No Evidence

[SSDD]

if you want to predict the temperature on venus, or any other planet with sufficient atmosphere, look to the molar version of the ideal gas law which applies to atmospheres...not the SB law, which doesn't.

You don't have to predict the surface temperature of Venus. It was observed and measured to be 735 K. That means it radiates 15,700 W/m² where does all that energy go?

Questions are not observed measured evidence. You will never get answers about planetary temperatures of any planet in the context of the greenhouse hypothesis because it is wrong.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.

I'm addressing your statement #2. You still haven't answered.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. What happens to the difference, 157 W/m², that has to go somewhere.

The planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!

 

[Wuwei]

Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence.

The surface temperature of Venus is observed evidence. Do you disbelieve the Stefan Boltzmann law? If not, you will have to explain where the 15,700 W/m² radiation goes. It is as simple as that.

 

[Wuwei]

You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!

It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.

• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!

It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.

• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Not once in your reply show that CO2 itself is generating heat, it only absorbs and releases IR and nothing more. THAT is what I am talking about.

You wrote this revealing line showing even YOU agree that CO2 doesn't generate heat, it only release ENERGY which came from the SUN!

"The planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?"

bolding mine

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

Adding any gas causes it to cool, compared to a vacuum. Boring.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

Adding any gas causes it to cool, compared to a vacuum. Boring.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing Earth to cool?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

Adding any gas causes it to cool, compared to a vacuum. Boring.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing Earth to cool?

Why would it?

 

[Wuwei]

You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!

That is a good question that a lot of people have.

When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very seldom releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.

The reason is that molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nanoSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

The chaos of air is continually exciting vibration states of the GHGs. By the equipartion theory (experimentally verified) there is a large pool of CO2 in vibration states all the time whether or not there is any external input energy from the earth surface. Each molecule is ever changing energy modes randomly from kinetic energy to vibration to spin.

That is why and how an external source of IR can add to the swarm of already vibrating GHGs and warm the atmosphere.

.

 

[Wuwei]

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

Yes, it totally sucks. He kept defending his experiment in his blog comments even after he was totally beat down. That guy is a budding new SSDD.

 

[jc456]

you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?

To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.

o we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged. if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure. in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure? Answer the question.

observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.

No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.

Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

.

the hot CO2?

how hot was it? did he measure the temperature? I'll answer since it was a rhetorical question. nope!!!! so you have no idea that it was hot!! let me take a moment and

 

[SSDD]

Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence.

The surface temperature of Venus is observed evidence. Do you disbelieve the Stefan Boltzmann law? If not, you will have to explain where the 15,700 W/m² radiation goes. It is as simple as that.

The SB law doesn't work with gasses,

 

[SSDD]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

There is no question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...ask him what happens when you raise the emissivity of a thing...but only if you want to hear some real crazy..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do climate change alarmists have such a terrible track record of failed predictions?

Because they trust broken toys... All of their models fail, without exception, but they tout them as if they are empirical evidence even when they can not model reality and fail empirical review.

The short answer is... They lie because doing anything else would end their funding..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!

That is a good question that a lot of people have.

When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very seldom releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.

The reason is that molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nanoSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

The chaos of air is continually exciting vibration states of the GHGs. By the equipartion theory (experimentally verified) there is a large pool of CO2 in vibration states all the time whether or not there is any external input energy from the earth surface. Each molecule is ever changing energy modes randomly from kinetic energy to vibration to spin.

That is why and how an external source of IR can add to the swarm of already vibrating GHGs and warm the atmosphere.

.

And once again your citing modeling and not empirically observed evidence.. Tell us where your hot spot is, proving your computer modeled assumptions... I'll wait..

 

[polarbear]

It`s been said here that it`s simple physics:
It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.

• 
  
• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
  
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
  
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
  
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
  
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

As if it were as simple as that:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf
Abstract
Through the application of astrophysical formulas,the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream
leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide
and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 me
ters.Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with
amolecule of carbon dioxide — which is 5 millisecond s (ms).
CONCLUSIONS:
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics
formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of
any gas of any planetary atmosphere. At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor
allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.004989 s, i.e.~5 milliseconds
. Through comparing the ability of water vapor to a void the quantum/waves to escape towards the outer space
with that of CO2 (0.004989 s), we can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is impossible according to Physics Laws.
If we consider also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total absorptivity and total emissivity than water vapor, we fairly conclude that carbon dioxide is not a driver of climate changes or global warming on the planet Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes
of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to that of its surroundings. Consequent
ly, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules
of the air. In consequence, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

Yes, it totally sucks. He kept defending his experiment in his blog comments even after he was totally beat down. That guy is a budding new SSDD.

So the experiment got the wrong readings because it didn't conform to the AGW Theory? Is that what you're saying?