Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Still demonstrating how totally ignorant you are. Doubt that you even know what Tyndall was measuring, let alone what it meant.
Oh davedumb, you wouldn't know science if it bit you.Got an experiment to back that up?No, he didn't. He presented evidence that CO2 was a GHG, that's all. Not that it had any effect on the climate. Get your scripture right there buckwheat.
LOL. CO2 is a GHG. But it has no effect on the climate?
Good God and little fishes. Do you understand what the hell you said? CO2 is a GHG. Therefore, it absorbs energy. Now, were it to just keep that energy, it would increase it's rate of vibration, and collide with the molecules around it, thereby transfering that heat and warming the atmosphere.
But if it re-radiates that heat, 1/2 of the heat goes back to the earth. In either case, the result is a warmer troposphere and surface.
Hard to believe someone claims to be degreed in a discipline of science and makes statements as stupid as this.
No?
Then it's not science, is it?
Explain the centuries-long lag between warming and CO2 increase.
Been done many times on this board. Just that you are too stupid to comprehend the answer.
Then you admit AGW is a fraud, because the timing of the Industrial Revolution does not support AGW and the CO2 lag.
Unless you want to claim CO2 goes back in time.
Your call.
Yes, that will act JUST LIKE an entire planet and sun!
Still demonstrating how totally ignorant you are. Doubt that you even know what Tyndall was measuring, let alone what it meant.
How accurate do you figure those instruments were? Parts per hundred? per ten? What the increase in CO2, is it 100 PPM? Hmmm, you think Tyndall was that accurate?
Oh davedumb, you wouldn't know science if it bit you.Got an experiment to back that up?LOL. CO2 is a GHG. But it has no effect on the climate?
Good God and little fishes. Do you understand what the hell you said? CO2 is a GHG. Therefore, it absorbs energy. Now, were it to just keep that energy, it would increase it's rate of vibration, and collide with the molecules around it, thereby transfering that heat and warming the atmosphere.
But if it re-radiates that heat, 1/2 of the heat goes back to the earth. In either case, the result is a warmer troposphere and surface.
Hard to believe someone claims to be degreed in a discipline of science and makes statements as stupid as this.
No?
Then it's not science, is it?
Did they alter the data to fit the models on this one, too?Been done many times on this board. Just that you are too stupid to comprehend the answer.
Then you admit AGW is a fraud, because the timing of the Industrial Revolution does not support AGW and the CO2 lag.
Unless you want to claim CO2 goes back in time.
Your call.
Dumb fuck. The Milankovic Cycles drive the glacial and interglacial cycles that we have exprerianced for over a million years.
Milankovitch Cycles - Overview of Milankovitch Cycles
However, even though the increased insolation of the southern ocean is enough to warm it slightly, it is not enough to account for the warmth needed for the interglacial period. That is supplied by the emission of CO2 from the southern ocean, and increased methane emissions from the tropics due to the warming from the Milankovic Cycles.
Global Warming Natural Cycle — OSS Foundation
Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period.
The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved, would have us near or slightly below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling.
In other words, if we were in the natural cycle without human influence, the forcing levels would likely be around 0W/m2 to -0.1W/m2. We are currently experiencing a positive forcing of around 3.6 to 3.8W/m2 and a human induced negative forcing of around 2W/m2. The resultant forcing, depending on current levels and the Schwabe cycle is around +1.6W/m2 above natural cycle as estimated
Let's look at his paper, shall we?Still demonstrating how totally ignorant you are. Doubt that you even know what Tyndall was measuring, let alone what it meant.
How accurate do you figure those instruments were? Parts per hundred? per ten? What the increase in CO2, is it 100 PPM? Hmmm, you think Tyndall was that accurate?
Frankie boy, you are beyond hope. IR wavelengths.
Really? I'm not the one claiming a 150-year-old experiment proves something it didn't.I once had a freind ask me why people always assume a conservative is stupid. Had the internet been up and running at that time, I could have had him read your posts, Daveboy.
Let's look at his paper, shall we?How accurate do you figure those instruments were? Parts per hundred? per ten? What the increase in CO2, is it 100 PPM? Hmmm, you think Tyndall was that accurate?
Frankie boy, you are beyond hope. IR wavelengths.
Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Tyndall and his Greenhouse Effect
Tyndall reports on laboratory experiments on absorption, but presents no physical quantitative mathematical theory to support his claim that:
Accordingly, Tyndall immediately withdraws the claim by stating:
- an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects... on changes of climate.
We find here the root of the contradictory arguments repeated over and over in CO2 climate alarmism: A small cause (change of CO2) can have a substantial effect on global temperature, but the size of the effect remains unknown.
- ...the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
The last repetition of Tyndall's argument appeared in Science on Oct 15: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature by climate alarmist Gavin A. Schmidt et al.
But to show scientifically that a small cause will have a substantial effect requires a precise model so that the small cause can be distinguished from other small or big causes. In climate science this model is lacking, and therefore Tyndall's conjecture remains to be demonstrated.
THIS is what you've hung your hat on? THIS is your justification for crippling the economies of the entire Western world?
Good Gaea, you are all idiots.
Let's look at Tyndall's paper itself. Have you ever read it?Let's look at his paper, shall we?Frankie boy, you are beyond hope. IR wavelengths.
Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Tyndall and his Greenhouse Effect
Tyndall reports on laboratory experiments on absorption, but presents no physical quantitative mathematical theory to support his claim that:
Accordingly, Tyndall immediately withdraws the claim by stating:
- an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects... on changes of climate.
We find here the root of the contradictory arguments repeated over and over in CO2 climate alarmism: A small cause (change of CO2) can have a substantial effect on global temperature, but the size of the effect remains unknown.
- ...the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
The last repetition of Tyndall's argument appeared in Science on Oct 15: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature by climate alarmist Gavin A. Schmidt et al.
But to show scientifically that a small cause will have a substantial effect requires a precise model so that the small cause can be distinguished from other small or big causes. In climate science this model is lacking, and therefore Tyndall's conjecture remains to be demonstrated.
THIS is what you've hung your hat on? THIS is your justification for crippling the economies of the entire Western world?
Good Gaea, you are all idiots.
You dumb lying fuck. Damn, Tyndall measured the absorption bands in IR for water vapor, CO2, CH4, and other GHGs. Nothing at all to do with hydrocarbon vapors.
Now you have even exceeded Walleyes in stupidity and lies.
The real story for those that would like to know;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Of course, anyone that knows anything at all about this subject knows that Tyndall presented the defining evidence in 1861.
No, he didn't. He presented evidence that CO2 was a GHG, that's all. Not that it had any effect on the climate. Get your scripture right there buckwheat.
LOL. CO2 is a GHG. But it has no effect on the climate?
Good God and little fishes. Do you understand what the hell you said? CO2 is a GHG. Therefore, it absorbs energy. Now, were it to just keep that energy, it would increase it's rate of vibration, and collide with the molecules around it, thereby transfering that heat and warming the atmosphere.
But if it re-radiates that heat, 1/2 of the heat goes back to the earth. In either case, the result is a warmer troposphere and surface.
Hard to believe someone claims to be degreed in a discipline of science and makes statements as stupid as this.
I once had a freind ask me why people always assume a conservative is stupid. Had the internet been up and running at that time, I could have had him read your posts, Daveboy.
Indeed. Ten bucks says he's never read Tyndall's paper; he's just been accepting the crap from the IPCC as gospel.
I once had a freind ask me why people always assume a conservative is stupid. Had the internet been up and running at that time, I could have had him read your posts, Daveboy.
Let's look at Tyndall's paper itself. Have you ever read it?Let's look at his paper, shall we?
Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Tyndall and his Greenhouse Effect
Tyndall reports on laboratory experiments on absorption, but presents no physical quantitative mathematical theory to support his claim that:
Accordingly, Tyndall immediately withdraws the claim by stating:
- an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects... on changes of climate.
We find here the root of the contradictory arguments repeated over and over in CO2 climate alarmism: A small cause (change of CO2) can have a substantial effect on global temperature, but the size of the effect remains unknown.
- ...the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
The last repetition of Tyndall's argument appeared in Science on Oct 15: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature by climate alarmist Gavin A. Schmidt et al.
But to show scientifically that a small cause will have a substantial effect requires a precise model so that the small cause can be distinguished from other small or big causes. In climate science this model is lacking, and therefore Tyndall's conjecture remains to be demonstrated.
THIS is what you've hung your hat on? THIS is your justification for crippling the economies of the entire Western world?
Good Gaea, you are all idiots.
You dumb lying fuck. Damn, Tyndall measured the absorption bands in IR for water vapor, CO2, CH4, and other GHGs. Nothing at all to do with hydrocarbon vapors.
Now you have even exceeded Walleyes in stupidity and lies.
The real story for those that would like to know;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Tyndall (1861)
De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.Carbonic acid refers to CO2.
He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.
Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..In short: It doesn't prove what you claim it proves.
You've been had. Sucker!
Bad socialist! No, you can't have my money!
....The point is that as temperatures increase, the rate at which the Earth loses heat goes strictly up, all things being equal. Hot bodies lose heat (to radiation) much faster than cold bodies due to Stefan-Boltzmanns T^4 straight up; then anything that increases the inhomogeneity of the temperature distribution around the (increased) mean tends to increase it further still....checks suggest that one simply cannot assume that the Earth is a ball at some uniform temperature without making important errors, They also suggest that changes of more than 1-2C around some geological-time mean temperature are nearly absurdly unlikely, given the fundamental T^4 in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Basically, given T = 288, every 1K increase in T corresponds to a 1.4% increase in total radiated power. If one wants a smoking gun to explain global temperature variation, it needs to be smoking at a level where net power is modulated at the same scale as the temperature in degrees Kelvin....best of all is a complex, nonlinear mix of all of the above! Albedo, global circulation (convection), Oceanic transport of heat, atmospheric water content, all change the way temperature is distributed (and hence lost to radiation) and all contribute, Im quite certain, in nontrivial ways to the average global temperature....The point is that this is a complex problem, not a simple one. When anyone claims that it is simple, they are probably trying to sell you something. It isnt a simple physics problem, and it is nearly certain that we dont yet know how all of the physics is laid out. The really annoying thing about the entire climate debate is the presumption by everyone that the science is settled. It is not. It is not even close to being settled. We will still be learning important things about the climate a decade from now. Until all of the physics is known, and there are no more watt/m^2 scale surprises, we wont be able to build an accurate model....Finally, we dont know how to build a faithful global climate model, in part because we need answers to many of these questions before we can do so! Until we can, were just building nonlinear function fitters that do OK at interpolation, and are lousy at extrapolation.
Thanks! That's why I've been saying it's ludicrous to claim an experiment with just a couple of variable can accurately predict what will happen to an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables.Let's look at Tyndall's paper itself. Have you ever read it?You dumb lying fuck. Damn, Tyndall measured the absorption bands in IR for water vapor, CO2, CH4, and other GHGs. Nothing at all to do with hydrocarbon vapors.
Now you have even exceeded Walleyes in stupidity and lies.
The real story for those that would like to know;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Tyndall (1861)
De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.Carbonic acid refers to CO2.
He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.
Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..In short: It doesn't prove what you claim it proves.
You've been had. Sucker!
Bad socialist! No, you can't have my money!
great post daveman! Tyndall's work (and many others!) has been distorted and twisted into 'proof' when in actuality it is only suggestion. one mechanism in climate whose numerical importance is blocked from measurement because of the difficulty in teasing out single effects from the combined whole. there are a great many areas in the radiative physics of the earth/atmosphere system that are still only in the beginning stages of understanding but until they are understood we cannot be even remotely confident in our modelling of the system.
a fantastic example of this from What we don’t know about Earths energy flow | Watts Up With That?
....The point is that as temperatures increase, the rate at which the Earth loses heat goes strictly up, all things being equal. Hot bodies lose heat (to radiation) much faster than cold bodies due to Stefan-Boltzmanns T^4 straight up; then anything that increases the inhomogeneity of the temperature distribution around the (increased) mean tends to increase it further still....checks suggest that one simply cannot assume that the Earth is a ball at some uniform temperature without making important errors, They also suggest that changes of more than 1-2C around some geological-time mean temperature are nearly absurdly unlikely, given the fundamental T^4 in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Basically, given T = 288, every 1K increase in T corresponds to a 1.4% increase in total radiated power. If one wants a smoking gun to explain global temperature variation, it needs to be smoking at a level where net power is modulated at the same scale as the temperature in degrees Kelvin....best of all is a complex, nonlinear mix of all of the above! Albedo, global circulation (convection), Oceanic transport of heat, atmospheric water content, all change the way temperature is distributed (and hence lost to radiation) and all contribute, Im quite certain, in nontrivial ways to the average global temperature....The point is that this is a complex problem, not a simple one. When anyone claims that it is simple, they are probably trying to sell you something. It isnt a simple physics problem, and it is nearly certain that we dont yet know how all of the physics is laid out. The really annoying thing about the entire climate debate is the presumption by everyone that the science is settled. It is not. It is not even close to being settled. We will still be learning important things about the climate a decade from now. Until all of the physics is known, and there are no more watt/m^2 scale surprises, we wont be able to build an accurate model....Finally, we dont know how to build a faithful global climate model, in part because we need answers to many of these questions before we can do so! Until we can, were just building nonlinear function fitters that do OK at interpolation, and are lousy at extrapolation.
