clouds and water vapor

[Old Rocks]

I find it very curious oldsocks only showed the first paragraph in that PDF file... SO I did the unthinkable and actually read a little more of it. And look what I found in the very next paragraph....

"Within the lower atmosphere of many planets (first 10kmof Earth; 5 kmfor Mars;
and 60 km for Venus) the greenhouse effect is dominated by pressure-broadened
vibration–rotational lines (e.g., CO2 and CH4) or pure rotational lines (H2O) of
polyatomic gases. Typically, the absorption and emission of radiation occurs in
discrete bands with thousands of rotational lines within each band. Even with modern
day supercomputers it is impossible to estimate the radiative transfer due to
all of these lines and bands through the atmosphere for the entire planet. Thus a
three-dimensional characterization of the radiative heating rates from equator to
pole using the line-by-line approach is impractical. What is normally done is to use 120 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor."

Notice the part I bolded and underlined.... yeah thats the reality in all of it.. All the big talk and overly complex theories and nonsense and in the end they tell us its impossible to estimate radiative transfer...

Yeah.....

And isn't it interesting Old Smelly Socks subscribes to something that cannot be charted?

Isn't it interesting that you remain such a dumb fuck.

 

[konradv]

I liked the above sentence. The "Polyatomic gases" meant we didn't have to deal with the lowbrow mono-atomic gases (N2 and O2) that comprise 98+% of our atmosphere.
----------------------------

Why should we, if they're not GHGs? That particular comment makes no sense at all. It's like taking a spary can of something that 1% active ingredients and 99% inert and focusing exclusively on what the inert ingredients are doing.

 

[gslack]

LOL, oldsocks goes on his propaganda spamming and then like a lock cornhole shows up.... Too funny boys LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I liked the above sentence. The "Polyatomic gases" meant we didn't have to deal with the lowbrow mono-atomic gases (N2 and O2) that comprise 98+% of our atmosphere.
----------------------------

Why should we, if they're not GHGs? That particular comment makes no sense at all. It's like taking a spary can of something that 1% active ingredients and 99% inert and focusing exclusively on what the inert ingredients are doing.

Dude, lighten the fuck up! I was serious about liking the sentence.

 

[gslack]

I liked the above sentence. The "Polyatomic gases" meant we didn't have to deal with the lowbrow mono-atomic gases (N2 and O2) that comprise 98+% of our atmosphere.
----------------------------

Why should we, if they're not GHGs? That particular comment makes no sense at all. It's like taking a spary can of something that 1% active ingredients and 99% inert and focusing exclusively on what the inert ingredients are doing.

Dude, lighten the fuck up! I was serious about liking the sentence.

Frank the little idiot had no idea what it meant... he just grabs crap and posts it to back whatever his pals claim...

 

[The T]

I find it very curious oldsocks only showed the first paragraph in that PDF file... SO I did the unthinkable and actually read a little more of it. And look what I found in the very next paragraph....


Notice the part I bolded and underlined.... yeah thats the reality in all of it.. All the big talk and overly complex theories and nonsense and in the end they tell us its impossible to estimate radiative transfer...

Yeah.....

And isn't it interesting Old Smelly Socks subscribes to something that cannot be charted?

Isn't it interesting that you remain such a dumb fuck.

Rebuttal Gracie?

You've been HAD before you were.