Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

 

[SSDD]

So are all of our warmers unable...or unwilling to identify simple graphics depicting the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?

 

[Crick]

They're YOUR graphics. YOU identify them. No one here wants to play your infantile games.

 

[SSDD]

They're YOUR graphics. YOU identify them. No one here wants to play your infantile games.

Not my graphics...graphics from the atmospheric sciences departments of various universities....if you are afraid to identify them as depictions of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, I understand...not much actual science there anyway...I can see how you would be fearful of engaging in any discussion based on them...pseudoscience is hardly a basis for any actual conversation...

 

[Wuwei]

I haven't looked at your graphs in any detail, and haven't read any IPCC documents, so I have no comment on your basic question. But you have to recognize that many here do not trust anything you say or do since you have been so obstinate in not believing well understood physics for so long. You have gone around in circles so many times that the warmers who believe the science of the last 150 years are truly suspicious you are continuing to play some sort of game.

 

[SSDD]

I identified where the graphics came from....But here are the links to the pages...You sure are a f'ing whining milquetoast baby, aren't you...Since you claim to be thoroughly versed in the "science" of climate change...I would have thought you could identify simple graphics...and not become a whining baby over the sources..

Here is a link to the page from the University of Washington...

ATM S 211 - Notes

For this graphic...

Here is the link for the graphic from Harvard...

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Here is the link to Penn State...

One-Layer Energy Balance Model | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming D7

Now buzz off...maybe an adult will come around who actually wants to discuss this...

 

[SSDD]

I haven't looked at your graphs in any detail, and haven't read any IPCC documents, so I have no comment on your basic question. But you have to recognize that many here do not trust anything you say or do since you have been so obstinate in not believing well understood physics for so long. You have gone around in circles so many times that the warmers who believe the science of the last 150 years are truly suspicious you are continuing to play some sort of game.

I am asking if those graphs, from the atmospheric sciences departments of respected universities depict the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect....once I can establish that they are indeed depictions of the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect, and that me and whoever cares to discuss my questions are beginning on the same page, then I would like to discuss the topic....

Either you can...or you can't....clearly crick can't because he is afraid to even say whether or not they depict the mechanism of the greenhouse effect...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

I am not an alarmist or warmer but I am very well versed in the sciences. Those graphs do represent a very basic understanding of the Green House Effect but they do not deal with secondary routes of energy loss so they are incomplete in defining the GHE.

They know this and they are afraid if they admit that it is the basic premise they will be shown for What they are.. petulant children who don't like to be put on the spot.

 

[SSDD]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

I am not an alarmist or warmer but I am very well versed in the sciences. Those graphs do represent a very basic understanding of the Green House Effect but they do not deal with secondary routes of energy loss so they are incomplete in defining the GHE.

They know this and they are afraid if they admit that it is the basic premise they will be shown for What they are..

I didn't have any questions about secondary routes of energy loss....my questions were pretty much restricted to the graphs and the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect...

Damned telling that for all the warmers around here who claim to understand the science, none of them are up to even a very basic discussion for fear of....something......damned telling.

 

[Wuwei]

The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.

I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
Simple Models of Climate
They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.

Edit:
Note what they do is similar to the mean value theorem in calculus, where they take what should be an infinitesimal and widen it to the entire atmosphere in one shot. It's too much of a short cut for me.

 

[Old Rocks]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

Links, dumbass.

 

[Old Rocks]

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes

As usual, SSDD totally lies about what the site really says. He is, and continues to be as big a liar as the orange clown.

 

[Old Rocks]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

I am not an alarmist or warmer but I am very well versed in the sciences. Those graphs do represent a very basic understanding of the Green House Effect but they do not deal with secondary routes of energy loss so they are incomplete in defining the GHE.

They know this and they are afraid if they admit that it is the basic premise they will be shown for What they are.. petulant children who don't like to be put on the spot.

LOL Well versed in silly bullshit. A fucking burger flipper pretending to have some knowledge of science and showing the depths of his ignorance with his every post, that is what Silly Billy is. LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.

I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
Simple Models of Climate
They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.

Again. the failure is in the secondary routes and the modeling you have pointed to is incapable of prediction and fails every time. So why would we believe that which fails repeatedly?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

I am not an alarmist or warmer but I am very well versed in the sciences. Those graphs do represent a very basic understanding of the Green House Effect but they do not deal with secondary routes of energy loss so they are incomplete in defining the GHE.

They know this and they are afraid if they admit that it is the basic premise they will be shown for What they are.. petulant children who don't like to be put on the spot.

LOL Well versed in silly bullshit. A fucking burger flipper pretending to have some knowledge of science and showing the depths of his ignorance with his every post, that is what Silly Billy is. LOL

WOW..

Personal attacks.. and not a shred of empirical evidence to back up anything you say.

 

[SSDD]

The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.

I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
Simple Models of Climate
They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.

So the universities in question are promoting falsehood...or at least the information they are providing is useless...is that what you are saying?

And again...my question/observations were limited to the basic mechanism...if the data provided in those graphs is not depicting the basic mechanism, then it is good to know that the universities are promoting fake/useless info...if the graphics do depict the basic mechanism, then they are sufficient for my questions/observations.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Greenhouse Effect


The treatment in the textbook (box on page 43) illustrates the greenhouse
effect by assuming an isothermal atmosphere-- (an atmosphere that is
all at the same temperature) that is perfectly transparent to solar
radiation, but acts like a blackbody in the infrared part of the
electromagnetic spectrum, where the planet emits radiation. It
absorbs all the radiation emitted from the surface of the planet, and
re-emits it: half in the upward direction to space, and half in the
downward direction, back to the surface of the planet. The problem is
solved by means of simultaneous equations: one is the radiation (or
energy) balance for the surface of the planet and one is for the radiation
balance of the atmosphere. Here is one alternative approach, which doesn't require solving simultaneous equations.

A simple approach

We can get the above results directly by recognizing that the top
layer of the atmosphere must emit 239.7 W/m2 of infrared radiation
to space (same amount of solar radiation that enters the atmosphere:
what goes in must go out). The bottom layer of the atmosphere
will emit an equal amount downward to the surface of the planet.
Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.
The figure below illustrates this calculation. Contrast it to the figure
above where we assumed no atmosphere, and you will see where
the greenhouse effect comes in.

The effective temperature we calculate in this manner is much warmer than the actual temperature of the Earth (288 K), because we made a number of simplifying assumptions.

Limitations of this calculation

1) It's assumed that the atmosphere is isothermal. The layer of the
real atmosphere that's most important in terms of the greenhouse
effect is the troposphere, where temperature decreases with height.
Because of this height dependence, the real atmosphere emits more
radiation in the downward direction than in the upward direction (88
units vs. 70 units in Fig. 3-19).

2) It's assumed that the atmosphere absorbs all the outgoing
radiation at all wavelengths in the infrared part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. In reality, the absorption of radiation by
the atmosphere is highly wavelength dependent. At some wavelengths
there's very little absorption and the radiation emitted by the
earth's surface escapes to space, while at other wavelengths it gets
absorbed, reemitted, absorbed and reemitted many times before it
finally escapes. To carry out this calculation accurately it has to
be done wavelength-by wavelength... to capture the fine scale detail
in the spectrum requires literally thousands of calculations
analogous to the one we did in class.

3) Radiative transfer isn't the only process by which energy escapes
from the earth's surface. Conduction of heat and evaporation of water
transfer about twice as much energy from the earth's surface to the
atmosphere as the net upward flux of infrared radiation from the
radiation does. If the temperature distribution on earth were
determined only by radiative transfer (as in this example) the Earth
would be so hot as to be uninhabitable. In this sense the true
'greenhouse effect' on Earth is much larger than the 33 K difference
between the observed surface temperature (288 K) and the effective
radiating temperature (255 K) ascribed to it in your text.

ATM S 211 - Notes

So the scientists at the University of Washington have a far different view of what is happening than you do, SSDD. Seems that most would go with the scientists at the U of W.

 

[SSDD]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

Links, dumbass.

I gave links dumbass...after whiner crick went on like some sort of great baby for them...post #7

 

[SSDD]

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes

As usual, SSDD totally lies about what the site really says. He is, and continues to be as big a liar as the orange clown.

F'ing idiot..if you go on down the page, you get to the graphic I posted...what makes you so dishonest rocks?

 

[Old Rocks]

The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.

I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
Simple Models of Climate
They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.

So the universities in question are promoting falsehood...or at least the information they are providing is useless...is that what you are saying?

And again...my question/observations were limited to the basic mechanism...if the data provided in those graphs is not depicting the basic mechanism, then it is good to know that the universities are promoting fake/useless info...if the graphics do depict the basic mechanism, then they are sufficient for my questions/observations.

LOL No, the Universities in question stated exactly what they meant. That AGW is real, and here is how it works. It is dumb asses like you that seem to think that you can lie about what they say and get away with it.