Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship. And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.
I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.
CATATOMIC
I'm writing this on a phone w/o wifi, so forgive me for not reading this thread's 23 pages.
CO2 trails temperature increases because, as I think you've heard, gas solubility in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Just picture the difference between opening a coke from your refrigerator and one thar's been sitting in a hot car. When Earth's temperatures rise, co2 comes out of solution in the oceans. CO2 can also lead a temperature increase because it is an effective green house gas that slows the escape of portions of the infrared spectrum to space. The leading and the lagging are caused by two different physical phenomena. The implication that some deniers will try to push on you, that both cannot be true, is nonsense. The arguments you got from SSDD, Billy Bob and Westwall are ignorant tripe.
I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.
I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.
Sorry skidmark...you don't seem to know the difference between actual evidence and assumptions...you are assuming that absorption and emission equals warming...got any evidence of that? A million hours of experiment, and commercial application say that infrared can not warm the air...Visit any engineering firm involved in the production of infrared heating systems...they go to great pains to point out that their product does not waste energy heating the air...it heats solid objects...
So lets see your evidence that all those engineers are wrong and that there is a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....your assumption isn't good enough....neither is your belief.
I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.
Sorry skidmark...you don't seem to know the difference between actual evidence and assumptions...you are assuming that absorption and emission equals warming...got any evidence of that? A million hours of experiment, and commercial application say that infrared can not warm the air...Visit any engineering firm involved in the production of infrared heating systems...they go to great pains to point out that their product does not waste energy heating the air...it heats solid objects...
So lets see your evidence that all those engineers are wrong and that there is a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....your assumption isn't good enough....neither is your belief.
The red line is the spectrum of solar radiation above the Earth's atmosphere. The black line is the spectrum of solar radiation at the bottom of the Earth's atmosphere. The difference is the energy absorbed by the atmosphere. That energy increases the atmosphere's temperature.
God are you stupid.
GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.
Sorry skidmark...you don't seem to know the difference between actual evidence and assumptions...you are assuming that absorption and emission equals warming...got any evidence of that? A million hours of experiment, and commercial application say that infrared can not warm the air...Visit any engineering firm involved in the production of infrared heating systems...they go to great pains to point out that their product does not waste energy heating the air...it heats solid objects...
So lets see your evidence that all those engineers are wrong and that there is a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....your assumption isn't good enough....neither is your belief.
The red line is the spectrum of solar radiation above the Earth's atmosphere. The black line is the spectrum of solar radiation at the bottom of the Earth's atmosphere. The difference is the energy absorbed by the atmosphere. That energy increases the atmosphere's temperature.
God are you stupid.
Radiation does not warm the air...conduction warms the air...You are as easily fooled by graphs as you are by instrumentation. If the graph represented what you think it represents, then the unavoidable, inevitable, inescapable result would be a pronounced hot spot in the upper troposphere...alas, no hot spot of any sort in the upper troposphere...therefore, it is obvious that the graph doesn't represent what you believe it to represent..
Let me guess...you think it represents energy trapped in the atmosphere by so called greenhouse gasses? Right? I am right aren't I? What an idiot you are skidmark.
The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship. And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.
As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.
There are only three results now possible.
1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,
2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,
3) That energy is being released to space.
As there is no hot spot, its not option 1
As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2
Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!
Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.
There are only three results now possible.
1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,
2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,
3) That energy is being released to space.
As there is no hot spot, its not option 1
As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2
Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!
The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.
How short? Where does it go next?
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.
Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.
The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.
Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?
Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.
There are only three results now possible.
1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,
2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,
3) That energy is being released to space.
As there is no hot spot, its not option 1
As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2
Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!
The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.
How short? Where does it go next?
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.
Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.
The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.
Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?
GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.
There are only three results now possible.
1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,
2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,
3) That energy is being released to space.
As there is no hot spot, its not option 1
As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2
Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!
The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.
How short? Where does it go next?
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.
Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.
The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.
Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?
Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.
There are only three results now possible.
1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,
2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,
3) That energy is being released to space.
As there is no hot spot, its not option 1
As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2
Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!
The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.
How short? Where does it go next?
An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.
Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.
The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.
Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?
I suppose at some point he his point to try to argue that conduction and radiation are the same thing.
GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
They absorb the radiation and in some few instances, they actually radiate it on, most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2. If they radiate it, it moves on to the upper atmosphere at a much faster clip than via conduction...Energy movement in the troposphere is dominated by conduction..radiation is barely a bit player...which makes the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect idiocy on its face...
GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?Radiation does not warm the air.
They absorb the radiation and in some few instances, they actually radiate it on, most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2. If they radiate it, it moves on to the upper atmosphere at a much faster clip than via conduction...Energy movement in the troposphere is dominated by conduction..radiation is barely a bit player...which makes the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect idiocy on its face...
