Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[palerider]

The I got a reply from the member of physicsforum.com regarding your question. Here it is...

The humor here, if predictable dishonesty can be called humorous is the fact that you claimed to not have enough basic science to look at a CO2 spectrum from the 70's and a CO2 spectrum from 2006 and determine that they are the same but claim to be a member and a "fan" of the physics forum and bring forward all your quotes from members of a forum as if you were able to evaluate their posts for accuracy. So which is it? Are you scientifically literate as opposed to your original statement or are you, as I predicted, willing to accept anything whether you understand it or not so long as it aligns with your political leaning? In either case, it appears that you are the liar that I suggested that you were very early on in this thread.

So tell me, which lie have you been caught in? Are you able to look at the graphs and know what they mean, or are you just a political dupe who will reject any science in favor of whatever you can get if it supports your leanings? If you understand the science, then lets get back to those CO2 spectra; I await your explanation as to how there can be no decrease in OLR in the CO2 spectrum while at the same time, CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm by absorbing OLR. If you still can't discuss that, then your posts from the physics forum are meaningless aren't they as you have no idea whether they are accurate or other dupes like you railing against the facts in albeit more educated language?

 

[citizenzen]

So which is it? Are you scientifically literate...

Unlike you PR, I don't pretend to be an expert in fields that I'm not. I quoted excerpts from the physics forum in the hope that you might gain some knowledge from them... not as a demonstration of what I know.

What I do know is when I wade through post after post of people talking about how wrong your source of information was, that's pretty telling. But you don't have to trust my word on it. If you are a biochemist you must have some friends in the world of physics... oops... wait a minute... you don't have any friends... I mean you must have some contacts in the world of physics who can help to enlighten you on the subject.

My ally is not my knowledge of thermodynamics, but time. As more of it passes and the effects of Global Warming become increasingly difficult to ignore your ignorance and your paranoia will become even more evident. I am even more convinced of that because you helped me delve deeper into the subject than I had before and it is clearer than ever that mainstream science has it right and marginalized crackpots like yourself are the fools.

Time will tell, my foolish friend. Time will tell.

 

[palerider]

What I do know is when I wade through post after post of people talking about how wrong your source of information was, that's pretty telling. But you don't have to trust my word on it. If you are a biochemist you must have some friends in the world of physics... oops... wait a minute... you don't have any friends... I mean you must have some contacts in the world of physics who can help to enlighten you on the subject.

Post after post from a forum of people who dislike a peer reviewed paper. So if I provide post after post from a forum of people who like it, do you change your mind?

My ally is not my knowledge of thermodynamics, but time.

Your ally has already betrayed you. The earth is cooling in spite of increased atmospheric CO2. Only computer simulations support you, observed data is heading in the other direction.

 

[citizenzen]

Oh. I almost forgot.

You spent the previous post once again questioning my knowledge of science, but you didn't address any of the issues from the physicists I quoted.

Perhaps it was because knowing that I am not versed in physics myself, that you wanted to spare me from more technical jargon. But I suspect it's because you have no answer to their rebuttal... not that you'd ever admit to that.

Why don't you give it a shot anyway? Go on. Weigh in. Let's find out how little you really know.

 

[palerider]

Oh. I almost forgot.

You spent the previous post once again questioning my knowledge of science, but you didn't address any of the issues from the physicists I quoted.

I saw no issues. If their summaries are correct then there will be a global warming fingerprint to be found in the troposphere. That is what the models predict and yet, it isn't there. The problem with making predictions is that sooner or later the real world knocks them down if they have no rational basis.

Perhaps it was because knowing that I am not versed in physics myself, that you wanted to spare me from more technical jargon. But I suspect it's because you have no answer to their rebuttal... not that you'd ever admit to that.

Technical jargon is useless as most people don't understand it anyway. It has been my experience that anyone who speaks in jargon does so because they lack the knowledge to speak to the subject in plain english and jargon is all that is available to copy and paste.

Why don't you give it a shot anyway? Go on. Weigh in. Let's find out how little you really know.

I already have. Without regard to the greenhouse effect, the fact remains that the spectra of outgoing long wave radiation in the CO2 spectrum has remained unchanged since the 1970's even though the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. That is the only salient point in this discussion. Can you answer it or not? Ask your forum buddies. You apparently accept whatever they say so long as it sounds smart and leans in your political direction.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ah gee whiz. Do I have to go back to the other thread about God's existence to prove you are lying again.

Yes, please do.

Well, since you are such a great "bible scholar" in your own mind, did not one of your links at BibleGateway explain Romans 2:24-32 for you, or the "sin of Sodom"? You do understand that sodomy is an unnatural act according to God, right? Well, obviously not. You obviously think sticking a dick into a pile of sh!t is a natural activity.

Well, first off, Sodom wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality, it was destroyed for the breaking the rule of hospitality. Second, there is no provable connection between the Bible rules and God. The Bible is just a book with many contradictions and errors--for instance God allowing slavery and the selling of children, that's blasphemy.

As far as anal sex goes, heterosexual people have anal intercourse far more often than gay people. It's always funny to me when you judge all gay people on the basis of one sex act when that act is performed so frequently by people of all orientations in all cultures. Even animals perform anal sex.

Just a few posts earlier in this thread, and you have forgotten what you posted already?

"Did you think that your mention of the above excretory substance in relation to me was going to go unnoticed just because the mods removed it?"

Typical for you to do so in virtually every topic you post at.

I am truly sorry, but when you make sh1tty comments I try to forget them and forgive you for saying them, just like Jesus said we should do.

 

[citizenzen]

Without regard to the greenhouse effect, the fact remains that the spectra of outgoing long wave radiation in the CO2 spectrum has remained unchanged since the 1970's even though the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased.

That's exactly the opposite of what this source says...

Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation

In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.​

So again, who am I supposed to believe? Certainly not the crackpot who reveals his political agenda by titling his thread, "Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?"

Maybe that could be the title of your peer reviewed article.

 

[citizenzen]

So who is the (Harries 2001) referred to in the previous post?

From spaceref.com...

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Wednesday, March 14, 2001
Source: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

First, direct observational evidence of a change in the Earth's greenhouse effect between 1970 and 1997

Writing today in the journal Nature, researchers in the Department of Physics show that there has been a significant change in the Earth's greenhouse effect over the last 30 years, a finding which is consistent with concerns over so-called 'radiative forcing' of the climate.

Previous studies in this area have depended on theoretical simulations because of the lack of data. However the Imperial team reached their conclusions after analysing data collected by two different earth-orbiting spacecraft, in 1970 and 1997.

Comparison between the two data sets has unequivocally established that significant changes in greenhouse gas emissions from the Earth have caused the change to the planet's greenhouse effect over this time period.

Professor John Harries, the lead author of the paper says: "These unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed and that they can be attributed to changes in green house gases over a long time period."​

Crackpot, or real scienctist... crackpot... real scientist.... who should I believe?

oh, the decision is sooo hard for me to make.

 

[citizenzen]

And let's not forget (Griggs).

From the SPIE Digital Library...

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present

Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5543, 164 (2004); doi:10.1117/12.556803

Online Publication Date: 9 November 2004

Conference Date: Monday 02 August 2004
Conference Location: Denver, CO, USA
Conference Title: Infrared Spaceborne Remote Sensing XII
Conference Chairs: Marija Strojnik

Measurements of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation allows signatures of many aspects of greenhouse warming to be distinguished without the need to amalgamate information from multiple measurements, allowing direct interpretation of the error characteristics. Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.​

 

[citizenzen]

And last, but not least, we have (Chen).

From eumetsat.int [PDF]

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
Claudine Chen 1, John Harries 1, Helen Brindley 1, Mark Ringer 2

Abstract
Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft. Additionally, simulated spectra have been calculated using LBLRTM with inputs from the HadGEM1 coupled model and compared to the observed satellite spectra.

INTRODUCTION
This paper extends the previous work done by this group [Griggs and Harries, 2007; Harries, et al., 2001] to include data from 2006 from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) on the AURA satellite. Prior studies have compared data from 1970 (with the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer, IRIS) to 1997 (with the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse gases, IMG) and 2003 (with the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, AIRS). Changes were detected in the spectra that were attributed to known changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.​

 

[citizenzen]

Without regard to the greenhouse effect, the fact remains that the spectra of outgoing long wave radiation in the CO2 spectrum has remained unchanged since the 1970's even though the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. That is the only salient point in this discussion.

And now that "the only salient point in this discussion" has been addressed, what do you have to say?

I'm sure it will be wildly entertaining.

 

[palerider]

That's exactly the opposite of what this source says...

Interesting, don't you think, that the original measurements are not shown? Simply a graph saying "this" is what happened. Where are the original graphs? Oh, I know, I posted them and oddly enough, they didn't show any decrease in outgoing longwave radiation.

So again, who am I supposed to believe? Certainly not the crackpot who reveals his political agenda by titling his thread, "Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?"

Copies of the original spectra compared directly to later spectra are, alas, more credible than a chart claiming to be the results of direct comparison.

 

[palerider]

So who is the (Harries 2001) referred to in the previous post?

From spaceref.com...

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Wednesday, March 14, 2001
Source: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

First, direct observational evidence of a change in the Earth's greenhouse effect between 1970 and 1997

Writing today in the journal Nature, researchers in the Department of Physics show that there has been a significant change in the Earth's greenhouse effect over the last 30 years, a finding which is consistent with concerns over so-called 'radiative forcing' of the climate.

Previous studies in this area have depended on theoretical simulations because of the lack of data. However the Imperial team reached their conclusions after analysing data collected by two different earth-orbiting spacecraft, in 1970 and 1997.

Comparison between the two data sets has unequivocally established that significant changes in greenhouse gas emissions from the Earth have caused the change to the planet's greenhouse effect over this time period.

Professor John Harries, the lead author of the paper says: "These unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed and that they can be attributed to changes in green house gases over a long time period."​

Crackpot, or real scienctist... crackpot... real scientist.... who should I believe?

oh, the decision is sooo hard for me to make.

Again, no graph of the original data compared to the later data. Interesting thing about your studies is that the later data required analysis and was altered while the original data apparently needed no such analysis. Interesting, don't you think?

 

[palerider]

And let's not forget (Griggs).

From the SPIE Digital Library...

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present

Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5543, 164 (2004); doi:10.1117/12.556803

Online Publication Date: 9 November 2004

Conference Date: Monday 02 August 2004
Conference Location: Denver, CO, USA
Conference Title: Infrared Spaceborne Remote Sensing XII
Conference Chairs: Marija Strojnik

Measurements of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation allows signatures of many aspects of greenhouse warming to be distinguished without the need to amalgamate information from multiple measurements, allowing direct interpretation of the error characteristics. Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.​

Once again, not a hint of evidence of the original data being compared to the later data. Just a statement that it happened and they shoud be trusted.

 

[palerider]

And last, but not least, we have (Chen).

From eumetsat.int [PDF]

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
Claudine Chen 1, John Harries 1, Helen Brindley 1, Mark Ringer 2

Abstract
Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft. Additionally, simulated spectra have been calculated using LBLRTM with inputs from the HadGEM1 coupled model and compared to the observed satellite spectra.

INTRODUCTION
This paper extends the previous work done by this group [Griggs and Harries, 2007; Harries, et al., 2001] to include data from 2006 from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) on the AURA satellite. Prior studies have compared data from 1970 (with the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer, IRIS) to 1997 (with the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse gases, IMG) and 2003 (with the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, AIRS). Changes were detected in the spectra that were attributed to known changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.​

At least chen is honest enough to state what is being done. Did you note that their conclusions are based on simulated data rather than actual observations? How convenient.