OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[Sunsettommy]

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Your prediction failed to produce. Thus the theory fails..

They keep ignoring the AGW based modeling failures over and over.

 

[Billy_Bob]

greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Th

Prove it!

Recent papers show this number a total farce and deception. One states "the effect of CO2 can not be determined due to natural variations and noise in the climactic system". Holmes Et Al.

Its effect can not be differentiated from NOISE.......

 

[Sunsettommy]

greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Th

Prove it!

Recent papers show this number a total farce and deception. One states "the effect of CO2 can not be determined due to natural variations and noise in the climactic system". Holmes Et Al.

Its effect can not be differentiated from NOISE.......

It is a lie since it only warms when there is an El-Nino ongoing. That has been the story since 1979.

 

[SSDD]

"

Can you read? Look at the top of your graphic... Radiation "Transmitted" by the Atmosphere. Do you have any idea what transmit means? Here, let me help you out. According to the science dictionary, in the field of physics, this is how the word is applied. Transmit - 1. to cause (light, heat, sound, etc.) to pass through a medium. 2. to convey or pass along (an impulse, force, motion, etc.). 3.to permit (light, heat, etc.) to pass through.

Do you need help with the term "pass through" also. Note that it doesn't say radiation "ABSORBED" by the atmosphere...which would imply the possibility of warming...it says transmitted meaning that they aid IR in passing through the atmosphere. The stupid just never stops with you.

I ask for a bit of evidence establishing a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere and you provide me with a graphic that shows how the gasses in question aid IR in passing through the atmosphere rather than being absorbed by the atmosphere.

This is what I have been talking about all along crick...what passes for evidence in your mind isn't...you wouldn't know what evidence that supports AGW...or evidence that establishes a link between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere would even look like...You simply accept what you are told and parrot it to whoever will listen even when it the clear and explicit labelling says that it is not showing anything like an ability to warm the atmosphere...

 

[SSDD]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Right, but we have no data even telling when those experiments were done, and they may have noticed a starting trend and doubled down on it.

Oh, there is data. Warmers just choose to ignore it. Tyndall, one of the so called "fathers" of the greenhouse hypothesis had this to say regarding carbonic acid gas...or as we know it CO2.. "Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources" That was in reference to experiments where he passed "calorific rays" (infrared radiation) through copper tubes filled with various gasses to see how they reacted.....how much they absorbed and how much they radiated...and he was working with concentrations in the range of 80,000ppm... He characterized CO2 as one of the feeblest absorbers of infrared radiation but warmers simply ignore that inconvenient bit of scientific history.

He further noted, in reference to the behavior of CO2 in his experiments..." Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays". Meaning that even when he cranked up the heat, the temperature of CO2 didn't change in any significant way.

We (as in I and others) replicated these experiments this year in the lab. We confirmed his findings. We were amazed to find that the atmosphere failed to warm at all with water vapor concentrations below 10%. After three days of narrow LWIR energy pass nothing warmed.

All you had to do was ask any engineering firm involved with design and application of infrared heating...they could have provided you with a million hours of testing, observation, and commercial application showing definitively that IR can not warm the air.

 

[SSDD]

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

Sorry crick....but outgoing long wave is increasing...has been for quite some time....as your chart shows...so called greenhouse gasses transmit IR through the atmosphere...more greenhouse gasses, more IR is transmitted through the atmosphere...

Like I said..you just accept whatever you are told by people whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself without feeling the need to check it out for yourself.

 

[SSDD]

The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship. And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.

Ha ha ha,

Yet the ONLY time it warms since 1979 is when an El-Nino come along, otherwise flat to a cooling in its absence.

Where is the CO2 warming?

See what a low threshold he has placed for "evidence supporting AGW over natural variability".....could one possibly set the bar lower.. His evidence takes a bit of observation and then tacks on a very large tail of assumption without the first piece of real evidence to back it up. If "evidence" this feeble was was passed for overwhelming evidence in my mind, I would be hesitant to bring it forward for public examination also.

 

[SSDD]

When you push them hard enough, you can embarrass them into providing some of the "evidence" that has convinced them that AGW is real....without fail, it is this sort of weak correlation...with no mention of the climate of the past, and not the first hint of observed, measured evidence that supports the enormous assumptions one must make to accept such weak correlation as the cause of anything... That is what passes in his mind for observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and observed, measured evidence establishing a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

He shows a graph of how efficiently some gasses transmit IR through the atmosphere and claims that is evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...guess he never considered the fact that if he wanted to show evidence of warming, he would need a graph showing how efficiently the gas in question absorbs energy rather than how efficiently it transmits energy....you might think that he would at least take the time to learn what the word transmit means when used in the field of physics.

It is just as sad as the people who are so easily fooled by instrumentation...claiming that instruments are observing and measuring all manner of things when in reality, the only thing they are observing and measuring is the amount and rate at which their own internal sensors are changing temperature...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

Sorry crick....but outgoing long wave is increasing...has been for quite some time....as your chart shows...so called greenhouse gasses transmit IR through the atmosphere...more greenhouse gasses, more IR is transmitted through the atmosphere...

Like I said..you just accept whatever you are told by people whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself without feeling the need to check it out for yourself.

Your first chart show that the INCREASED outflow is much greater than what CO2 is postulated to cause warm forcing. It is a net loss of energy from the system.

 

[SSDD]

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

Sorry crick....but outgoing long wave is increasing...has been for quite some time....as your chart shows...so called greenhouse gasses transmit IR through the atmosphere...more greenhouse gasses, more IR is transmitted through the atmosphere...

Like I said..you just accept whatever you are told by people whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself without feeling the need to check it out for yourself.

Your first chart show that the INCREASED outflow is much greater than what CO2 is postulated to cause warm forcing. It is a net loss of energy from the system.

Like his chart showed and as I have stated for a very long time...so called greenhouse gasses...with the exception of water vapor assist in transmitting IR out of the atmosphere...the climate sensitivity to them is zero or less meaning that they could well have a cooling effect.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

Sorry crick....but outgoing long wave is increasing...has been for quite some time....as your chart shows...so called greenhouse gasses transmit IR through the atmosphere...more greenhouse gasses, more IR is transmitted through the atmosphere...

Like I said..you just accept whatever you are told by people whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself without feeling the need to check it out for yourself.

Your first chart show that the INCREASED outflow is much greater than what CO2 is postulated to cause warm forcing. It is a net loss of energy from the system.

Like his chart showed and as I have stated for a very long time...so called greenhouse gasses...with the exception of water vapor assist in transmitting IR out of the atmosphere...the climate sensitivity to them is zero or less meaning that they could well have a cooling effect.

This the main reason why Global Warming is impossible when using CO2 as the cause, since it fails to prevent the big increase of energy leaving the system, the extent of the increase surpasses the amount of warm forcing given to CO2.

Here is a post made a while back by John Kehr at, The inconvenient skeptic:

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

May 14th, 2012

Excerpt:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

Charts are in the link.

 

[Crick]

Idiots. There is an increase in total OLWR because the ******* temperature of the planet is increasing. The effect of greenhouse gases is demonstrated precisely as postulated by these satellite observations and observations from the ground. The greenhouse effect is doing precisely what it is theorized to do: warming the planet by slowing the release of IR.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Idiots. There is an increase in total OLWR because the ******* temperature of the planet is increasing. The effect of greenhouse gases is demonstrated precisely as postulated by these satellite observations and observations from the ground. The greenhouse effect is doing precisely what it is theorized to do: warming the planet by slowing the release of IR.

The data doesn't support your contention.

 

[Crick]

Emission spectra of the planet Earth taken by the Michelson interferometer on the Nimbus 4 satellite.

 

[SSDD]

Idiots. There is an increase in total OLWR because the ******* temperature of the planet is increasing. The effect of greenhouse gases is demonstrated precisely as postulated by these satellite observations and observations from the ground. The greenhouse effect is doing precisely what it is theorized to do: warming the planet by slowing the release of IR.

Haven't heard about the pause huh skidmark..."record" temperatures by tiny fractions of a degree have been achieved through blatant homogenization, manipulation, infilling, and plain old making it up if the narrative requires it.

 

[SSDD]

Emission spectra of the planet Earth taken by the Michelson interferometer on the Nimbus 4 satellite.

Compared to when? A single snapshot with no context whatsoever now reaches the bar of evidence supporting AGW in your mind? You get worse all the time crick. Doesn't it embarrass you?

 

[Crick]

Compared to when? Compared to when the Earth had no atmosphere and radiated more like the ideal black body in the background of that graphic. And if you're not embarrassed by spouting your insane conceptions about radiative heat transfer in the face of EVERY single educated person to have ever heard you, I don't think I should have any problem putting out basic, mainstream science.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Emission spectra of the planet Earth taken by the Michelson interferometer on the Nimbus 4 satellite.

Where is the link?

 

[SSDD]

Compared to when? Compared to when the Earth had no atmosphere and radiated more like the ideal black body in the background of that graphic. And if you're not embarrassed by spouting your insane conceptions about radiative heat transfer in the face of EVERY single educated person to have ever heard you, I don't think I should have any problem putting out basic, mainstream science.

Still waiting for that bit of observed measured data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...any luck finding that yet? Got anything suggesting that absorption and emission equals warming? Anything?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship. And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.

Let me guess, that's because 97% of people paid to believe in Manmade Global Climate Warming Change say so