No Evidence

[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.

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?

Tell me Todd, How is wave length determined?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Tell me Todd, How is wave length determined?

How is wave length determined?

Wavelength of what? Where?

 

[polarbear]

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.

My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

I'm as big a skeptic about the plan to spend trillions to prevent the climate from ever changing as the next guy.
I manage to do that without spinning epicycles to deny back radiation, causality, Stefan-Boltzmann and much of the last 150 years of physics.

 

[Wuwei]

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

I think you are lying again unless you can prove it.

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.

I think you are lying again unless you can prove it. All you cited before were sales pitches from heating companies. Not research.

Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments

The paper you quoted said (my bold face):

In isolated systems - with no exchange of matter and energy across its borders - force fields like gravity can generate in macroscopic assemblies of molecules temperature, density, and concentration gradients. The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.​

His perpetual motion experiment was never repeated and verified. And he proudly says that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. That is about as stupid as you can get.

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?

You have no idea what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus. Scientists do and have said it many times.

You are the one who made outlandish claims outside of science, but you have no observed, measured data to support your claims

 

[polarbear]

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.

My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

I'm as big a skeptic about the plan to spend trillions to prevent the climate from ever changing as the next guy.
I manage to do that without spinning epicycles to deny back radiation, causality, Stefan-Boltzmann and much of the last 150 years of physics.

Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier,....just like Newton and Leibnitz who did just that when they introduced their differential equations.
Even though that temperature difference is so low that no-one in physics bothers to actually measure it we are supposed to religiously adhere to it because the StB equation is expressed as X-Y and not as a function of delta X/deltaY and yields a numerical value no matter how small the difference between X and Y is.
The only way to make it significant is by multiplying that number by what the earth surface measures in square meters because it`s so insignificantly small for the range in question to get an accurate direct measurement.
None of the scientists behind the laws you keep quoting had an idea that some day some people would use them to totally blow out of proportion what the difference of a fraction of a watt per 1 m^2 is capable of.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

I'm as big a skeptic about the plan to spend trillions to prevent the climate from ever changing as the next guy.
I manage to do that without spinning epicycles to deny back radiation, causality, Stefan-Boltzmann and much of the last 150 years of physics.

Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier,....just like Newton and Leibnitz who did just that when they introduced their differential equations.
Even though that temperature difference is so low that no-one in physics bothers to actually measure it we are supposed to religiously adhere to it because the StB equation is expressed as X-Y and not as a function of delta X/deltaY and yields a numerical value no matter how small the difference between X and Y is.
The only way to make it significant is by multiplying that number by what the earth surface measures in square meters because it`s so insignificantly small for the range in question to get an accurate direct measurement.
None of the scientists behind the laws you keep quoting had an idea that some day some people would use them to totally blow out of proportion what the difference of a fraction of a watt per 1 m^2 is capable of.

Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier

I disagree. I'm talking more about people who deny back-radiation, believe emitters are omniscient and can violate causality. Nothing so tiny as your 0.02% figure.

 

[polarbear]

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.

My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

I'm as big a skeptic about the plan to spend trillions to prevent the climate from ever changing as the next guy.
I manage to do that without spinning epicycles to deny back radiation, causality, Stefan-Boltzmann and much of the last 150 years of physics.

Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier,....just like Newton and Leibnitz who did just that when they introduced their differential equations.
Even though that temperature difference is so low that no-one in physics bothers to actually measure it we are supposed to religiously adhere to it because the StB equation is expressed as X-Y and not as a function of delta X/deltaY and yields a numerical value no matter how small the difference between X and Y is.
The only way to make it significant is by multiplying that number by what the earth surface measures in square meters because it`s so insignificantly small for the range in question to get an accurate direct measurement.
None of the scientists behind the laws you keep quoting had an idea that some day some people would use them to totally blow out of proportion what the difference of a fraction of a watt per 1 m^2 is capable of.

Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier

I disagree. I'm talking more about people who deny back-radiation, believe emitters are omniscient and can violate causality. Nothing so tiny as your 0.02% figure.

If you are arguing about something something other than the tiny change in radiative heat transfer the increase of another 0.02% CO2 might cause then you must be talking about some other planetary scale radiation source that I am not aware of but am somehow contributing to.
All you got is a fraction of a watt per m^2 that was absorbed and re-emitted by a tiny fraction of a gas residing in the 10 meter column of air, the path length it takes to absorb what`s re- emitted ....and that is supposed to heat the ground which then further increases the temperature of that 10 meter air column.
And you can figure out by how much just by using the StB equation without even worrying about assigning a mass, a specific heat etc etc to the surface or the air and without using a computer model which does that for you. The truth is you won`t even be able to calculate how much of the radiation could possibly come back through the 10m path which absorbed it all. If you did then I would like to know how you got the molar absorptivity for CO2 at 15 μm, which is a whole other problem because it is sensitive to barometric pressure.
Ah, but none of that matters because you can cancel all of that out just by using the StB equation and nothing else.
How does that make you any different from the so called scientists that have no use for any of the science to solve these problems before you could possibly have a solution for temperature ? The kind of science you embrace demands that everything else other than the warmer`s beloved StB equation is blasphemy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Polar, this fellow is a lot more persuasive than you, and has the bona fides that you do not.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Tell me Todd, How is wave length determined?

Didn't you find out in a 200 physics class? Oh, I see, you never took any science classes at that level. After all, we are talking to Silly Billy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Tell me Todd, How is wave length determined?

Didn't you find out in a 200 physics class? Oh, I see, you never took any science classes at that level. After all, we are talking to Silly Billy.

All this "science" still not one single repeatable Experiment showing how increasing CO2 from 280 to 400m raises temperature. Sounds like you're quoting a Cult

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

I'm as big a skeptic about the plan to spend trillions to prevent the climate from ever changing as the next guy.
I manage to do that without spinning epicycles to deny back radiation, causality, Stefan-Boltzmann and much of the last 150 years of physics.

Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier,....just like Newton and Leibnitz who did just that when they introduced their differential equations.
Even though that temperature difference is so low that no-one in physics bothers to actually measure it we are supposed to religiously adhere to it because the StB equation is expressed as X-Y and not as a function of delta X/deltaY and yields a numerical value no matter how small the difference between X and Y is.
The only way to make it significant is by multiplying that number by what the earth surface measures in square meters because it`s so insignificantly small for the range in question to get an accurate direct measurement.
None of the scientists behind the laws you keep quoting had an idea that some day some people would use them to totally blow out of proportion what the difference of a fraction of a watt per 1 m^2 is capable of.

Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier

I disagree. I'm talking more about people who deny back-radiation, believe emitters are omniscient and can violate causality. Nothing so tiny as your 0.02% figure.

If you are arguing about something something other than the tiny change in radiative heat transfer the increase of another 0.02% CO2 might cause then you must be talking about some other planetary scale radiation source that I am not aware of but am somehow contributing to.
All you got is a fraction of a watt per m^2 that was absorbed and re-emitted by a tiny fraction of a gas residing in the 10 meter column of air, the path length it takes to absorb what`s re- emitted ....and that is supposed to heat the ground which then further increases the temperature of that 10 meter air column.
And you can figure out by how much just by using the StB equation without even worrying about assigning a mass, a specific heat etc etc to the surface or the air and without using a computer model which does that for you. The truth is you won`t even be able to calculate how much of the radiation could possibly come back through the 10m path which absorbed it all. If you did then I would like to know how you got the molar absorptivity for CO2 at 15 μm, which is a whole other problem because it is sensitive to barometric pressure.
Ah, but none of that matters because you can cancel all of that out just by using the StB equation and nothing else.
How does that make you any different from the so called scientists that have no use for any of the science to solve these problems before you could possibly have a solution for temperature ? The kind of science you embrace demands that everything else other than the warmer`s beloved StB equation is blasphemy.

The kind of science you embrace demands that everything else other than the warmer`s beloved StB equation is blasphemy.

Who are you even talking to?
Just because I point out SSDD's complete and total misinterpretation of physics
doesn't make me a warmer...….not even a little bit.

 

[polarbear]

Polar, this fellow is a lot more persuasive than you, and has the bona fides that you do not.

Lah di dah. Either it`s another ice melt graph or its back to the bona fide 97% of whom none are able to produce any conclusive proof.
Every bona fide scientist knows that in physics and the related sciences you need to prove a thesis with more than just being persuasive. If this geologist is as good in physics as advertised then he should have no trouble at all to conduct an experiment that can be reproduced at will, showing the exact temperature rise attributable to a rise of CO2 from 0.02% to 0.04%. But he does not. Instead like all the rest of them he thumps on his papers and makes videos which prove nothing that could substantiate a measurable correlation....which you need for anything else to be accepted in physics. It`s not as if it would take ~ 13 billion $ as it did to prove the existence of Higgs Bosons to do that. Too bad the rest of the real scientists were "science deniers" and insisted on experimental proof using the CERN collider. They could have avoided all that by simply handing over that problem to the 97% bona fide climate "scientists" we should not dare question.
By now these bozos spent more money than it took to build CERN cruising on yachts to show us coral bleaching, counting sediment bugs and tree rings and holding meetings in lavish locations to publish nothing but an endless load of crap. A thermometer and a few liters of CO2 accurately metered into a suitable chamber with an IR transparent enclosure would be all it would take if they had a real case.
But they all know that a thermometer would register nothing as sensational as the bullshit they publish.

 

[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

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?

Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.

 

[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

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

You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first

 

[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?

Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.

CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Not without some other hotter Source.

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.

 

[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?

Which level has more back-radiation?

Define back radiation

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

You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first

Which level has more 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.

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.

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed, somewhere the molecule must absorb that frequency IR. Period. And whether you have 270 ppm of it or 400 ppm of CO2, the emit is the same frequency of the absorbed. And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter. It’s why there’s absolutely zero experiments. We wouldn’t have tens of threads arguing it.

If gas did just get hotter, we would have some invention using it. Thanks

 

[jc456]

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?

Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.

CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Not without some other hotter Source.

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.

Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?

 

[jc456]

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.

You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first

Which level has more back-radiation?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm? Why didn’t you answer?