What the science says

[SSDD]

IanC, measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.

No, that's wrong.

Total OLR should be rather stable, being energy in and energy out have to equalize. It's only in the GHG bands that OLR should be down. In the other bands, it will go up a bit to compensate.

Now, there will be a very small decrease as, bout 0.6 W/M^2, but that's too small to show up in the very noisy plot you showed, and most of it happened before the start of the plot.

What happened old woman...finally got through to you that OLR was in fact, not decreasing as you have claimed for years and now have invented some other story? Go ahead and deny that you claimed that OLR was decreasing so I can bring forward some posts from you saying that it was to show what a liar you are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your position is challenged

Which position of mine is being challenged?

Observed

Observed what?

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

IF, and i reiterate IF, that gas was the only exit path for that bandwidth of energy I would most likely agree with you but like CO2 water is another path to escape. in simple terms water, in its various forms kills the hypothesis dead in our atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where is the thread that the odds of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon are about 1,000,000,000 -1?

distribution is another problem they fail to understand.

 

[mamooth]

What happened old woman..

Will you please stop hitting on me? You know I'm a guy. It's creepy as hell when some old predatory queer fag-stalks me.

finally got through to you that OLR was in fact, not decreasing as you have claimed for years and now have invented some other story?

Why are you lying about someone saying OLR should have been steadily decreasing for years?

Go ahead and deny that you claimed that OLR was decreasing so I can bring forward some posts from you saying that it was to show what a liar you are.

Please proceed. I'm calling your bluff, liar. This should be funny, watching you now twist and squirm.

 

[SSDD]

Please proceed. I'm calling your bluff, liar. This should be funny, watching you now twist and squirm.

One doesn't even have to break a sweat to prove that you are a liar old woman...

from: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13572255/

Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing....

from : http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9248420/

According to your theory, OLR should be increasing, but we see it decreasing.[/quote\

from: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13726355/

Global warming theory, being real science, can be disproved in many ways. Long term falling temperatures, falling sea levels, increasing OLR....

from: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9249970/

Plus, you you're avoiding the issue of how the decreasing OLR conclusively disproves your theory.

And on and on it goes....the typical AGW bullshit template...claim a thing till the claim becomes completely indefensible...and then claim that you never made the claim in the first place.

 

[mamooth]

Yep, I got lazy a few times, and left out "in the GHG bands." You know, like I specifically said in this post, and in many others.

By not mentioning that, you deliberately lied by omisson. It's what you constantly do on every topic. All the facts say you're a cult kook, and you're too much of mewling wuss to admit it, so you just leave out every fact that shoots down your dishonest kook world view.

So see you around, my sweet little cultist loser. After all, we both know I'm going to enjoy humiliating your dishonest candy ass for years to come, little liar.

 

[LaDexter]

All the facts say you're a cult kook

LOL!!!

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


90% of Earth ice gains at least 80 billion tons of ice every year - who is the "kook" now???

 

[SSDD]

is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?

it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.

That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.

 

[IanC]

is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?

it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.

That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.

the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.

not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?

pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.

I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.

 

[jc456]

is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?

it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.

That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.

the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.

not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?

pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.

I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

I will say however, that if the sun is in a minimum cycle, then I would expect that OLR would decrease some. Cause I would expect the Incoming radiation to be down. so not unexpected in my world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?

it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.

That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.

the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.

not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?

pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.

I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

I will say however, that if the sun is in a minimum cycle, then I would expect that OLR would decrease some. Cause I would expect the Incoming radiation to be down. so not unexpected in my world.

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

 

[Crick]

I suspect, however, a fair number of the readership here will not discern your actual message.

 

[IanC]

Observed

Observed what?

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

IF, and i reiterate IF, that gas was the only exit path for that bandwidth of energy I would most likely agree with you but like CO2 water is another path to escape. in simple terms water, in its various forms kills the hypothesis dead in our atmosphere.

as you can see by the diagram, there is little absorption by water in the atmospheric window. if you closed it down with a GHG that did absorb then very litlle radiation would escape directly.

if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere then there would be another chunk of radiation that escaped directly, obviously changing the steady state surface temperature as cooling.

I really dont know how you guys can convince yourselves that CO2 has no influence on surface temperature.

 

[SSDD]

Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.

 

[IanC]

Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.

absorbs and emits? then the amount of radiation going into the atmosphere from the surface then comes out the other side. right?

hahahaha. of course it doesnt. explain!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.

CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...

Smart photons!

 

[SSDD]

Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.

absorbs and emits? then the amount of radiation going into the atmosphere from the surface then comes out the other side. right?

hahahaha. of course it doesnt. explain!

The effect of absorption and emission is zero and every observation ever made supports that fact.

 

[LaDexter]

Smart photons

What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Smart photons

What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?

High enough to violate the laws of physics.
SSDD can explain further.

 

[jc456]

is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?

it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.

That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.

the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.

not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?

pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.

I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

I will say however, that if the sun is in a minimum cycle, then I would expect that OLR would decrease some. Cause I would expect the Incoming radiation to be down. so not unexpected in my world.

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.