What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

[Billy_Bob]

Well, without writing a book, virtually all the scientists in the world state that AGW is real, so why should I given any weight to the opinion of someone that has repeatedly shown themselves to be an ignoramus?

interpreted (from AGW language): I dont have a ******* clue and you can't make me post any evidence because there is none..

Do you morons ever think about what it is you write?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think you mean AR4

Your extract

Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing (latter half of the 20th century) - Global - Likely There has been robust detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on tropospheric warming, which does not depend on including stratospheric cooling in the fingerprint pattern of response. There are observational uncertainties in radiosonde and satellite records. Models generally predict a relative warming of the free troposphere compared to the surface in the tropics since 1979, which is not seen in the radiosonde record (possibly due to uncertainties in the radiosonde record) but is seen in one version of the satellite record, although not others (Section 9.4.4).

Why don't you point exactly where, in this text, it states that a tropospheric hotspot is a mandatory indication of greenhouse warming - that its absence indicates greenhouse warming is not taking place - because I can't seem to find it.

Shuck and jive...bob and weave...duck and cover....that's become about all you are good at crick....you claim that they didn't predict a hot spot, then when you see that they did, you demand that when they made their prediction that if it didn't come to pass, that the hypothesis was a failure.....news flash crick...no one does that but in actual science when a hypothesis predicts a thing and it doesn't happen, actual scientists admit that they were wrong and start looking for problems in the hypothesis....whereas politicians start trying to rewrite history

YOU are the one doing the bobbing and weaving. WHERE IN THAT TEXT DOES IT SAY A TROPOSPHERIC HOTSPOT IS A NECESSARY INDICATOR??? I'll help you out. IT DOESN'T YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

Poor Crick, He's got his panties in a knot becasue the Mid-Tropospheric Hot spot is a mandatory occurrence for the theroy to be valid. ITS A DAM FACT OF THE PHYSICS AND HOW OUR ATMOSPHERE WORKS! You ******* moronic twit!

From you own IPCC religous documetns: 9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

 

[Billy_Bob]

And yet, no tropospheric hot spot has materialized which is the most fundamental prediction of the AGW hypothesis....how many fundamental predictive failures must a hypothesis suffer, in your mind, before it is scrapped?

I'm talking about results of the SB equation. Crick already answered your question. The hot spot is not a fundamental prediction of AGW.

Wrong again moron...

The physics of our atmosphere make it an absolute that it must occur if the hypothesis is correct. Guess what, it has not appeared as there is no latent heat being captured. Theory FAILS!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

The sun generates 1365W/M^2 at TOA. The earth receives about 185-265W/M^2 at surface depending on time of year and sun angle of incidence;. IR at sun down is not stopped by CO2 and infact speeds up the IR loss during the night time hours by displacing water vapor near surface.

 

[Wuwei]

I'm talking about results of the SB equation. Crick already answered your question. The hot spot is not a fundamental prediction of AGW.

Wrong again moron...

The physics of our atmosphere make it an absolute that it must occur if the hypothesis is correct. Guess what, it has not appeared as there is no latent heat being captured. Theory FAILS!

Cool down and quit whining. As I said, the hot spot is not a fundamental prediction of AGW.

There's no tropospheric hot spot

The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well.​

 

[Wuwei]

The sun generates 1365W/M^2 at TOA. The earth receives about 185-265W/M^2 at surface depending on time of year and sun angle of incidence;. IR at sun down is not stopped by CO2 and infact speeds up the IR loss during the night time hours by displacing water vapor near surface.

Billy_Bob, you are missing IANC's point. He said the the sun provides 165 W/m^2. That already includes a yearly global average and takes into account the time of year and angle of incidence.

The warmth of the earth always radiates roughly 400W/m^2 LWIR. The difference between night and day is less than a 10% drop at night (global average), and that is taken into account in the 400W.

Given those two facts, and they are facts you can't dispute. How can the earth radiate 400W when it's only receiving 165W.

If you can answer that question you will understand a lot of the indisputable aspects of climate physics.

If you don't believe the earth radiates that much energy go to this site.
stefan boltzman 15 C - Wolfram|Alpha

 

[Kosh]

This is what is actually happening:

 

[IanC]

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

What does that have to do with CO2? You can fry an egg on the hood of a car cause of the heat of the sun. Humans can suffocate in a sealed car. CO2 does not make it hotter

do you understand how the surface can radiate 400W when it only receives 165W from the Sun? or not? if this question leaves you baffled, then you should realize that you need to learn more, and perhaps talk less about things you dont understand even in simple form.

 

[SSDD]

I'm talking about results of the SB equation. Crick already answered your question. The hot spot is not a fundamental prediction of AGW.

Wrong again moron...

The physics of our atmosphere make it an absolute that it must occur if the hypothesis is correct. Guess what, it has not appeared as there is no latent heat being captured. Theory FAILS!

Cool down and quit whining. As I said, the hot spot is not a fundamental prediction of AGW.

There's no tropospheric hot spot

The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well.​

Your little bit of bullshit from SS is not proof that a tropospheric hot spot was not predicted....it is hard empirical evidence that climate science is not about science at all. I already provided material from AR4 for crick regarding the predicted hot spot...and every GCM has predicted the hot spot would materialize and continue to get warmer...

The whole process and history of science amounts to science lurching from one failed hypothesis to another....learning more, improving each hypothesis till they actually come up with one that works. It isn't shameful to have a hypothesis fail...that is what happens in science and is an internal part of expanding knowledge....climate science, however, rather than admit the failures of the hypothesis set about attempting to rewrite history and make the predictions disappear. Maybe one could get away with that 50 years ago, but now....you can't make the data disappear...AR4 is out there and all of the predictions made by the GCMs are out there....they predicted a hot spot and it hasn't materialized....if climate science were actually about climate science, they would admit the failure and start working on a new hypothesis which would explain why the hot spot never materialized, instead of trying to rewrite history and make the prediction disappear.

Tell me, what does it feel like to be duped so thoroughly? What does it feel like to be a useful idiot, carrying the water for people doing nothing more than pushing forward a political agenda? What does it feel like to just be a tool?

 

[SSDD]

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

What does that have to do with CO2? You can fry an egg on the hood of a car cause of the heat of the sun. Humans can suffocate in a sealed car. CO2 does not make it hotter

do you understand how the surface can radiate 400W when it only receives 165W from the Sun? or not? if this question leaves you baffled, then you should realize that you need to learn more, and perhaps talk less about things you dont understand even in simple form.

Ever think that perhaps your numbers are off? Climate science has proven itself perfectly capable, time after time of fooling itself with instrumentation...Your 165 incoming from the sun is directly from trenberth's cartoon which assumes a flat earth with no day and no night but a constant weak twilight 24 hours a day...I would suggest that that cartoon is about as close to point zero as one could get to the beginning of the error cascade that has landed climate science where it is right now....and you are still quoting it? Geez Ian....wake up and smell the bullshit that you are standing neck deep in right now.

 

[IanC]

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

What does that have to do with CO2? You can fry an egg on the hood of a car cause of the heat of the sun. Humans can suffocate in a sealed car. CO2 does not make it hotter

do you understand how the surface can radiate 400W when it only receives 165W from the Sun? or not? if this question leaves you baffled, then you should realize that you need to learn more, and perhaps talk less about things you dont understand even in simple form.

Ever think that perhaps your numbers are off? Climate science has proven itself perfectly capable, time after time of fooling itself with instrumentation...Your 165 incoming from the sun is directly from trenberth's cartoon which assumes a flat earth with no day and no night but a constant weak twilight 24 hours a day...I would suggest that that cartoon is about as close to point zero as one could get to the beginning of the error cascade that has landed climate science where it is right now....and you are still quoting it? Geez Ian....wake up and smell the bullshit that you are standing neck deep in right now.

I have repeatedly said that I dont trust the numbers from Trenberth's cartoon. but the numbers dont have to be anything more than in the ballpark. the surface radiates more energy than it is receiving strictly by solar input. whether it is two to one or three to one doesnt matter. that the surface radiates more is the point.

 

[SSDD]

I have repeatedly said that I dont trust the numbers from Trenberth's cartoon. but the numbers dont have to be anything more than in the ballpark. the surface radiates more energy than it is receiving strictly by solar input. whether it is two to one or three to one doesnt matter. that the surface radiates more is the point.

Once you subtract heat that the earth generates on its own, the earth is not radiating more than it receives from the sun...it simply is not possible...you are so wrapped up in what you believe that you have apparently lost the ability to just sit down and think about it objectively for a minute. How much of that "claimed" 400 is from the earth's own heat production mechanisms? Any idea at all? Of course not, but the science is still settled....any idea how that unknown amount of energy coming from the earth's own engines affects the climate?....of course not, but the science is still settled....any idea how far off trenberths cartoon really is?....of course not, but the science is still settled.

What pisses me off more than even the abject stupidity of folks like crick, and rocks, and dotcom is people like you who pretend and perhaps even believe that you know this or that when it is nothing more than a story made up to be a place holder till some new and actual knowledge comes along to supersede it. If you could just bring yourself to admit how much of what you believe you know...you don't....you might start looking at the issue with a more rational mind....

but a rational mind does not even consider trenberths cartoon to even remotely represent the truth...

 

[Wuwei]

Your little bit of bullshit from SS is not proof that a tropospheric hot spot was not predicted....it is hard empirical evidence that climate science is not about science at all. I already provided material from AR4 for crick regarding the predicted hot spot...and every GCM has predicted the hot spot would materialize and continue to get warmer...

The whole process and history of science amounts to science lurching from one failed hypothesis to another....learning more, improving each hypothesis till they actually come up with one that works. It isn't shameful to have a hypothesis fail...that is what happens in science and is an internal part of expanding knowledge....climate science, however, rather than admit the failures of the hypothesis set about attempting to rewrite history and make the predictions disappear. Maybe one could get away with that 50 years ago, but now....you can't make the data disappear...AR4 is out there and all of the predictions made by the GCMs are out there....they predicted a hot spot and it hasn't materialized....if climate science were actually about climate science, they would admit the failure and start working on a new hypothesis which would explain why the hot spot never materialized, instead of trying to rewrite history and make the prediction disappear.

Tell me, what does it feel like to be duped so thoroughly? What does it feel like to be a useful idiot, carrying the water for people doing nothing more than pushing forward a political agenda? What does it feel like to just be a tool?

Look, whining and name calling is not an argument and only shows your immaturity. The lack of a hot spot is not equivalent to a proof of anything about what man does to the atmosphere.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You can't reason with Global Warming deniers, they believe in magic, not reason. Even in the face of the entire world body of nations agreeing and the entire world body of PH.D's agreeing Global Warming is real and accelerating, the denier cult clings to its warm fuzzy "NOTHING'S WRONG, EVERYTHING'S FINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, I LIKE BURNING WOOD".

They are a sad lot, but you can't help them. They are like Flat Earthers, or Birthers, or the people that thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the Earth. It takes people like this, who are scared to death of any change, a while to finally accept reality.

The Denier Cult is no different. They'll cling to their delusion for as long as they can. Like a child with a warm blanky.

 

[SSDD]

Look, whining and name calling is not an argument and only shows your immaturity. The lack of a hot spot is not equivalent to a proof of anything about what man does to the atmosphere.

And the attempt to rewrite history and make the predictions go a way marches on..nice try, but the predictions are already written down in your holy texts...no amount of deleting, or claiming they don't exist will ever make them go a way...maybe had climate science been involved in developing the internet they could have dispensed with that pesky way back machine, but alas they didn't...so the fact that they predicted that the tropospheric hot spot would be the fingerprint of human influence on the climate...the smoking gun is never going to go away...

 

[Wuwei]

Ever think that perhaps your numbers are off? Climate science has proven itself perfectly capable, time after time of fooling itself with instrumentation...Your 165 incoming from the sun is directly from trenberth's cartoon which assumes a flat earth with no day and no night but a constant weak twilight 24 hours a day...I would suggest that that cartoon is about as close to point zero as one could get to the beginning of the error cascade that has landed climate science where it is right now....and you are still quoting it? Geez Ian....wake up and smell the bullshit that you are standing neck deep in right now

The 165 watt number is a global daily average. In your house your furnace goes on and off intermittently yet the temperature of your house stays close to the setting on your thermostat. Same thing with energy input from the sun.

 

[Wuwei]

so the fact that they predicted that the tropospheric hot spot would be the fingerprint of human influence on the climate

The hot spot or lack can occur from other things. It is no proof of AGW.

 

[SSDD]

The 165 watt number is a global daily average. In your house your furnace goes on and off intermittently yet the temperature of your house stays close to the setting on your thermostat. Same thing with energy input from the sun.

Got any actual proof of that? Best I can tell it is little more than a wild assed guess found in the trenberth cartoon which, by the way, portrays earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate has no day or night and exists in a perpetual state of weak twilight...that my friend, is the world the GCM's are based upon. How much does that world resemble the world you live in?

 

[SSDD]

so the fact that they predicted that the tropospheric hot spot would be the fingerprint of human influence on the climate

The hot spot or lack can occur from other things. It is no proof of AGW.

The hotspot would not necessarily be proof of AGW...but its failure to appear is proof that the AGW hypothesis is wrong. More CO2 should produce a hot spot that continues to warm as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere....2 decades...no warming while CO2 steadily increases....epic fail on the part of the AGW hypothesis....and dishonesty on an epic scale from those trying to rewrite history and pretend that the predictions were never made.

 

[Wuwei]

Got any actual proof of that? Best I can tell it is little more than a wild assed guess found in the trenberth cartoon which, by the way, portrays earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate has no day or night and exists in a perpetual state of weak twilight...that my friend, is the world the GCM's are based upon. How much does that world resemble the world you live in?

You are taking the cartoon too literally. It is a diagrammatic sketch of global average energy flow; not intended to be a depiction or the actual earth. If you don't like the 165W number, what amount of global average radiation does your source of information provide?