So the Oceans are rising are they?

still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?

surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.

not even a wishy-washy 'the drier areas will have higher highs and lower lows but its hard to say what the average will be'? or 'the temps will be the same but the higher humidity will make it feel hotter'.

I think it would make a great post-doc paper. perhaps its already been done. if it was done would it get published if the results werent 'right'? I guess we woundnt know, would we?

lots of questions in climate science but all we seem to get are climate model doomsday scenarios and more Mann hockey sticks.





It's all they've got Ian. Even the US Supreme court has figured that out now. The Supremes ruling is the beginning of the end for this crap.

Sure, Walleyes, sure. The SP is going to stop the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. Going to stop the precipitation events on the Missouri at present, and stop the flooding. Put out the fires in the Southwest. Sure, Walleyes, sure.
 
so two votes for more humid being hotter. any more votes out there?

has anyone tried looking for examples?
 
still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?

surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.

not even a wishy-washy 'the drier areas will have higher highs and lower lows but its hard to say what the average will be'? or 'the temps will be the same but the higher humidity will make it feel hotter'.

I think it would make a great post-doc paper. perhaps its already been done. if it was done would it get published if the results werent 'right'? I guess we woundnt know, would we?

lots of questions in climate science but all we seem to get are climate model doomsday scenarios and more Mann hockey sticks.





It's all they've got Ian. Even the US Supreme court has figured that out now. The Supremes ruling is the beginning of the end for this crap.

Sure, Walleyes, sure. The SP is going to stop the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. Going to stop the precipitation events on the Missouri at present, and stop the flooding. Put out the fires in the Southwest. Sure, Walleyes, sure.




The fires started by illegal aliens, and made worse by forest mismanagement? Those fires? Or the advancing glaciers worldwide? Or the recovering Arctic and Antarctic sea ice? As far as the "precipitation events" (what a laughable term) they happen more frequently when its cold. Not warm....but once again that's science...something you are unqualified to speak on.
 

Pretty good experiment thunder. Proves very convincingly that one molecule of CO2 can not absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 moleucle. I believe it was IanC that I mentioned that fact to and he questioned the validity of the statment. Maybe you should point that experiment out to him. Of course, that has nothing to do with warming, but hey, hucksters are what they are.

You have to wonder whether the guy in the video actually believed he was proving that CO2 is warming the atmosphere, in which case, he can't be very good at his job if his job involves anything like the experiment; or if he knew he was perpetrating a fraud and was merely giving hand wringing warmist hysterics something they might be able to use to fool someone else with. My bet is that he is a koolaid drinker himself and really doesn't know that he has done no more than prove that CO2 emits radiation in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.
 
Last edited:

Pretty good experiment thunder. Proves very convincingly that one molecule of CO2 can not absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 moleucle. I believe it was IanC that I mentioned that fact to and he questioned the validity of the statment. Maybe you should point that experiment out to him. Of course, that has nothing to do with warming, but hey, hucksters are what they are.

You have to wonder whether the guy in the video actually believed he was proving that CO2 is warming the atmosphere, in which case, he can't be very good at his job if his job involves anything like the experiment; or if he knew he was perpetrating a fraud and was merely giving hand wringing warmist hysterics something they might be able to use to fool someone else with. My bet is that he is a koolaid drinker himself and really doesn't know that he has done no more than prove that CO2 emits radiation in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.


hahaha, you are a wacko. the only thing that experiment shows is that CO2 scatters some wavelengths of light coming off the candle. didnt we already know that?
 
251Ch6.ppt

http://atmo.tamu.edu/class/atmo251/251Ch6.ppt#257,2,Satellite Thermal Sounders

here is a slide from a college class. still think that CO2 cant emit the wavelength it absorbs?

edit- sorry I meant to say still think that CO2 cant absorb the wavelength it emits?
 
Last edited:
hahaha, you are a wacko. the only thing that experiment shows is that CO2 scatters some wavelengths of light coming off the candle. didnt we already know that?

You didn't notice that he turned on the CO2 to the chamber after the candle was lit and didn't turn it off? As the chamber filled with CO2, it soon reached a saturation point where no emission spectra could reach the camera lens. Or do you really believe that the CO2 in the chamber actually absorbed ALL of the radiant energy of the candle and could continue to absorb and retain all of the energy from the candle indefinately? Is that what you believe you were seeing?

That experiment is very basic hucksterism. If you can be fooled by that, then I am not surprised that you are in the lukewarmer camp.

The experiment had no bearing on CO2 in the atmosphere and proved nothing about the climate other than one CO2 molecule emits radiation in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. What do you suppose that fact has to do with climate change and the hypotheses relating it to CO2?
 
here is a slide from a college class. still think that CO2 cant emit the wavelength it absorbs?

edit- sorry I meant to say still think that CO2 cant absorb the wavelength it emits?

Yes. You just observed evidence of it if you looked at the video and still don't believe the evidence of your eyes, and then you link to a power point presentation from who knows where with no reference at all as proof otherwise? I am sure that if you search the topic you will find others (perhaps even scientists) who will say that CO2 emits and absorbs at the same wavelength. That doesn't, however, change the observational evidence of the video that proves that it doesn't.
 
[ QUOTE=wirebender;3795327]
hahaha, you are a wacko. the only thing that experiment shows is that CO2 scatters some wavelengths of light coming off the candle. didnt we already know that?

You didn't notice that he turned on the CO2 to the chamber after the candle was lit and didn't turn it off? As the chamber filled with CO2, it soon reached a saturation point where no emission spectra could reach the camera lens. Or do you really believe that the CO2 in the chamber actually absorbed ALL of the radiant energy of the candle and could continue to absorb and retain all of the energy from the candle indefinately? Is that what you believe you were seeing?

That experiment is very basic hucksterism. If you can be fooled by that, then I am not surprised that you are in the lukewarmer camp.

The experiment had no bearing on CO2 in the atmosphere and proved nothing about the climate other than one CO2 molecule emits radiation in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. What do you suppose that fact has to do with climate change and the hypotheses relating it to CO2?[/QUOTE]

the experiment is hucksterism. the false colour palette given to the IR camera is set to fool people into thinking that it is visible light they are looking at. some wavelegths were scattered but there were others that continued to shine through. obvious enough. what isnt obvious or logical are your conclusions drawn from the experiment.
 
[ QUOTE=wirebender;3795391]
here is a slide from a college class. still think that CO2 cant emit the wavelength it absorbs?

edit- sorry I meant to say still think that CO2 cant absorb the wavelength it emits?

Yes. You just observed evidence of it if you looked at the video and still don't believe the evidence of your eyes, and then you link to a power point presentation from who knows where with no reference at all as proof otherwise? I am sure that if you search the topic you will find others (perhaps even scientists) who will say that CO2 emits and absorbs at the same wavelength. That doesn't, however, change the observational evidence of the video that proves that it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

are you really that dense? I posted a slide from a lecture on atmospheric measuring to directly refute your statement that CO2 CANNOT emit the same radiation that it absorbs. that you make such statements leads me to infer that you are self taught in these areas with large gaps and misunderstandings. according to your statements satellite measurements could not be made. it is a basic concept of physics that molecules emit and absorb at the same wavelengths, therefor you do not have even the basic understanding of physics. can I make myself any clearer? you think you are lecturing the message board on physics but in reality you are a pathetic joke.

I apologize to the other readers. I do not like making unkind posts and usually avoid doing so.
 
are you really that dense? I posted a slide from a lecture on atmospheric measuring to directly refute your statement that CO2 CANNOT emit the same radiation that it absorbs. that you make such statements leads me to infer that you are self taught in these areas with large gaps and misunderstandings.

Really? I believe the misunderstanding is all yours. Your reference was nothing more than a slide from a powerpoint presentation from who knows where. Do you simply accept the statement because some one told you? Here, have a look, and this is from the warmist camp.

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."

They release exactly the same amount of energy but at a lower wavelength.

according to your statements satellite measurements could not be made.

You are aware, aren't you, that air is mostly invisible to IR? Exactly how much CO2 do you think might have to be in the atmosphere to actually interfere with satellite measurements?

it is a basic concept of physics that molecules emit and absorb at the same wavelengths, therefor you do not have even the basic understanding of physics. can I make myself any clearer? you think you are lecturing the message board on physics but in reality you are a pathetic joke.

Some molecules do, some don't. GHG molecules (for the most part) don't. I believe it is your own basic misunderstandings that led you to join the lukewarmers camp. The pathetic joke is that so many people have been taken in to one degree or another by the warmist propaganda. To date, you have not moved even an angstrom closer to proving me wrong and yet, you have now started calling names. You still haven't shown any problem at all with the claims I have made with regard to EM fields and thier propagation and instead jump on this issue of GHG emission spectra which really doesn't make a whole lot of difference with regard to the hypothesis put forward by warmists. It amounts to little more than complaining about punctuation and as you can see, I was quite correct in my assertion.

I apologize to the other readers. I do not like making unkind posts and usually avoid doing so.

Don't worry. You didn't hurt my feelings.

One other tidbit. CO2 can emit IR INTRAmolecularly at 15um in addition to intermolecularly while some other so called greenhouse molecules can not do this particular trick. The fact that it can radiate intramolecullarly as well as intermolecullarly makes it a more efficient "scatterer" of IR than some other molecules. Far from making it a heat trapping molecule, this extra "trick" means that it radiates (read dissipates) IR more efficiently.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top