To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[mamooth]

I've heard this premise from you before -- and I'm skeptical that it gives CO2 any abnormal powers because of it's WEIGHT. What really matters is heat Capacity --- independent of mass.

No, the heat capacity of CO2 means almost nothing. Do try to read about the actual physics

Poor children of America. No chance to ever learn ACTUAL science from bozos with authoritarian sounding job titles.. .

That video was actual science, at a grade-school level. What exactly about it sent you off on your rant about phantom authoritarians?

Now, I'd point out it's a combination of heat conduction and heat capacity that saved the water balloon, but for grade-schoolers, such a nitpick is not a big deal.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI

HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum.[citation needed] The current version contains 47 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions, each containing many spectral parameters required for high-resolution simulations. In addition there are about 50 molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.

And that link confirmed that HITRAN is a database. Just what do you think an archive of measured spectral parameters is? Everyone else knows. It's a database. The HITRAN database is then used in models. You know, like the gravitational constant G. It's used in models, but G is a measured constant, not a model itself, just like the HITRAN database entries.

So, is the problem that you have trouble reading basic English, or are you just lying by claiming HITRAN is a model?

And before you double down on "stupid" again, do note that none of the other deniers are jumping on this crazy train of yours. There's a reason for that.

Ok retard....

"HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum."

Its a PROGRAM YOU MORON! The program requires a database to run... Its like talking to a rock! (my apologies for insulting the rock. It has more intelligence than these idiots.)

 

[mamooth]

And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin)

You can keep saying there's no mechanism, but all scientists, having directly measured the mechanism, know you're babbling nonsense.

is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance --

It's more an attempt to deny conservation of energy holds.

Now, you can get around that by claiming the backradiation instantly boils the ocean skin. Except it doesn't. We know that because we don't see steam constantly rising from the ocean surface.

but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...

And the conspiracy babbling. No point in going on.

 

[mamooth]

Its a PROGRAM YOU MORON! The program requires a database to run... Its like talking to a rock! (my apologies for insulting the rock. It has more intelligence than these idiots.)

Sigh. Straight from HITRAN:

HITRANonline
---
HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database
---

See the word "database" there? That means it's a database.

Billy, just admit you were wrong. Or at a minimum, just drop the topic. You're wrong, everyone knows it, and you're making everyone cringe in sympathetic embarrassment for how stupid you look now.

 

[westwall]

Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans. Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.

According to Westwall here, sunlight can't warm a rock. After all, the sunlight can't even penetrate a single millimeter into the rock, therefore it is impossible for sunlight to warm a rock.

My point would be that Westwall's physics is hilariously stupid.

Where did I say that? Hmm? The point is the oceans are the heat engines of the planet. That is a fact. Go to the desert and you'll see what I mean. Yes, the sun warms the rocks up real good. And then at night they get real cold real fast. The desert at night is not a very nice place to be. Did you have some real world experience instead of computer derived fiction for your world view you would KNOW that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin)

You can keep saying there's no mechanism, but all scientists, having directly measured the mechanism, know you're babbling nonsense.

is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance --

It's more an attempt to deny conservation of energy holds.

Now, you can get around that by claiming the backradiation instantly boils the ocean skin. Except it doesn't. We know that because we don't see steam constantly rising from the ocean surface.

but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...

And the conspiracy babbling. No point in going on.

Show us the mechanism...

Quantify the result and show how it happens..

You cant becasue you and they DON'T ******* KNOW if it is happening or not!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Its a PROGRAM YOU MORON! The program requires a database to run... Its like talking to a rock! (my apologies for insulting the rock. It has more intelligence than these idiots.)

Sigh. Straight from HITRAN:

HITRANonline
---
HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database
---

See the word "database" there? That means it's a database.

Billy, just admit you were wrong. Or at a minimum, just drop the topic. You're wrong, everyone knows it, and you're making everyone cringe in sympathetic embarrassment for how stupid you look now.

You really are that ******* stupid...

 

[Wuwei]

No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.

These are facts that are NOT disputed by the scientific community, whether they are warmers or deniers.

1. The earth is absorbing around 163 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391 W/sq meter

You guys have several choices:
1. I don't agree with those scientific facts.
2. I don't care what the facts are. I believe my gut.
3. Make a digression or some other distraction.
4. Make a lot of personal insults.
5. Come up with a reasonable answer.

You mechanism is wrong for thermal balance, thus your numbers mean nothing. Until you get the mechanism right the rest is pure useless running in circles, chicken little sort of thing.

So your reply is #1: you disagree with the scientific facts that came from a NASA site.

 

[Wuwei]

Thought I just drop into this funfest without reading 20 pages.., Lemme know if I'm off-base and I'll go "study" the rest..

If the balance eq's were so simple, there wouldn't be a GreenHouse effect would there? The amount of IR induced heat energy in the skin of the ocean or the DIRECT surface of the Earth is trivial., It's gone 6 hours after sun-down each day. The energy "storage" is in the DEEP heatsink of the oceans and in the GreenHouse belt around the planet.

Now what was this argument about?

I completely agree with you, and yes you are off base. My point was never about IR induced heating. It will never happen. My post was about the large mismatch between what the earth is absorbing from the sun, around 163 W/sq m, and what it is radiating as IR, around 391 W/sq m. These numbers come from NASA and are accepted by all scientists, warmers, or deniers. How do you account for that mismatch where the earth is radiating more energy than it is receiving from the sun? Both warmer and denier scientists know. I'm just wondering if the people here know.

 

[Wuwei]

how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.

You lost track of my point. Look back at post #781.

The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. ​

You will see that the amount of CO2 is about 1 quarter the amount of H2O vapor in the atmosphere right now. If you double it, as you say, the CO2 would then be half the mass of H2O. That is not trivial. You have to understand that H2O is also a trace element in the atmosphere when you compare it to the trace element CO2.

You said "double" and also said .04% to .06%. That isn't doubling.

I've heard this premise from you before -- and I'm skeptical that it gives CO2 any abnormal powers because of it's WEIGHT. What really matters is heat Capacity --- independent of mass.

I was trying to find the numbers --- but ran across this SPECTACULAR fractured science GW propaganda from NASA/NOAA on the web that might give you a chuckle.. And thought you might need the laugh to remind yourself that chemical properties aren't always about mass..

Poor children of America. No chance to ever learn ACTUAL science from bozos with authoritarian sounding job titles.. .

You missed the point again. I have heard time and again that since CO2 is a trace element - only 0.04% of the atmosphere, you are a stupid cult member if you believe it can affect the climate. My point was that water in the atmosphere is also a trace element which traps the heat of the earth and is widely known to affect the climate. CO2 is roughly 1/4 times the atmospheric mass as H2O. I was not talking about the specific heat or atmospheric energy storage. I was saying that the two trace elements share the same mechanism as green house gases. And both are trace elements.

You misunderstood and thought that I was talking about climate change when I was only talking about climate.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've heard this premise from you before -- and I'm skeptical that it gives CO2 any abnormal powers because of it's WEIGHT. What really matters is heat Capacity --- independent of mass.

No, the heat capacity of CO2 means almost nothing. Do try to read about the actual physics

Poor children of America. No chance to ever learn ACTUAL science from bozos with authoritarian sounding job titles.. .

That video was actual science, at a grade-school level. What exactly about it sent you off on your rant about phantom authoritarians?

Now, I'd point out it's a combination of heat conduction and heat capacity that saved the water balloon, but for grade-schoolers, such a nitpick is not a big deal.

If you have to ask how funny that GW propaganda was in terms of actual truth-telling, the joke is already on you.
Just because you put on googles doesn't mean you're "doing science"..

Other than the fact these 2 "highly-skilled" grown govt clowns are pitching a GW fairytale that has virtually NOTHING to do with their silly fractured science experiment --- and the purpose of the tax dollars spent on this was to INDOCTRINATE them and not EDUCATE them -- I don't have a problem with them prostituting their professions "for the cause"... Idiots have to eat to --- I guess.. Burn all the rubber you want.

I could make that water balloon burst before the water even got hot...

 

[Wuwei]

Sure --- perfectly reasoned.. Except for a couple things.

1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...

2) Increased heating of that very thin skin is gonna be offset to a VERY LARGE effect by evaporation and convection. Which has a COOLING effect on that thin layer.. So it is unlikely that a DIRECT and measurable increase at 700m depth has ANYTHING to do with short balances of IR at the skin..

OTHERWISE -- you and Mammy are good to go..

Sure -- perfectly reasoned. Except for a couple things.
1) I was not asserting anything about AGW nor global warming. Nor a hiatus. You are trying to read that into my mind.

2) There is absolutely zero heating of the very thin skin. The thin skin is radiating more IR energy out than it absorbs from IR back radiation. BACK RADIATION DOES NOT HEAT ANYTHING. Back radiation slows a heat loss; it does not supply heat. All scientists, warmers or deniers agree on that. The back radiation returns a significant portion of the 391 W/sq meter that the water radiates. What energy it does not return goes out as evaporation and convection.

You got the evaporation and convection right, but you didn't address the IR radiation aspect of the science. The skin is in tight thermal contact with the ocean and will never increase in temperature beyond the top water temperature.

The nature of my post was to address those who deny back radiation has a blanketing effect. I'm not sure what you believe.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thought I just drop into this funfest without reading 20 pages.., Lemme know if I'm off-base and I'll go "study" the rest..

If the balance eq's were so simple, there wouldn't be a GreenHouse effect would there? The amount of IR induced heat energy in the skin of the ocean or the DIRECT surface of the Earth is trivial., It's gone 6 hours after sun-down each day. The energy "storage" is in the DEEP heatsink of the oceans and in the GreenHouse belt around the planet.

Now what was this argument about?

I completely agree with you, and yes you are off base. My point was never about IR induced heating. It will never happen. My post was about the large mismatch between what the earth is absorbing from the sun, around 163 W/sq m, and what it is radiating as IR, around 391 W/sq m. These numbers come from NASA and are accepted by all scientists, warmers, or deniers. How do you account for that mismatch where the earth is radiating more energy than it is receiving from the sun? Both warmer and denier scientists know. I'm just wondering if the people here know.

Ahhh.. COULD BE simple to explain.. That 391 is the flux skyward. And there is something like 333 coming back the other direction towards the ground. (I have no reason to question these figures).. For radiative transfers you just subtract. So the NET FLUX skyward is actually only 58W/m2.. That loss presumably INCLUDES some kind of averaging for diurnal states.

So the other "losses" are the convection loss (mostly daytime) and evap heat loss which is another 100W/m2.
So you ROUGHLY have a balance (if the day/night/seasonal stuff works out).. Roughly 160 W/m2 in BOTH directions.

Unless you are Dr Trenberth who pushed this chart to absurdity (and to my considerable amusement) by finding EXACTLY the 1.6W/m2 "GW imbalance" he sought to find with these "envelope calculations"..



AND more hysterically funny -- he made that Global Warming APPEAR ---- without apparently any energy being sucked off and STORED in the ocean or or the land,. (Granted you could treat all that in as it were in equilibrium -- if it wasn't for the fact that we are panicked about fractions of degree here and there).. And then 8 years later or so started the whine about the missing "GW" appearing in the deep oceans...

If it wasn't in his chart THEN --- was he wrong THEN or is he stupid now for pointing that out.....

'

 

[Wuwei]

Unless you are Dr Trenberth who pushed this chart to absurdity (and to my considerable amusement) by finding EXACTLY the 1.6W/m2 "GW imbalance" he sought to find with these "envelope calculations"..

AND more hysterically funny -- he made that Global Warming APPEAR ---- without apparently any energy being sucked off and STORED in the ocean or or the land,. (Granted you could treat all that in as it were in equilibrium -- if it wasn't for the fact that we are panicked about fractions of degree here and there).. And then 8 years later or so started the whine about the missing "GW" appearing in the deep oceans...

If it wasn't in his chart THEN --- was he wrong THEN or is he stupid now for pointing that out.....

I think Trenberth's diagram has some value and a certain amount of validity, but he sure would have saved himself from a lot of mockery if he simply stated that all the values are estimates, or maybe he could have used +/- error designations. He could have stated that it was averages over a full year - land and sea, if that's what he did. He should have also stated that the residual of around 1 W/m2 was thrown in because he believes there is an imbalance of that magnitude which causes global warming. Then both warmers and deniers would be happy about adjusting the numbers to their own satisfaction - even changing the 1 W/m2 to a negative number if someone thought there was global cooling.

But on the whole it gives an idea of magnitudes of the various energy flows, which is instructive if it's not taken too literally.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure --- perfectly reasoned.. Except for a couple things.

1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...

2) Increased heating of that very thin skin is gonna be offset to a VERY LARGE effect by evaporation and convection. Which has a COOLING effect on that thin layer.. So it is unlikely that a DIRECT and measurable increase at 700m depth has ANYTHING to do with short balances of IR at the skin..

OTHERWISE -- you and Mammy are good to go..

Sure -- perfectly reasoned. Except for a couple things.
1) I was not asserting anything about AGW nor global warming. Nor a hiatus. You are trying to read that into my mind.

2) There is absolutely zero heating of the very thin skin. The thin skin is radiating more IR energy out than it absorbs from IR back radiation. BACK RADIATION DOES NOT HEAT ANYTHING. Back radiation slows a heat loss; it does not supply heat. All scientists, warmers or deniers agree on that. The back radiation returns a significant portion of the 391 W/sq meter that the water radiates. What energy it does not return goes out as evaporation and convection.

You got the evaporation and convection right, but you didn't address the IR radiation aspect of the science. The skin is in tight thermal contact with the ocean and will never increase in temperature beyond the top water temperature.

The nature of my post was to address those who deny back radiation has a blanketing effect. I'm not sure what you believe.

This will teach me not to come to class 20 pages late and put my hand up !!!!

You MIGHT have been asking how the Earth manages to pluck up a 390W/m2 BlackBody radiation when only RECEIVES a dose of 160W/m2 for each day !!!!!

That's a horse of a different color. And to think I lectured you on Trenberth balance. I'm ashamed of myself..
If THAT'S the question -- my best answer is the Earth itself is relatively "hot property" because of the storage.
The ground at 10 feet below the surface will hold at roughly the annual average temp. The oceans do the same kind of deal. So it's the diff between energy fluxes and POWER (or storage if you like)..

We live above a molten core. There are other "blackbody factors" other than the atmos exchanges..

 

[Crick]

So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century? When I first came here you said it was from TSI. I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.

 

[jc456]

Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans. Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.

According to Westwall here, sunlight can't warm a rock. After all, the sunlight can't even penetrate a single millimeter into the rock, therefore it is impossible for sunlight to warm a rock.

My point would be that Westwall's physics is hilariously stupid.

What ? You do know what lwir is right? I mean you act like you have for a long time in here? WTF?

 

[jc456]

So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century? When I first came here you said it was from TSI. I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.

What warming?

 

[jc456]

Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI

HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum.[citation needed] The current version contains 47 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions, each containing many spectral parameters required for high-resolution simulations. In addition there are about 50 molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.

And that link confirmed that HITRAN is a database. Just what do you think an archive of measured spectral parameters is? Everyone else knows. It's a database. The HITRAN database is then used in models. You know, like the gravitational constant G. It's used in models, but G is a measured constant, not a model itself, just like the HITRAN database entries.

So, is the problem that you have trouble reading basic English, or are you just lying by claiming HITRAN is a model?

And before you double down on "stupid" again, do note that none of the other deniers are jumping on this crazy train of yours. There's a reason for that.

I'm sure every model has a fkn database right? How else would they plot their expectations? Nice FAIL!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sure --- perfectly reasoned.. Except for a couple things.

1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...

2) Increased heating of that very thin skin is gonna be offset to a VERY LARGE effect by evaporation and convection. Which has a COOLING effect on that thin layer.. So it is unlikely that a DIRECT and measurable increase at 700m depth has ANYTHING to do with short balances of IR at the skin..

OTHERWISE -- you and Mammy are good to go..

Sure -- perfectly reasoned. Except for a couple things.
1) I was not asserting anything about AGW nor global warming. Nor a hiatus. You are trying to read that into my mind.

2) There is absolutely zero heating of the very thin skin. The thin skin is radiating more IR energy out than it absorbs from IR back radiation. BACK RADIATION DOES NOT HEAT ANYTHING. Back radiation slows a heat loss; it does not supply heat. All scientists, warmers or deniers agree on that. The back radiation returns a significant portion of the 391 W/sq meter that the water radiates. What energy it does not return goes out as evaporation and convection.

You got the evaporation and convection right, but you didn't address the IR radiation aspect of the science. The skin is in tight thermal contact with the ocean and will never increase in temperature beyond the top water temperature.

The nature of my post was to address those who deny back radiation has a blanketing effect. I'm not sure what you believe.

This will teach me not to come to class 20 pages late and put my hand up !!!!

You MIGHT have been asking how the Earth manages to pluck up a 390W/m2 BlackBody radiation when only RECEIVES a dose of 160W/m2 for each day !!!!!

That's a horse of a different color. And to think I lectured you on Trenberth balance. I'm ashamed of myself..
If THAT'S the question -- my best answer is the Earth itself is relatively "hot property" because of the storage.
The ground at 10 feet below the surface will hold at roughly the annual average temp. The oceans do the same kind of deal. So it's the diff between energy fluxes and POWER (or storage if you like)..

We live above a molten core. There are other "blackbody factors" other than the atmos exchanges..

But, but, but it cant be... AGW say its not so... it is always man made.. It must be... /Sarc

The real problem is they (we) do not know what all the missing mechanisms are. Evidenced by the failure of all modeling, to date, to predict the future with any accuracy, outside of 12 hours.

IT's like shooting a gun, if your aiming at a target 30 feet away and you miss the center by 6 inches, when you move that target out to 300 yards you will miss it by 18 feet. And these fools wonder why we dont believe their long term models preaching doom and gloom. They dont have the information on how to aim the gun!