Thats funny.
I hate to break it to you, all heat comes from the sun. Don't get mad at me because you're too stupid to know extremely basic science. I might give you credit for misspeaking (because I found it hard to believe even you were that dumb) but then you repeated it 2 posts later.
So no, it became obvious that yes, you are that dumb.
Thats funny.
My God.
Why cannot you follow what I'm saying? Yes, I have also stated that almost all comes from the sun. There is still a small amount of the earths internal heat (magma) and tidal forces that add in miniscule percentage.
No heat is created.
Again...
If I put $100 a week in the bank, and don't take $100 a week out until four weeks later, then I have $400 sitting in the bank.
This is how the atmosphere effectively (not create) heats up more than what we would directly have.
Nothing is created.
Yes - I get that you understand how stupid what you said was and have since corrected it. That doesn't change that you're now saying something COMPLETELY different from what you SAID BEFORE.
Congrats, you display an ability to learn. The fact that you're being taught should tell you something, however.
I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of stupidity when I already, several days ago, elaborated, and you lack the comprehension to understand.
I know what you are doing. You are sidestepping the issue because you cannot win against me on the merit of facts, and you know it.
Let me get this strait. You are saying that satellites show a surface warming because of less spectra CO2 produces. Right? What nonsense.
Thats funny.
How can a satellite clearly see the tropospheric CO2 spectra through the stratospheric mesospheric, thermospheric, and and exospheric CO2? This higher al ude CO2 would emit high enough CO2 influenced noise to see any tropospheric CO2 spectra activity. It is probably similar to trying to see stars from the city in daylight hours.
What studies?So yes, in fact, seeing that there has been a drop off in outgoing LW radiation in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers is proof that CO2 is indeed preventing energy from leaving the earth's system. Those study's don't attempt to say what is happening before then.
Again, this is probably because it proves nothing, except that the upper CO2 has less heat to radiate. The reasons can be several.
This is where the energy budget comes in, and lag times. Consider this from Global Warming 101:It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system. All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.
PS...Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)
One more thing your heroes apparently get wrong. Satellite surface temperature is measured in the microwave region, and they look at the spectra emitted by oxygen for it.
Um, what? That didn't make sense. Check the grammar.
Thats not what I'm saying at all. Apparently you don't understand what outgoing longwave radiation is. For as smart as you think yourself you're having a very hard time with a very simple subject that anyone who has played a Call of Duty video game could understand.
Its hard to have this discussion with someone uneducated in simple physics and chemistry because this is the nonsense they spew when you say outgoing longwave radation spectroscopy.How can a satellite clearly see the tropospheric CO2 spectra through the stratospheric mesospheric, thermospheric, and and exospheric CO2? This higher al ude CO2 would emit high enough CO2 influenced noise to see any tropospheric CO2 spectra activity. It is probably similar to trying to see stars from the city in daylight hours.
You're not familiar with them? You always say you've devoted so much time to researching the subject yet you're not familiar with some of the most important work in the field? Surprising. No really. Surprising.
What studies?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/procee...sAuthorized=no
You can also search for a study by Chenn in 2007 that is the same basic thing but I don't have a link off hand to.
Oh, and since you love saying how this can't be measured for the lower troposphere through satellites (even though I never claimed such a thing), have some studies that measure the spectroscopy of DOWNWARD longwave radiation. Can't wait for you to tell me how this is invalid too.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006...per_100737.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011800.shtml
I've no idea what the you're talking about on the last part, and your link to the summary of Global Warming "101" does not help your case at all. It does the opposite.Again, this is probably because it proves nothing, except that the upper CO2 has less heat to radiate. The reasons can be several.
This is where the energy budget comes in, and lag times. Consider this from Global Warming 101:
PS...
One more thing your heroes apparently get wrong. Satellite surface temperature is measured in the microwave region, and they look at the spectra emitted by oxygen for it.
Your ego is amazing for the mul ude of holes in your knowledge.
Cliffsnotes: In 1970 there was more energy leaving the earth as a percentage in the spectrum associated with CO2 emission. Why the drop off? Because CO2 has gone up in concentration and is trapping more heat.
I'm sure this will have great impact on climate change deniers.
Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...e-environment/
It's just going to inspire them to post more junk tbh.I'm sure this will have great impact on climate change deniers.
Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...e-environment/
I give up. You fail to understand my points. Believe it or not, I understand. You don't. I challenged you when you claim surface temperature is seen by satellites seeing CO2 spectra changes. I point out that is impossible, you simply fail to understand how ignorant you are.
Buy a clue. The radiance of the CO2 in the uppermost atmosphere would blind the satellite to the same spectra it is attempting to see at the surface. Now you are changing what you mean by those stated studies, but will not admit it.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-27-2011 at 04:39 AM.
Wow...I'm sure this will have great impact on climate change deniers.
Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...e-environment/
Extreme weather changes for the first time in internet history... Must be the end of the world, ain't that right, Chicken Little?
I specifically said outgoing LW radiation in each post and somehow you still didn't get it but you understand EVERYTHING sooooooooooooooooo well. You're amazing.
Cooling in the upper atmosphere, while the lower atmosphere warms would be consistant with GH action in the lower atmosphere absorbing more heat.
Your statement reminds me of our local moon hoaxer when presented with something he finds inconvenient, pulling something out of his ass and saying "this stinky thing is plausible to me, so I can discard your line of reasoning/fact out of hand".
"the reasons can be several". Then outline them, in order of probability.
The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010
I think we're coping quite well, thank you.
Factually incorrect.
Some satellites use this specifically, but not all, from what I read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements
Microwave Sensing Units are not the only types of sensors used by satellites.
Manny has been saying longwave radiation, because infrared sensors are also a method of surface temperature measurement. These infrared sensors are, I presume, why the wikipedia entry specifies " various wavelength bands".
Hope this helps.
Thats a hilarious image. The best part of this debate is watching you guys scramble for information whose context in the debate you really don't understand. You merely see a near sighted opportunity to use it to make a point and do not think on how its entire scope and context actually advances the debate.The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010
I think we're coping quite well, thank you.
Here, Yoni posts a graph showing that in the past 50 years weather related fatalities have come way down. Now anyone with a half a brain can make the connection here with that data's time frame and technological advances and government intervention. Namely:
-the advent of weather radar and satellite imaging. Its amazing how people die less when they are able to detect life threatening severe weather with a lead time and are able to react accordingly. An event like the Joplin tornado this year shows what happens when you don't have that warning time.
-National Weather Service actions. In addition to the raw data we're able to acquire now from remote sensing we've also got a government agency that is responsible for analyzing and distributing that information. In the 1930s the warning you got that a tornado was on its way was not broadcast over an EBS crawl on the screen of your TV but rather the roar of said tornado as it completely demolished your home.
Now, these are clear logical reasons for Yonivore's graphs and but what I find especially delicious is the fact that these very programs and technology were put into place and developed by the very same people who Yonivore loves to ridicule on the subject of climate change. So out of one side of his mouth Yonivore wants to use the data to present a skewed view of whether or not climate change is an actual event that will have a large effect while discounting those responsible for that very data out of the other side.
Furthermore, if those Yonivores support would get their way, you would absolutely see a reversal in those numbers. NOAA is facing cuts that are quite drastic and, IMO, the NWS is an agency that absolutely is vital to the interests of the United States and is not a governmental agency you play with lightly. The GOP would love to see them cut down even further. Of course I'm biased, but I think its hard to argue that the mission of the NWS affects nearly everyone in this country to a great degree and is directly responsible for saving lives and saving money.
Keep posting graphs, Yoni. This is fun.
BTW, Why doesn't Yoni post an image in the same vein but showing economic damage? Maybe because buildings aren't able to be evacuated?
Calm down; I merely used the graph to suggest, whatever changes are occurring, we're coping pretty well. But, nice rant.
The irony there, is that the deaths have declined due to the ability to predict weather as we have gathered more data about our planets atmophere.The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010
I think we're coping quite well, thank you.
The same ability to understand our atmosphere leads us to believe we are changing our climate through GH emissions.
Again, you remind me of the conspiracy theorists, who sit around on websites and think of sciency-sounding things to say that you believe supports your thesis, but actually point out how weak your case is, or, in this case actually points out how good the case of the people you are attempting to discredit is.
I didn't suggest it supported anything except that we're coping pretty well with extreme weather events, these days.
In terms of deaths from extreme weather phenomena, yes.
The economic impacts of another dustbowl in the US central plains, or say, half of Florida underwater, would be something else entirely.
I bet mortality would still be lower than the last dustbowl.
The implication was fairly obvious. "Since we are doing so well coping, we should do nothing to mitigate our GH emissions."
I would ask you not to be disingenuous, but that is like asking a fish to quit swimming.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
