Bing answers CO2 question

[abu afak]

• Mar 28, 2023

It's CALLED: "Climate sensitivity"... TO CO2.
Threads have been started on it STUPID. (Billy Bob, etc)
It has been spoon fed to you IDIOT
YOU BRAIN DAMAGED OBSTINATE RW FOOL!

So Crusader Bimbo has No answer for his STUNNING Idiocy in Not being able to look up Climate sensitivity (CO2 vs Temp)... despite other debates here on the topic.
(it rises app 3C/5.4F for every doubling)
He thought it had virtually none or went out to 3, 4, 5 decimal places.

Not being able to look up the unbelievably simple schoolhouse experiments in a container for CO2 heat trapping... (he asked for but couldn't google).
`
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• Mar 28, 2023

Climate sensitivity TO CO2.

So Crusader Bimbo has No answer for his STUNNING Idiocy in Not being able to look up Climate sensitivity (CO2 vs Temp)... despite other debates here on the topic.
(it rises app 3C/5.4F for every doubling)
He thought it had virtually none or went out to 3, 4, 5 decimal places.

Not being able to look up the unbelievably simple schoolhouse experiments in a container for CO2 heat trapping... (he asked for but couldn't google).

and instead is merely Repeating his answered questions/Lies, and posting Large Pictures to bury his loss/Stupidity...
.
`

Number of experiments showing temperature increasing 3C when doubling CO2 from 250 to 500 is still zero

 

[abu afak]

Number of experiments showing temperature increasing 3C when doubling CO2 from 250 to 500 is still zero

Nice to have a two man debate without the TROLLS giving you High Fives and harrassing me.

YOU MORON. RESIGN.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nice to have a two man debate without the TROLLS giving you High Fives and harrassing me.

YOU MORON. RESIGN.
`

One day, you’ll realize how totally wrong you are.

You never wonder why you can’t find even one on point experiment showing doubling CO2 raises temperatures AT ALL, much less by 3C?

 

[EMH]

global temperatures are inversely proportional to the width of the Atlantic Ocean over these past 100 million years

So, Earth was completely frozen when Pangea existed???

 

[EMH]

One day, you’ll realize how totally wrong you are.

You never wonder why you can’t find even one on point experiment showing doubling CO2 raises temperatures AT ALL, much less by 3C?

This guy is seriously WHACKO FASCIST.

 

[EMH]

Nice to have a two man debate without the TROLLS giving you High Fives and harrassing me.

YOU MORON. RESIGN.
`

TRUTH "harasses" you....

 

[ReinyDays]

No SHlT for brains I TAUGHT THIS TO YOU/BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD Several times in the last few weeks.
You FILTHY SCVM BAG.
That was ME Not "Bing."

• Apr 19, 2023

H2O vs. CO2 Yet another observation the AGW Cult will ignore

Show us one time on the graph when CO2 peaks and temperature subsequently rises. Remember time moves right to left here 410,000 CO2 peaks, temps FALL for the next 60,000 years; temps then start to rise and drag CO2 with them 325,000 CO2 peaks, temps PLUMMET for 75,000 years...etc. The...

www.usmessageboard.com

DISHONEST FRUSADER CRANK was SHUT UP BY THIS POST - TWICE - for WEEKS and many pages ago but keeps trying to bury his loss with BS.​

​

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with water vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

another Stupid FrusaderCrank post (135,900 and counting) destroyed with One.
He is THEE Stupidest poster on USMB/any MB.
Another Nonsensical post (or dozens) to follow.
EDIT: Now he restarted the BOGUS thread/LOSS Again.
- - - - - -- -- - - - - - -- -

end april 19, 2023
"bing" my ass.
That was me.
and gave you many More 'impossible' CO2 experiments, that actually a child could do at home/teachers do in school to test GHG CO2!
You are too Stupid to debate.
Just hold up for ridicule for your continued obstinance/idiocy.
`
`

How are you accounting for convection? ... whatever her radiative properties ... water vapor also holds a tremendous amount of latent heat ... 2100 J/g ... how much energy in 1/18 mole of our 1.2 µm photons? ... one joule? ... maybe closer to 10 joules ...

That's right friend ... the math says higher water vapor content means more convection ... less radiation ... or did you stop conserving energy all of a sudden? ...

 

[abu afak]

How are you accounting for convection? ... whatever her radiative properties ... water vapor also holds a tremendous amount of latent heat ... 2100 J/g ... how much energy in 1/18 mole of our 1.2 µm photons? ... one joule? ... maybe closer to 10 joules ...

That's right friend ... the math says higher water vapor content means more convection ... less radiation ... or did you stop conserving energy all of a sudden? ...

I am using an accepted formula, while you are just making the usual ass of Yourself with your gratuitous Physics 101 class term dropping.
What a Bore!
`

 

[ReinyDays]

I am using an accepted formula, while you are just making the usual ass of Yourself with your gratuitous Physics 101 class term dropping.
What a Bore!
`

No .. "convection" comes from the Atmospheric Science 201 class ... Physics 101 was a prerequisite, as well as Math 101 ... and concurrent with Math 201 ...

Latent heat of evaporation does not effect temperature ... Chemistry 101 ... water does not mix with air, it has to be dissolved first ...

But I get it ... College level science is gratuitous ... God forbid we use such in your Holy Presence ...

 

[EMH]

It's CALLED: "Climate sensitivity"... TO CO2.

Co2 went up. Satellites and balloons recorded NO WARMING in the atmosphere....


sensitivity coefficient = ABSOLUTE ZERO

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ChatGPT's liberal Bias in action

Assume that we find an Earth like exoplanet orbiting a Sun like star in the goldilocks zone of habitability. The atmosphere is comparable to Earth, 80% nitrogen 19% oxygen, traces of water vapor, argon and 250 parts per million of CO2. We discovered that CO2 increases by 1 PPM a year on the exoplanet. What experiments can we conduct in an Earth lab to measure the effect the extra CO2 would have on temperature of the exoplanet?

ChatGPT
Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to conduct experiments in an Earth lab to accurately measure the effect of extra CO2 on the temperature of an exoplanet.

This is because the conditions on the exoplanet are likely very different from those on Earth, and the complex interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land, and sun on the exoplanet cannot be replicated in a laboratory setting. Additionally, even if we could accurately simulate the conditions on the exoplanet, we would not be able to directly observe its temperature from Earth.

However, scientists can use computer models to simulate the climate of the exoplanet based on the available information about its atmosphere and orbit. These models can help predict the potential effects of increasing CO2 levels on the exoplanet's temperature and climate.

To develop these models, scientists would need to use data from Earth's climate system and apply it to the conditions of the exoplanet. This would involve adjusting variables such as the size and distance of the star, the planet's distance from the star, and the chemical makeup of the atmosphere.

By inputting this information into a computer model, scientists can simulate the climate of the exoplanet and predict how increasing CO2 levels may affect its temperature and climate over time.

However, it is important to note that these models are not perfect, and there is still much we do not know about exoplanets and their climate systems. Additionally, predicting the effects of increasing CO2 levels on an exoplanet's climate may be complicated by other factors, such as the presence of clouds, which can both absorb and reflect incoming radiation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Number of experiments showing temperature increasing 3C when doubling CO2 from 250 to 500 is still zero

Assume that all other variables are controlled and the only variable is CO2. Assume that the current average temperature on the exoplanet is 40C. Set up a repeatable, laboratory test that control for variances in CO2. Would doubling CO2 to 500PPM increase temperature by 3C as assumed on Earth?

ChatGPT

I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. As an AI language model, I cannot assume any information that is not provided in the question. However, assuming that we have the necessary information and resources, we could design a laboratory experiment to investigate the effects of increased CO2 concentrations on the temperature of an exoplanet.
To do this, we would need to simulate the atmosphere of the exoplanet in a controlled laboratory environment, which would involve recreating the atmospheric composition and pressure, as well as the temperature and solar radiation flux. We would then introduce different levels of CO2 to the simulated atmosphere and measure the resulting temperature changes.
One possible way to measure the temperature changes is to use an infrared thermometer, which can measure the thermal radiation emitted by the simulated exoplanet's surface. We could also use a thermocouple to measure the temperature of the simulated atmosphere directly.
To answer the second part of the question, it is currently unknown whether doubling CO2 to 500 ppm on an exoplanet with an atmosphere similar to Earth's would increase the temperature by 3C, as this would depend on many factors such as the specific composition of the exoplanet's atmosphere, its distance from its star, and other factors that could impact its climate.
In general, the impact of CO2 on temperature depends on how much warming effect it has on the atmosphere, and this depends on several factors such as the absorption and scattering properties of the atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere, and the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. However, it is generally expected that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to some level of warming, though the precise amount of warming will depend on the specifics of the exoplanet's climate system.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the AI tells us that there are too many variables to control for CO2 on an exoplanet, but what's the excuse for not being able to conduct the same experiment on Earth?

 

[Dagosa]

Sent message. Assume that we find an Earth like exoplanet orbiting a Sun like star in the goldilocks zone of habitability. The Atmosphere is comparable to Earth, 80% nitrogen 19% oxygen, traces of water vapor, argon and 250 parts per million of CO2. Assuming that CO2 increases by 1 PPM a year what experiments can we conduct in an Earth lab to measure the effect the extra CO2would have on temperature of the exoplanet
Searching for: effect of CO2 on temperature

Searching for: effect of CO2 on temperature

Generating answers for you…

Generating answers for you…

That’s a very interesting question. According to the search results, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared energy, which causes the atmosphere to warm up1. The warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which is another greenhouse gas that further enhances the warming effect12. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing rapidly due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels3.

One possible experiment that can be done in an Earth lab to measure the effect of extra CO2 on the temperature of the exoplanet is to use a climate model that simulates the physical processes and feedbacks that govern the climate system4. A climate model can be run with different scenarios of CO2 concentrations and other factors that affect the climate, such as solar radiation, clouds, aerosols, etc. The model can then output the projected changes in temperature and other variables for each scenario. By comparing the results of different scenarios, one can estimate how much extra CO2 would affect the temperature of the exoplanet.

Another possible experiment is to use a controlled chamber that mimics the conditions of the exoplanet’s atmosphere5. The chamber can be filled with a mixture of gases that matches the composition of the exoplanet’s atmosphere, and then exposed to a light source that simulates the solar radiation. The temperature and other variables inside the chamber can be measured with sensors. The experiment can be repeated with different amounts of CO2 added to the chamber, and then compare how the temperature changes with different CO2 levels.

These are some examples of experiments that could be done in an Earth lab to measure the effect of extra CO2 on the temperature of the exoplanet. However, there may be other factors and uncertainties that could affect the accuracy and validity of these experiments, such as the complexity and variability of the climate system, the limitations and assumptions of the models and methods used, and the availability and quality of data and observations. Therefore, these experiments should be interpreted with caution and complemented with other sources of evidence and information.

Or you can just Fking Google your concerns to climate research facilities who do all this shit on a regular basis.

 

[EMH]

So Crusader Bimbo has No answer for his STUNNING Idiocy in Not being able to look up Climate sensitivity (CO2 vs Temp)... despite other debates here on the topic.

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons

Both showed NO WARMING despite rising Co2, so the sensitivity factor is ABSOLUTE ZERO.

And then your side FUDGED both series with the most conflicted FUDGE JOB in science history...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.


SCIENCE SAYS THEORY REJECTED

"The Science" says FUDGE THE DATA and KEEP BILKING THE TAXPAYER


FUDGE excuses


satellites = "orbit wobble" = fudge the data higher

balloons = "shade issues" which were constant the whole time and hence did not affect detection of temperature CHANGE = fudge that series higher


LAUGHABLE BULLSHIT


THE DATA SPEAKS THE TRUTH ABOUT YOU BULLSHIT LYING TREASONOUS MONSTERS PUSHING THE CO2 FRAUD

 

[BackAgain]

I’ve never been able to find, and the entire AGWCult has never been able to post, not one time, an experiment that controls for CO2 and shows the assumed temperature increase. Mythbusters attempted to, but had to crank up CO2 to 7%, far in excess of the current .04% AND they increased both atmospheric pressure AND added some absurd amount of water vapor to get the temperature needle to move. Fake. Fraud.

Crusader Frank, relying on just a simple statement of facts and a logical question or two, has apu afuk so worked up that s/he/it is literally spewing spittle all over the board

And it is hysterical to see afuk getting so frustrated and irrationally emotional while pretending that he/she/it is the one with a measurable IQ.

Nice job Crusader Frank.

 

[Dagosa]

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons

Wrong doofus. You’re still using 1960 arguments. You’re maybe 60 years of dilution behind the effort to make yourself look foolish.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• Mar 28, 2023

It's CALLED: "Climate sensitivity"... TO CO2.
Threads have been started on it STUPID. (Billy Bob, etc)
It has been spoon fed to you IDIOT
YOU BRAIN DAMAGED OBSTINATE RW FOOL!

So Crusader Bimbo has No answer for his STUNNING Idiocy in Not being able to look up Climate sensitivity (CO2 vs Temp)... despite other debates here on the topic.
(it rises app 3C/5.4F for every doubling)
He thought it had virtually none or went out to 3, 4, 5 decimal places.

Not being able to look up the unbelievably simple schoolhouse experiments in a container for CO2 heat trapping... (he asked for but couldn't google).
`
`

You're telling us that you can show temperature rising 3C by increasing CO2 from 250 to 500PPM in a laboratory setting? Perfect! Show us!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No SHlT for brains I TAUGHT THIS TO YOU/BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD Several times in the last few weeks.
You FILTHY SCVM BAG.
That was ME Not "Bing."

• Apr 19, 2023

H2O vs. CO2 Yet another observation the AGW Cult will ignore

Show us one time on the graph when CO2 peaks and temperature subsequently rises. Remember time moves right to left here 410,000 CO2 peaks, temps FALL for the next 60,000 years; temps then start to rise and drag CO2 with them 325,000 CO2 peaks, temps PLUMMET for 75,000 years...etc. The...

www.usmessageboard.com

DISHONEST FRUSADER CRANK was SHUT UP BY THIS POST - TWICE - for WEEKS and many pages ago but keeps trying to bury his loss with BS.​

​

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with water vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

another Stupid FrusaderCrank post (135,900 and counting) destroyed with One.
He is THEE Stupidest poster on USMB/any MB.
Another Nonsensical post (or dozens) to follow.
EDIT: Now he restarted the BOGUS thread/LOSS Again.
- - - - - -- -- - - - - - -- -

end april 19, 2023
"bing" my ass.
That was me.
and gave you many More 'impossible' CO2 experiments, that actually a child could do at home/teachers do in school to test GHG CO2!
You are too Stupid to debate.
Just hold up for ridicule for your continued obstinance/idiocy.
`
`

What were the water vapor readings in 1850? What are they today?