Roy Spencer's blog for Aug 16

[jc456]

This is a wonderfully humorous exchange. Nor only do jc and SSDD believe they are the smartest people on this board, they also believe that they are far more intelligent than many generations of mathematicians, chemists, and physicists. And some ignoramous like Dr. Spencer is not going to change their minds. LOL

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the A in AGW..and yet, you claim "consensus" exists...if it does, then it is religious conviction...not science.

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[jc456]

This is a wonderfully humorous exchange. Nor only do jc and SSDD believe they are the smartest people on this board, they also believe that they are far more intelligent than many generations of mathematicians, chemists, and physicists. And some ignoramous like Dr. Spencer is not going to change their minds. LOL

Hey, just curious if you think validation of a hypothesis is science or not? Just wondering.

 

[Crick]

It's a step in the right direction. The problem is your ability to determine when such a thing has or has not happened.

 

[jc456]

It's a step in the right direction. The problem is your ability to determine when such a thing has or has not happened.

well since I haven't seen an experiment, I see it didn't happen so the science wasn't performed. Thanks.

 

[Crick]

There you go.

 

[jc456]

There you go.

I completely agree, thanks for validating you have no experiment to prove your hypothesis.

 

[IanC]

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

For every Watt of IR energy that goes back to the ground from greenhouse gases --- there's is simultaneously MORE than a Watt of IR energy going skywards. That's why it gets cold at night genius... And if the Sun didn't rise in the morning, wouldn't be long for you to turn into a popsicle --- EVEN WITH increased GHGases.

Returning SOME energy from the atmos to the ground does NOT BUILD "out of control heat". It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time.

one watt in one watt out, is zero, so the surface didn't cool off and it needs to. Cause now there's the next sun day adding more IR to the surface and more IR with more GHGs you start building IR. It seems you miss that aspect of the next sun day. your sending back the day before's energy. Add more CO2 and you get more. Sorry, I don't see it, the earth would have gotten warmer by now by adding 120 PPM of CO2. It didn't. so, hence why I don't believe it. It's all your magic and it doesn't track.

So there's been no warming at all? Is it just convenient to deny everything? Or don't you see that if you add a watt-hr of energy from the sun (at the surface) is exactly the same as adding a watt-hr from reducing the net flow into space?

While I certainly agree with the basic idea of what you said, I think where along the pathway the extra watt is inserted makes a difference. As well, the higher energy wavelength, more highly ordered sunshine is actually capable of doing work.

 

[Crick]

Rather than thinking of that energy being trapped here, think of its return to space being S-L-O-W-E-D; as where Ian stated " It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time." Emphasis mine.