELLATION. Your hypothetical "photon" is actually Electromagnetic waves. They propagate and they can be dampened much like two hoses facing each other..

But continue to show me you have little understanding of the inner workings of our atmosphere and energy movement.

I never said visible light. I used the generic term 'light'. If you would prefer me to use EMR, consider it done, and respond accordingly.

EMR does not interact with other EMR, it interacts with matter.

A magnetic field (carried by virtual photons) has the ability to polarize some wavelengths of light. Discovered by experiment and measurement, replicated over and over again, know to be true. Does this prove my above statement wrong?

On the contrary. An experiment using a light source, light detector, evacuated tube to connect them, and a moveable magnet to produce the magnetic field provided very interesting results. When the magnet was close to the light source the beam of light was polarized. As the magnet was moved away from the light source the polarization was progressively reduced to nothing. As the magnet started approaching the detector, the polarization reappeared and became progressively stronger. What an amazing result!

Polarization happens when EITHER the light source OR the detector was exposed to a magnetic field! But in the middle, where there was no matter for the light to interact with, the light was unaffected.

Funny:

You admit that energy can be present and not affect that which it passes through yet some how CO2 LWIR is magical and can affect everything in earth atmosphere.. Until you can show me how LWIR interacts differently than empirical evidence shows, good luck with your AGW Hypothesis... You have over 237 failed modeling attempts that prove your theroy false and your understanding flawed.

Be specific in your criticisms.

I claim CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation produced by the surface. True or false?

This energy is then thermalized into the total energy of the atmosphere by molecular collision, leaving only the amount of reemited 15 micron defined by the temperature of the atmosphere. True or false?

15 micron radiation is swapped back and forth in the atmosphere until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density is low enough that the photon can escape to space without being reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule. True or false?

The amount of radiation absorbed at the surface boundary is greater than the amount released at the emission height. The difference of energy between the two is the amount available to add to the stored energy in the atmosphere, which then needs to find another pathway out of the system. True or false?

I am only concerned with the CO2 influence so stay on topic. I am not defending climate models other than to claim CO2 has a warming influence, based on known principles of physics.

Bump for billyboob

 

[SSDD]

I am only concerned with the CO2 influence so stay on topic. I am not defending climate models other than to claim CO2 has a warming influence, based on known principles of physics.

Bump for billyboob[/QUOTE]

CO2 has zero or less influence on global temperatures.

 

[IanC]

CO2 has zero or less influence on global temperatures.

Another naked claim without explanation or evidence.

I broke my explanation down into three main components to make it easier for you to specify where I might have gone wrong.

Unlike you I am willing to add further explanation to counter a criticism.

Have at it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has zero or less influence on global temperatures.

Another naked claim without explanation or evidence.

I broke my explanation down into three main components to make it easier for you to specify where I might have gone wrong.

Unlike you I am willing to add further explanation to counter a criticism.

Have at it.

LOL...

Lets unravel your BS...

What is the amount of stored kinetic energy in your 14-18um LWIR? Its never been measured by empirically observed evidence. Only hypothetical modeling has shown any affect, models that have no predictive capability and are thus shown, by their lack of paralleling reality, to be wrong. Thus the hypothesis and understanding of the system is wrong.

Now how will that LWIR interact with a black-body? How will it interact with a grey body? How much energy is actually absorbed? How much energy is emitted or reflected? Again, It's never been measured and models do not reflect reality. Equipment not cooled below that of the surrounding area can not measure this and even when cooled the focal point is in question.

Now we know, by physical measurements, the mass of the atmosphere is not be affected by the lack of kinetic energy that can be stored by LWIR in this narrow band. There is no hot spot. Not even the grey bodies of the oceans are affected beyond the skin layer of evaporation. 73% of the earth is not being affected by LWIR.

The great pause is now over 23 years long even with the continued rise in CO2.

Even when your shown that your measuring devices are not measuring what you think they are, you still make wild claims that they are, without evidence. Then you deflect to the issues of hypothetical photons being 'smart' when it is a matter of known physics that colder objects can not warm a warmer one without the expenditure of energy. The mechanism of 'net' energy is incorrectly modeled because they do not know how the transfer actually works. You hypothesize about how it works but the modeling fails every time, which means you don't know what you think you do..

As for EM not being affected by other waves, that is total bull shit Ian and worse still is you know better.

 

[SSDD]

Another naked claim without explanation or evidence.

The evidence is that there is no evidence ian. How many thousands of billions of dollars have been spent researching the topic. Can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one?

Of course you can't..we both know you can't. One of us gets it enough to grasp the why. Because it isn't happening. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less. If this phenomenon that you described happening all the time at a magnitude sufficient to alter the global temperature were happening...at ambient temperature...it could be measured by instruments at ambient temperature...it can't because it isn't.

I broke my explanation down into three main components to make it easier for you to specify where I might have gone wrong.

I haven't gone wrong ian...you have. I am looking for some measurement, some observation, some actual evidence that this effect predicted by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models is real..none exists. We certainly have technology sensitive enough to measure effects that you claim are happing at the magnitude that you believe they are happening and yet, the effect can't be measured. Because it isn't happening.

Unlike you I am willing to add further explanation to counter a criticism.

Unlike you, I am not willing to believe in magic because I can't find any physical evidence to support my beliefs.

Have at it.

Have at what? What evidence have you posted? All you have done is pose what if fantasy scenarios where things are happening that don't seem to be measurable even though you claim that they are happening so often and at such a magnitude that the are altering the global temperature. You have posted nothing of substance to support any of this. You may as well be arguing in support of the aether for all the evidence you have provided.

 

[SSDD]

As for EM not being affected by other waves, that is total bull shit Ian and worse still is you know better.

Ask anyone who installs radio, microwave, laser, or any other sort of array that must interact with other arrays emitting at the same frequency if EM energy interacts with other EM energy. EM is EM regardless of the frequency and all of it, across every frequency is subject to the same laws of physics, and anyone who claims that EM atany frequency only interacts with matter is uninformed, ignorant, and simply full of shit.

 

[IanC]

What is the amount of stored kinetic energy in your 14-18um LWIR? Its never been measured by empirically observed evidence

I gave you a chain of logic and asked you which link(s) you thought were broken. Instead of answering you ask me for an amount, to an ambiguous question. I am a concepts guy not an engineer. I will give you directions on how to get the answer but you would have to do the actual work yourself.

First some simplifying assumptions, you can add the complexities back in when you do your calculations.

Sea water has an emissivity of roughly 0.95 in the highly measured and studied range of 8-14 microns. This corresponds and allows comparisons with satellite measurements through the atmospheric window. I am using the null hypothesis to assign a similar emissivity to the next door CO2 band of 14-16 microns, your extra band of 16-18 microns is probably also similar but I don't know why you include it.

The emissivity of CO2 is 0.99+ for the 14-16 micron band, and all surface radiation produced in this band is absorbed within a few metres of atmosphere.

The satellite measurements of 14-16 microns give an amount of radiation that corresponds to about minus 60C.

So the rough answer to your question is the amount of 14-16 IR produced by an object at 15C (average global surface temperature), less the amount produced by an object at minus 60C.

Obviously you would have to make many complex corrections and calculations to get to a more exact figure. And you would need much more detailed information on every location on Earth.

But I would start with plugging in those two temperatures into an online S-B calculator, and multiply the difference by the surface area of the Earth.



Perhaps some of you are saying, "this doesn't sound right, I thought half the radiation was reemited towards the surface".

When a CO2 absorbs a 15 micron photon the energy is stored as potential energy. It can either reemit the photon, or convert the energy into a different form during a molecular collision. The average time between collisions at STP is much shorter than the average time to re-emit. Therefore few excited molecules exist long enough to produce a photon. Almost all of the 15 micron energy received from the surface is converted general atmospheric energy by collision, and practically none returns to the surface as 15 micron photons.

 

[IanC]

As for EM not being affected by other waves, that is total bull shit Ian and worse still is you know better.

Ask anyone who installs radio, microwave, laser, or any other sort of array that must interact with other arrays emitting at the same frequency if EM energy interacts with other EM energy. EM is EM regardless of the frequency and all of it, across every frequency is subject to the same laws of physics, and anyone who claims that EM atany frequency only interacts with matter is uninformed, ignorant, and simply full of shit.

EMR interacts with matter which then interacts with other EMR.

If no matter is present EMR remains unchanged no matter how much other EMR is present.

 

[IanC]

Now we know, by physical measurements, the mass of the atmosphere is not be affected by the lack of kinetic energy that can be stored by LWIR in this narrow band. There is no hot spot

How am I supposed to respond to this type of garbled message?

What physical measurements?

The surface energy is delivered to the atmosphere by LWIR, it is then stored by the atmospheric mass as kinetic and potential energy.

What type of hot spot are you talking about? For CO2 and 15 micron IR the hot spot is about two metres off the surface. Two metres is the average mean free path of a 15 micron photon.

 

[IanC]

Here is a visual representation of how much energy is captured and stored in the atmosphere. The CO2 notch would go all the way up to the top line if no CO2 was present. Instead, it radiates the amount associated with minus 60C. The missing area is the energy that has to find another way out.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now we know, by physical measurements, the mass of the atmosphere is not be affected by the lack of kinetic energy that can be stored by LWIR in this narrow band. There is no hot spot

How am I supposed to respond to this type of garbled message?

What physical measurements?

The surface energy is delivered to the atmosphere by LWIR, it is then stored by the atmospheric mass as kinetic and potential energy.

What type of hot spot are you talking about? For CO2 and 15 micron IR the hot spot is about two metres off the surface. Two metres is the average mean free path of a 15 micron photon.

"For CO2 and 15 micron IR the hot spot is about two metres off the surface."

Bull Shit Ian..

The area of the atmosphere is about 9.6 kl (35,000 to 45,000 feet) up according to the IPCC and their overlords, where the water vapor and CO2 are supposed to mix and throw heat back to the surface.. You fail at even the very basics of the AGW hypothesis.

SO Ian.. You want to try again?