Roy Spencer has been showing evidence, for years, that climate models are wrong

[edthecynic]

Since Limpbagh uses his data, the eco-Malthusians dismiss Spencer out-of-hand.

While it is a well known fact that pathological liar Stuttering LimpTard would never under any circumstance use an honest source, that is not why Spencer is rejected by honest people. It is because, he along with his partner in crime John Christy, got caught red handed fudging the satellite data to turn a warming trend into a cooling trend.

See what I mean?

Yes it can easily be seen why you have to give YOUR "reason" for distrusting Spencer's "data," it's because the real reason Christy and Spencer are not trusted is very damaging to deniers! You fool no one, Dupe!

 

[westwall]

ever notice how the AGW alarmists wont debate publically after Gavin Schmitt got his assssss handed to him arguing against Lindzen and Creighton? Freedom Channel: IQ Squared Global Warming Debate

I love how Schmitt compares climatologists to fictional charachters on TV. Appropriate I think!

 

[Oddball]

Since Limpbagh uses his data, the eco-Malthusians dismiss Spencer out-of-hand.

While it is a well known fact that pathological liar Stuttering LimpTard would never under any circumstance use an honest source, that is not why Spencer is rejected by honest people. It is because, he along with his partner in crime John Christy, got caught red handed fudging the satellite data to turn a warming trend into a cooling trend.

See what I mean?

Yes it can easily be seen why you have to give YOUR "reason" for distrusting Spencer's "data," it's because the real reason Christy and Spencer are not trusted is very damaging to deniers! You fool no one, Dupe!

The facts and established acid tests for science are damaging to Chicken Little wackaloons like you.

Not falsifiable for all other possible explanations...Not reproducible on demand...Can't be objectively quantified...No static control...No science.

 

[Oddball]

ever notice how the AGW alarmists wont debate publically after Gavin Schmitt got his assssss handed to him arguing against Lindzen and Creighton? Freedom Channel: IQ Squared Global Warming Debate

I love how Schmitt compares climatologists to fictional charachters on TV. Appropriate I think!

I think the most fitting character is the Japanese submariner from Gilligan's Island, who didn't get the memo that the war was over.

 

[edthecynic]

While it is a well known fact that pathological liar Stuttering LimpTard would never under any circumstance use an honest source, that is not why Spencer is rejected by honest people. It is because, he along with his partner in crime John Christy, got caught red handed fudging the satellite data to turn a warming trend into a cooling trend.

See what I mean?

Yes it can easily be seen why you have to give YOUR "reason" for distrusting Spencer's "data," it's because the real reason Christy and Spencer are not trusted is very damaging to deniers! You fool no one, Dupe!

The facts and established acid tests for science are damaging to Chicken Little wackaloons like you.

Not falsifiable for all other possible explanations...Not reproducible on demand...Can't be objectively quantified...No static control...No science.

And what exactly does that have to do with the fact that honest people reject Spencer because he got caught red handed fudging the satellite data, and not as you claim because your MessiahRushie made him his climatologist?? Other than the obvious fact that you need to deflect, of course!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, silly ass. A fad to which every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science and every major Univesity states is a fact.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/147932-2011-global-temperature-thread-13.html#post3262519

Mr.Rocks would you explain to me why Polar bears case using scientific laws are wrong? It is true that co2 shares some of the wave length with water vapor and it may not be able to readmit at that wave length.

Using the equation he gave it does in fact show a log as he pointed out and does show a decrease in the compounding effect of the effects of co2 as you raise the amount of co2 within the Atmosphere. I would say that a scientific law is a respectable argument for or against something and Mr.Bear used it. DR.Hug found that co2 has the effect of only 20 percent of what climate scientist found.

Beer-Lambert Law
Quote:
A = a(lambda) * b * c
where A is the measured absorbance, a(lambda) is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.
where I is the light intensity after it passes through the sample and Io is the initial light intensity. The relation between A and T is:
A = -log T = - log (I / Io).


"SHG" = Secondary Harmonics Generation
and that`s where You first learn that CO2 cannot "double cost", because it does not even re-emit the energy it absorbed at the same wavelength where it absorbed it:
Second-harmonic generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Second harmonic generation (SHG; also called frequency doubling) is a nonlinear optical process, in which photons interacting with a nonlinear material are effectively "combined" to form new photons with twice the energy, and therefore twice the frequency and half the wavelength of the initial photons. It is a special case of sum frequency generation.
Second harmonic generation was first demonstrated by P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, and G. Weinreich at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1961. The demonstration was made possible by the invention of the laser, which created the required high intensity monochromatic light. They focused a ruby laser with a wavelength of 694 nm into a quartz sample. They sent the output light through a spectrometer, recording the spectrum on photographic paper, which indicated the production of light at 347 nm. Famously, when published in the journal Physical Review Letters,[1] the copy editor mistook the dim spot (at 347 nm) on the photographic paper as a speck of dirt and removed it from the pub
Beer-Lambert Law
Quote:
A = a(lambda) * b * c
where A is the measured absorbance, a(lambda) is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.
where I is the light intensity after it passes through the sample and Io is the initial light intensity. The relation between A and T is:
A = -log T = - log (I / Io).
lication

Can you defend against such and show us why this is wrong? He uses these rule and shows that any more increase would have very tiny effects if any.



Thanks.

Now I have never been one to trust models or estimates from theoretical calculations. However, there is hard data concerning the idea of 'CO2 saturation. You can find it at this site with links to the sources.

Is the CO2 effect saturated?


What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.

Philipona 2004 finds that this is indeed the case - that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Evans 2006 takes this analysis further. By analysing high resolution spectral data, the increase in downward radiation can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: A Saturated Gassy Argument

In any event, modern measurements show that there is not nearly enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block most of the infrared radiation in the bands of the spectrum where the gas absorbs. That’s even the case for water vapor in places where the air is very dry. (When night falls in a desert, the temperature can quickly drop from warm to freezing. Radiation from the surface escapes directly into space unless there are clouds to block it.)

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

 

[Old Rocks]

When carbon dioxide didn’t affect climate AGW Observer

Gilbert Plass was then the person who finally solved the problem. In 1956 he published results from his study (Plass, 1956) where he had used latest laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of greenhouse gases and had determined the radiation flux in the primary absorption band of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with a theoretical model (up to the height of 75 km). Among other things, his model included the pressure and Doppler broadening of absorption lines and the overlaps of spectral lines. According to his results, doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would cause 3.6°C warming to the surface of the Earth. In addition to this result, Plass also gave answers to all arguments that were thought to show that carbon dioxide wouldn’t cause warming to the surface of the Earth. Plass (1956b) wrote a popular article on the subject and the article happens currently to be freely accessible for everyone. In this article, there are answers to above-mentioned arguments. First the overlapping of the water vapour and carbon dioxide:

The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor.

 

[Old Rocks]

THE IRRELEVANCE OF SATURATION: WHY CARBON DIOXIDE MATTERS
© 2008 by Barton Paul Levenson

Saturation

 

[FactFinder]

When carbon dioxide didn’t affect climate AGW Observer

Gilbert Plass was then the person who finally solved the problem. In 1956 he published results from his study (Plass, 1956) where he had used latest laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of greenhouse gases and had determined the radiation flux in the primary absorption band of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with a theoretical model (up to the height of 75 km). Among other things, his model included the pressure and Doppler broadening of absorption lines and the overlaps of spectral lines. According to his results, doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would cause 3.6°C warming to the surface of the Earth. In addition to this result, Plass also gave answers to all arguments that were thought to show that carbon dioxide wouldn’t cause warming to the surface of the Earth. Plass (1956b) wrote a popular article on the subject and the article happens currently to be freely accessible for everyone. In this article, there are answers to above-mentioned arguments. First the overlapping of the water vapour and carbon dioxide:

The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor.

According to this argument and that nuance and this other observation and that graph and the other data and ad hominen ad nauseum and etc etc etc puke puke puke. Noone can admit that they don't know a damned thing cause then they may not be able to pay the mortgage.