What are your thoughts on “Taller Tower Test Exposes CO2 Back Radiation Nonsense”?

This further verifies the fact that the Kehl/Trenberth energy budget diagram portrays nothing more than "an perpetual motion engine" that violates the Law of Thermodynamics.

Update: The video by Astrophysicist Joe Postma debunks the AGE and the Trenberth diagram.

(In comments)

Dirac you have never, ever refuted any of my posts.

Terribly flawed. Typical of the followers of Popper.

Name a dire climate prediction that has actually happened? Be careful in your answer, because NOAA says hurricanes, floods, drought and wildfires are actually lower than in previous decades.

Why is back radiation even relevant? It does not change the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

However, after a warm summer day, I do know what it feels like to feel warm by walking past a building that is warm to the touch. And, there is a fact that infrared thermometers measure cold temperatures as well as hot temperatures and the fact that we can see stars that are cooler than the Sun, like Betelgeuse, in the night sky.

Back radiation exists because the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law and not a fundamental law that does not apply to subatomic particles. A black body will emit photons in all directions, without pointing a thermometer in the direction in which the photons are going. But, the warmer body is always the more effective emitter of photons, so more energy will travel from the hot body to the cold body than from the cold body to the warm body.

Do not believe biased sources like /principia-scientific.org without checking with reputable sources, like NASA and NOAA.

"Consensus science promoters" like:

Anthony Watts? 

Roy Spencer? 

Fred Singer? 

John Christy? 

Henrik Svensmark? 

Tony Heller? 

Judith Curry? 

Christopher Monckton?

(All of these famous "skeptics" understand the reality of the greenhouse effect.)

See a psychiatrist.

I have tried to explain the Trenberth diagram before here but I will do it again.

Imagine the earth is a water tank. It is filled up with energy from the sun. The level of water in the tank represents temperature. With me so far?

Why doesn't the tank just get hotter and hotter? The tank has a slot cut in the side that is exactly the right shape to maintain the right water level for any input flow.

So far, so good. no laws of physics contravened. Everything easy to understand.

Now we need to look at the 396 kW up and 333 kW down in the $@!ar W!nd version of the Trenberth Diagram. Basically, someone has set up a (lossy) shower over the tank that pumps water out and lets it fall back in again. Is that controversial?

If that happens then what happens to the water level? Does it increase as the warmists suggest? Or does it remain the same because the net inflow and outflow remain unchanged?

My main comment on the "Taller Tower" experiment is that I am pleased to see someone trying to determine what happens experimentally. Just throwing one's hands in the air while claiming that we have only one earth so experiments are impossible does not really cut it.

It's silly. The back radiation is measured continuously at various sites around the world--24 hours a day, 365 days a year, so trying to prove that it doesn't exist is idiotic. You can also measure it yourself (albeit somewhat inaccurately) with an IR thermometer you can purchase for under $50. It's also fairly easy to observe the greenhouse effect itself--almost everyone recognizes that on cloudy or humid nights the temperature falls slower than on clear nights..

This experiment--and the bottle ones pushed by people that believe in AGW--will NEVER demonstrate the greenhouse effect, since that depends on having a temperature gradient between what's radiating and the surface of the ground.

If you think the 97 percent consensus is a big number, the physicists and climate scientists that believe in the greenhouse effect and back radiation is pretty much 100 percent. No competent scientists reject it, and it would even be hard to find an incompetent scientist that does--although it would provide a sufficient condition.

EDIT: Horse says others won't debate the science, but look at his "answer"--no science in there at all, and no logic either.

Haha aha hahhahahah hahahhaha ha ahhahah, you utter cretin

Thanks, I needed that laugh

This just more right wing crack pot crap. If you have enough money and no moral compass, you can generate all kinds of BS like this. Republicans do it every day!!