No Evidence

[jc456]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

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 burning 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 in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

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.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..there is no radiative greenhouse effect because not enough radiation moves through the troposphere to cause any observable effect...then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...

What he is saying now is that the absorbed IR in CO2 that’s handed off via collisions means IR warms the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

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 burning 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 in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

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.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..there is no radiative greenhouse effect because not enough radiation moves through the troposphere to cause any observable effect...then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...

energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..

Yup. And energy transfer via IR is radiation....not conduction.

there is no radiative greenhouse effect

Is IR absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere?
Or does IR move directly, instantly, from the surface into outer space?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

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 burning 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 in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

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.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

Nothing warming by IR. It was your line IR warms the atmosphere not conduction. Sounds like you don’t believe that any longer. It seems you can follow the dot.

Nothing warming by IR.

Is it absorbed or not?

It was your line IR warms the atmosphere not conduction.

GHGs warmed by IR. Other gasses warmed by conduction.

Sounds like you don’t believe that any longer.

Why would I stop believing physics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

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 burning 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 in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

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.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..there is no radiative greenhouse effect because not enough radiation moves through the troposphere to cause any observable effect...then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...

What he is saying now is that the absorbed IR in CO2 that’s handed off via collisions means IR warms the atmosphere.

What do you think the absorbed IR means to the atmosphere?
If more IR is absorbed does that make the atmosphere warmer, cooler, or the same?
Whether it takes 1 step, 2 steps, 3 steps.....37 steps?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature. The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch. If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.

yeah, forward to us the part that backs your claim. I didn't see it there.

That is a standard Crick bull shit tactic.. post a link and claim it proves your point. And when pressed to show the precise text and data proving their point they run back to the original link and scream its there..

This proves two things. 1. They have no clue what the link says and, 2. They have no evidence to back up their assertions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...

AOC is a complete and total moron.

Has she ever claimed photons are magnetic or have mass?
Or is that too stupid even for her?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature. The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch. If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.

So you keep saying...but you can't bring a single piece of it here...not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you are lying when you say it exists and we all know that you are lying...we all know that you would like nothing more than to slap me down with some such evidence...we also know that you can't..you are reduced to mewling and pewling and making claims that we all know you can't back up.....

And I have been asking for decades...none of the other liars like you were able to bring any actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over narwal variability either...the claim that you could help if I asked, is just one more lie in a very long and miserable string of lies that you tell here...day after day after day...

yep I did a search in the link he gave looking for AGW versus Natural variability and got nothing.

That sir is due to the fact they never assessed Natural Variation. They just proclaimed it to be man caused..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...

AOC is a complete and total moron.

Has she ever claimed photons are magnetic or have mass?
Or is that too stupid even for her?

LOL

Give it up Todd.. I refuse to discuss relativistic physics with you as you can not even grasp basic concepts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...

AOC is a complete and total moron.

Has she ever claimed photons are magnetic or have mass?
Or is that too stupid even for her?

LOL

Give it up Todd.. I refuse to discuss relativistic physics with you as you can not even grasp basic concepts.

Who the fuck asked you to discuss anything?

Just admit you don't have a source, because none exists, for your moronic claims.
Then I can stop mocking your moronic claims.

 

[Wuwei]

Evidence that water vapor can be warmed? You think that is evidence that air...gasses can be warmed? And I think it is a hoot that you wack jobs have to go back to quaint experiments done with poor instrumentation, and understanding of the movement of energy done in the 1800's and earlier in an attempt to find something...anything that you believe you can use to fool someone....anyone....

It was a simple experiment that you should have been able to understand, but you obviously didn't understand the paper. Very recent more exacting experiments were done on atmospheric CO2, but you were confused and didn't believe science so you rejected them.

 

[Crick]

I have a big surprise for you Shit. Water vapor is a gas.

 

[SSDD]

Evidence that water vapor can be warmed? You think that is evidence that air...gasses can be warmed? And I think it is a hoot that you wack jobs have to go back to quaint experiments done with poor instrumentation, and understanding of the movement of energy done in the 1800's and earlier in an attempt to find something...anything that you believe you can use to fool someone....anyone....

It was a simple experiment that you should have been able to understand, but you obviously didn't understand the paper. Very recent more exacting experiments were done on atmospheric CO2, but you were confused and didn't believe science so you rejected them.

It was simple all right...and didn't begin to prove that IR can warm the air...absolutely laughable that the only actual attempts at science regarding climate come from the 19th century and further back....good enough to fool you though...right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Evidence that water vapor can be warmed? You think that is evidence that air...gasses can be warmed? And I think it is a hoot that you wack jobs have to go back to quaint experiments done with poor instrumentation, and understanding of the movement of energy done in the 1800's and earlier in an attempt to find something...anything that you believe you can use to fool someone....anyone....

It was a simple experiment that you should have been able to understand, but you obviously didn't understand the paper. Very recent more exacting experiments were done on atmospheric CO2, but you were confused and didn't believe science so you rejected them.

It was simple all right...and didn't begin to prove that IR can warm the air...absolutely laughable that the only actual attempts at science regarding climate come from the 19th century and further back....good enough to fool you though...right?

It was simple all right...and didn't begin to prove that IR can warm the air..

You still basing the idiotic claim, IR can't warm air, on industrial IR heaters? LOL!

 

[SSDD]

I have a big surprise for you Shit. Water vapor is a gas.

How unsurprising is it that you don't know the difference between a vapor and a gas....never mind the fact that it is called water vapor rather than water gas... you never fail to keep lowering that bar.....do you? Here .....let me help you out...

A gas can not be liquified by pressure alone...a vapor on the other hand can be liquified by pressure alone...gas is a state of matter...vapor is not a state of matter, it is a state of equilibrium between two states of matter...vapor particles may be viewed under a microscope and usually have a definite shape...try viewing gas under a microscope...

engineer my ass....laughing at you skidmark...always laughing at you.

 

[jc456]

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.

The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...

AOC is a complete and total moron.

Has she ever claimed photons are magnetic or have mass?
Or is that too stupid even for her?

No, she thinks 3 billion tax savings from a company she pushed to go away, before settling in, now has 3 billion dollars to spend. That’s how fkn stupid she is

 

[jc456]

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.

The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...

AOC is a complete and total moron.

Has she ever claimed photons are magnetic or have mass?
Or is that too stupid even for her?

LOL

Give it up Todd.. I refuse to discuss relativistic physics with you as you can not even grasp basic concepts.

Who the fuck asked you to discuss anything?

Just admit you don't have a source, because none exists, for your moronic claims.
Then I can stop mocking your moronic claims.

I believe you asked. Right? Or are you back pedaling?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...

AOC is a complete and total moron.

Has she ever claimed photons are magnetic or have mass?
Or is that too stupid even for her?

LOL

Give it up Todd.. I refuse to discuss relativistic physics with you as you can not even grasp basic concepts.

Who the fuck asked you to discuss anything?

Just admit you don't have a source, because none exists, for your moronic claims.
Then I can stop mocking your moronic claims.

I believe you asked. Right? Or are you back pedaling?

No, I asked him for backup.
Trying to discuss science with him, or you, is pointless.

 

[Wuwei]

It was simple all right...and didn't begin to prove that IR can warm the air...absolutely laughable that the only actual attempts at science regarding climate come from the 19th century and further back....good enough to fool you though...right?

You don't believe physics of the 20th century and beyond. I tried something more ancient and simpler, but guess you still don't understand the experiment.

 

[jc456]

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.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..there is no radiative greenhouse effect because not enough radiation moves through the troposphere to cause any observable effect...then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...

What he is saying now is that the absorbed IR in CO2 that’s handed off via collisions means IR warms the atmosphere.

What do you think the absorbed IR means to the atmosphere?
If more IR is absorbed does that make the atmosphere warmer, cooler, or the same?
Whether it takes 1 step, 2 steps, 3 steps.....37 steps?

It would be the same temperature as the surface. There’s no warmer . I told you before, you believe IR warms the surface it does not.