No Evidence

[Wuwei]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

 

[jc456]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

 

[Wuwei]

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

I have no idea what they are.

 

[jc456]

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

I have no idea what they are.

Then how could you post your last post?

 

[westwall]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Feel free to post up an OBSERVED consequence of global warming that can be directly attributed to mans influence. One caveat though, it can't be a computer model study. It MUST be OBSERVED science.

Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Which level has more back-radiation?

 

[polarbear]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

 

[jc456]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Which level has more back-radiation?

Define back radiation

 

[jc456]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Which level has more back-radiation?

Define back radiation

The radiation that gas in the atmosphere emits toward the Earth's surface.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?

 

[Wuwei]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

The question was "Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?"

That is an ill formed question. You can't call out the "temperature" of trace molecules in air. That simply has no meaning unless you are referring to the entire sample of air (on earth?) at some time span over some area or volume. You now seem to interpret it as the temperature in a bottle.

If it is supposed to be a gottcha question it doesn't have any meaning, and your comment to that question also has no meaning to me.

The one thing you guys are missing is that I have never promoted AGW. Yes it was colder 100 years ago and it is warmer now, and yes there is more measured CO2 now than then, but I have absolutely no idea if there is an iron-clad cause and effect when it comes to the extreme complexity of the actual earth climate. I have not read any IPCC reports. I don't get involved in cherry-picking graphs, etc.

I have no emotional connection to AGW, I really don't care what emotional connection you guys have either. But you guys disbelieve fundamental laws of physics to try to frantically disprove AGW. The Environmental forum to me is a game. I'm curious how some people think about the physics involved to justify their cause. Your hero SSDD has a totally botched understanding and makes up stuff and when he can't defend his "ideas" he deflects or resorts to emotional outbursts of insults.

It is a game for me. That's all. When some of you guys are too ignorant to even know what you are typing, I will ignore those posts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

I have no idea what they are.

Within the gas there is no temperature change. LWIR does not heat the atmospheric CO2.

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2. The residency time being less than .03ns prevents it. Recent studies at the Boulder Colorado Atmospheric Research Lab looked at coulomb's of atmospheric mixture. Only those having water vapor above 46% warmed. The rest failed to warm at all, even with 2500ppm of CO2, using narrow band LWIR 10um -18um @ 1200w/m^2. This level of energy passing through should have raised the temperature in the columns rapidly if it were heating the mixture in the tubes, but it did not. LWIR is passed in earths atmosphere to space. I explained this experiment over a year ago here.

Trenbreth's cartoon of earths energy budget is wrong as he doubles the reflected/redirected energy in our atmosphere. We have shown, through empirical experiment, that this is wrong and his estimations are pure conjecture. The 33 to 90w/m^2 that he believed was missing is not and can be shown to have been radiated to space. The potential effect of CO2 on earths atmosphere is not directly coupled with water vapor.

Some of us are actually doing these experiments...

 

[SSDD]

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

It isn't a matter of belief..NASA published the predictions based on the ideal gas laws long before the probes were ever sent.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

Look it up yourself....6,000 hours here, 10,000 hours there spread across an entire industry over the course of 3/4 of a century or more.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

no am i...diverting from the fact that you can't produce any observed, measured data to support your claims is over...Can you deliver or not?

 

[SSDD]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

of course that experiment only eduv=cates on the temperature of compression.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

I have no idea what they are.

Within the gas there is no temperature change. LWIR does not heat the atmospheric CO2.

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2. The residency time being less than .03ns prevents it. Recent studies at the Boulder Colorado Atmospheric Research Lab looked at coulomb's of atmospheric mixture. Only those having water vapor above 46% warmed. The rest failed to warm at all, even with 2500ppm of CO2, using narrow band LWIR 10um -18um @ 1200w/m^2. This level of energy passing through should have raised the temperature in the columns rapidly if it were heating the mixture in the tubes, but it did not. LWIR is passed in earths atmosphere to space. I explained this experiment over a year ago here.

Trenbreth's cartoon of earths energy budget is wrong as he doubles the reflected/redirected energy in our atmosphere. We have shown, through empirical experiment, that this is wrong and his estimations are pure conjecture. The 33 to 90w/m^2 that he believed was missing is not and can be shown to have been radiated to space. The potential effect of CO2 on earths atmosphere is not directly coupled with water vapor.

Some of us are actually doing these experiments...

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Still looking for your "cooler photons can cool warmer matter" link? LOL!

 

[polarbear]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?

I think what he meant was that it can`t get hotter than its surroundings unless it`s exposed to the sun. Might be interesting to see if it will get any warmer than its surroundings if you try it at night. If a bottle with 40% CO2 would get warmer than the air around it without any additional source then all of mankind has been stupid for not having used this magical heat source.
All of that is just another deflection from the inability ( actually its unwillingness) to show a temperature measurement for 200 and 400 ppm CO2 when all other variables are constant.
It would be less effort to conduct such a measurement than writing piles of papers making claims all of which are totally ambiguous when it comes to deltaT 400vs200ppm but long on words using trends of statistics that can`t be trusted or >30 computer models that don`t agree with each other....and then as a last resort use the "melting polar ice"
It`s not being done because all those who know something about physics know full well that you won`t be able to show the difference between 200 and 400 ppm CO2 with a thermometer. If you could then we would not need expensive IR spectrophotometers to measure CO2 in air. All it would take is a bottle and a thermometer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?

I think what he meant was that it can`t get hotter than its surroundings unless it`s exposed to the sun. Might be interesting to see if it will get any warmer than its surroundings if you try it at night. If a bottle with 40% CO2 would get warmer than the air around it without any additional source then all of mankind has been stupid for not having used this magical heat source.
All of that is just another deflection from the inability ( actually its unwillingness) to show a temperature measurement for 200 and 400 ppm CO2 when all other variables are constant.
It would be less effort to conduct such a measurement than writing piles of papers making claims all of which are totally ambiguous when it comes to deltaT 400vs200ppm but long on words using trends of statistics that can`t be trusted or >30 computer models that don`t agree with each other.
It`s not being done because all those who know something about physics know full well that you won`t be able to show the difference between 200 and 400 ppm CO2 with a thermometer. If you could then we would not need expensive IR spectrophotometers to measure CO2 in air. All it would take is a bottle and a thermometer.

I think what he meant was that it can`t get hotter than its surroundings unless it`s exposed to the sun.

He's not very bright.
I wouldn't bet a lot on your assumption.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

I have no idea what they are.

Within the gas there is no temperature change. LWIR does not heat the atmospheric CO2.

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2. The residency time being less than .03ns prevents it. Recent studies at the Boulder Colorado Atmospheric Research Lab looked at coulomb's of atmospheric mixture. Only those having water vapor above 46% warmed. The rest failed to warm at all, even with 2500ppm of CO2, using narrow band LWIR 10um -18um @ 1200w/m^2. This level of energy passing through should have raised the temperature in the columns rapidly if it were heating the mixture in the tubes, but it did not. LWIR is passed in earths atmosphere to space. I explained this experiment over a year ago here.

Trenbreth's cartoon of earths energy budget is wrong as he doubles the reflected/redirected energy in our atmosphere. We have shown, through empirical experiment, that this is wrong and his estimations are pure conjecture. The 33 to 90w/m^2 that he believed was missing is not and can be shown to have been radiated to space. The potential effect of CO2 on earths atmosphere is not directly coupled with water vapor.

Some of us are actually doing these experiments...

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Still looking for your "cooler photons can cool warmer matter" link? LOL!

Ignorance of "frequency" and how its energy base numbers are derived is why I laugh at you... You have no concept of how energy is propagated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

I have no idea what they are.

Within the gas there is no temperature change. LWIR does not heat the atmospheric CO2.

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2. The residency time being less than .03ns prevents it. Recent studies at the Boulder Colorado Atmospheric Research Lab looked at coulomb's of atmospheric mixture. Only those having water vapor above 46% warmed. The rest failed to warm at all, even with 2500ppm of CO2, using narrow band LWIR 10um -18um @ 1200w/m^2. This level of energy passing through should have raised the temperature in the columns rapidly if it were heating the mixture in the tubes, but it did not. LWIR is passed in earths atmosphere to space. I explained this experiment over a year ago here.

Trenbreth's cartoon of earths energy budget is wrong as he doubles the reflected/redirected energy in our atmosphere. We have shown, through empirical experiment, that this is wrong and his estimations are pure conjecture. The 33 to 90w/m^2 that he believed was missing is not and can be shown to have been radiated to space. The potential effect of CO2 on earths atmosphere is not directly coupled with water vapor.

Some of us are actually doing these experiments...

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Still looking for your "cooler photons can cool warmer matter" link? LOL!

Ignorance of "frequency" and how its energy base numbers are derived is why I laugh at you... You have no concept of how energy is propagated.

Ignorance of "frequency" and how its energy base numbers are derived is why I laugh at you.

Your lips are flapping, but still no links......I wonder why?