"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

The earth, warmed by the sun, emits long wave radiation.

Specific bands of earth's radiation are resonantly absorbed and scattered by gasses in the atmosphere.

Some of the radiation in those bands are scattered back to earth.

The back-scattered radiation prevents the earth from losing as much heat as it would if those gasses were not present.

If that were true, then the hot spot, predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis would be in evidence. It is not. FAIL.

 

[Lagboltz]

The hot spot does not exist. The greenhouse hypothesis predicts it, and yet, it is not there. FAIL. One failed prediction is sufficient reason in real science to discard a hypothesis. No hot spot, failed hypothesis. If the greenhouse hypothesis is incorrect, then by default, the AGW hypothesis is incorrect.

That's bullpoop. You probably got that from an anti-climate-science blog. And you hypocritically distrust wiki.

If that were true, then the hot spot, predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis would be in evidence. It is not. FAIL.

You didn't understand. Let me repeat. The hot spot prediction comes from a general inaccuracy of climate modeling, not from CO2 back-scatter modeling. The hot spot has not been predicted by greenhouse physics. Your anti-science blog sources have lied and failed you.

 

[palerider]

Lets try this real slow....if...so called....greenhouse....gasses....reduce....the....speed....at....which...LW radiation....exits...the.....atmosphere....there....would...be ......a....tropospheric....hot.....spot....as....a....result.

It....doesn't....exist.....therefore....your....claim....of....what....so called.....greenhouse.....gasses....are....doing....in....the....atmosphere....is....false.

 

[Lagboltz]

Happy Easter Pale! Looks like you are a little slow today. Try some coffee.

Lets try this real slow....if...so called....greenhouse....gasses....reduce....the....speed....at....which...LW radiation....exits...the.....atmosphere....there....would...be ......a....tropospheric....hot.....spot....as....a....result.

It....doesn't....exist.....therefore....your....claim....of....what....so called.....greenhouse.....gasses....are....doing....in....the....atmosphere....is....false.

This is where the hot spot is discussed by the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2-3-2.html
Soil Moisture Feedbacks in Climate Models
"Overall, the uncertainty in surface-atmosphere coupling has implications for the reliability of the simulated soil moisture-atmosphere feedback. It tempers our interpretation of the response of the hydrologic cycle to simulated climate change in ‘hot spot’ regions."

The "hot spot" has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. It involves simulated soil moisture effects.

 

[dogtowner]

Not sure citing IPCC ia very believable. Theyre the ones who bought the glacier mistake.

 

[Lagboltz]

Not sure citing IPCC ia very believable. Theyre the ones who bought the glacier mistake.

It is the IPCC predictions that pale is referring to. He is criticizing them for an inaccuracy in a temperature model and blaming it on GH gas inaccuracy. So the IPCC is the only reference to site. Actually I'm showing him that the IPCC is referring to a soil moisture model not a GH gas model. So what pale is claiming is incorrect. He is getting his information from the anti-IPCC blogosphere which is much less believable than IPCC.

 

[dogtowner]

It is the IPCC predictions that pale is referring to. He is criticizing them for an inaccuracy in a temperature model and blaming it on GH gas inaccuracy. So the IPCC is the only reference to site. Actually I'm showing him that the IPCC is referring to a soil moisture model not a GH gas model. So what pale is claiming is incorrect. He is getting his information from the anti-IPCC blogosphere which is much less believable than IPCC.

Considering all the back tracks the I has been forced to make that last sentence just isnt very convincing. But IPCC is just a handful of guys who serve as a board overseeing actual scientists (this being the reason they have to make retractions the guys they take to be experts just dont seem to be). So whatever they are sayi g about hotspots is somebody else's work whom you could choose to reference.

 

[palerider]

Happy Easter Pale! Looks like you are a little slow today. Try some coffee.

This is where the hot spot is discussed by the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2-3-2.html
Soil Moisture Feedbacks in Climate Models
"Overall, the uncertainty in surface-atmosphere coupling has implications for the reliability of the simulated soil moisture-atmosphere feedback. It tempers our interpretation of the response of the hydrologic cycle to simulated climate change in ‘hot spot’ regions."

The "hot spot" has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. It involves simulated soil moisture effects.

Well there's 97% of your problem...you read and believe what the IPCC says. Get a better source.

 

[Lagboltz]

Howdy Pale. Hope you had a nice Easter.

Well there's 97% of your problem...you read and believe what the IPCC says. Get a better source.

It was you who referenced the IPCC source but drew the wrong conclusion. It was about soil moisture not GH gasses. The IPCC is a better source than some blog, www.AWGisCommunistShit.org or wherever you get your ideas.

 

[palerider]

Howdy Pale. Hope you had a nice Easter.
It was you who referenced the IPCC source but drew the wrong conclusion. It was about soil moisture not GH gasses. The IPCC is a better source than some blog, www.AWGisCommunistShit.org or wherever you get your ideas.

The IPCC is a political organization. Again, you show that you are not interested in science.

 

[Lagboltz]

Hey Pale! I haven't seen you since Monday. So glad my anti-science BFF is back.

Your post is pretty terse. Are you running out of ideas? If I gave you a penny for your thoughts would I get back change?

The IPCC is a political organization.

Your anti-science friends gave you a misinterpretation of the IPCC climate hot-spot. I gave you a royal drubbing on that one. Tell your blog friends if they were any more stupid, they would have to be watered twice a week.

Again, you show that you are not interested in science.

Everyone reading this interminable thread knows that I have always promoted the science of radiation physics, where you are dragging your feet by referring to that science of Einstein and others as "idiotic bullshit".

If you are using self-satire, then you are to be admired for your ability to do self-depreciation. However, if you are are serious and trying to bamboozle the few who read this thread, you will come off as a sullen pathetic fool. Personally, I think you are just having fun with your game. I am too.

 

[palerider]

Hey Pale! I haven't seen you since Monday. So glad my anti-science BFF is back.-

I am afraid that you are the only anti science person here...and perhaps some warmers who simply lurk.

anti-science friends gave you a misinterpretation of the IPCC climate hot-spot. I gave you a royal drubbing on that one. Tell your blog friends if they were any more stupid, they would have to be watered twice a week.

More failing on your part, but if mental masturbation gets you through your days, who am I to deny you.

reading this interminable thread knows that I have always promoted the science of radiation physics, where you are dragging your feet by referring to that science of Einstein and others as "idiotic bullshit".

Actually, they know that you, as is the case with all alarmists, promote a version of pseudoscience that supports your delusions. That version is made available via the IPCC who, by the way, does not do science.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am afraid that you are the only anti science person here...and perhaps some warmers who simply lurk.
More failing on your part, but if mental masturbation gets you through your days, who am I to deny you.
Actually, they know that you, as is the case with all alarmists, promote a version of pseudoscience that supports your delusions. That version is made available via the IPCC who, by the way, does not do science.

Hey Pale! Glad to see you back again! Rather than being so moody and resentful and continue to repeat yourself why don't we dump the politics and get back to science again. You disagreed with the following concept from Plank's, Treatise on Thermodynamics
"...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

"Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, ... will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature"'

That statement is believed by all physicists today and was discovered long before the IPCC. The theory of radiation exchange is important in any discussion on climate. What is the basis for your disagreement with radiation exchange? You never addressed that scientifically.

 

[palerider]

Hey Pale! Glad to see you back again! Rather than being so moody and resentful and continue to repeat yourself why don't we dump the politics and get back to science again. You disagreed with the following concept from Plank's, Treatise on Thermodynamics
"...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

"Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, ... will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature"'

That statement is believed by all physicists today and was discovered long before the IPCC. The theory of radiation exchange is important in any discussion on climate. What is the basis for your disagreement with radiation exchange? You never addressed that scientifically.

OK...so again, lets see that observed, measured example.

And since we both know that you aren't going to be able to deliver on that request, how about instead, you describe the version of the greenhouse effect that you subscribe to. You warmers all seem to have your own particular version.

 

[Lagboltz]

OK...so again, lets see that observed, measured example.

And since we both know that you aren't going to be able to deliver on that request

Right. As we discussed earlier, quantum phenomena can be measured and observed on the macroscopic scale, but with rare exceptions cannot directly be observed on a microscopic scale. Atomic properties are inferred from theory.

how about instead, you describe the version of the greenhouse effect that you subscribe to. You warmers all seem to have your own particular version.

I don't see that warmers have different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. There is only one version that makes physical sense. Basically greenhouse gases provide backscattering, a concept that also occurs in many different areas of physics. Backscattering is accepted by all scientists.

In climate science, the earth, warmed by the sun, emits long wave radiation.

Specific bands of earth's radiation are resonantly absorbed and scattered by some gasses in the atmosphere.

Some of the radiation in those bands are scattered back to earth.

The back-scattered radiation prevents the earth from losing as much heat as it would if those gasses were not present.

It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy.