The experiment the AGW fraud is based on...

Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth, resulting in the warming of the surface known as the greenhouse effect. As we will see, trapping of terrestrial radiation by naturally occurring greenhouse gases is essential for maintaining the Earth's surface temperature above the freezing point. [/COLOR]

And where is the descirption of the mechanism by which that happens rocks? CO2 absorbs IR and immediately emitts precisely the same amount of energy, and it happens at, or near the speed of light. Where is the "trapping" mechanism? Describe how it might happen and please try to describe it without violating the laws of physics.

Of course this is just a Harvard physicist, and not a Bent all knowing internet poster stating what GHGs do, and how they do it.

I couldn't help but notice that your "harvard physicist" has based his greenhouse hypothesis on a flat earth that doesn't rotate and has no night and 1/4 of the actual amount of incoming solar radiation just like trenberth. Do you believe that a flat earth model can accurately represent the earth's atmosphere in any way resembling reality?

bookchap7-19.gif


One might ask where your harvard physicist's funding comes from and why he is using a flat earth model and has represented the earth as a black body, and has corrupted the Stefan Boltzman law and the second law of thermodynamics in order to represent a greenhouse effect. Any explanations?

By the way rocks, I provided you with the satellite data over 30 years that show no trapping of outgoing LW radiation whatsoever despite large increases in atmospheric CO2. How do you square that with your harvard physicists claim that a gas with no capacity to trap LW is doing that?
 
Last edited:
CO2 absorbs IR and immediately emitts precisely the same amount of energy, and it happens at, or near the speed of light. Where is the "trapping" mechanism? Describe how it might happen and please try to describe it without violating the laws of physics.

The IR is released? Wouldn't half go to space and half back towards earth? There's your "trapping". The length of time is irrelevant. It's the destination that matters. You go from 100% of "trapped" photons heading towards space and end up with 50%. That sure sounds like we're "throwing on an extra blanket"!!!
 
The IR is released? Wouldn't half go to space and half back towards earth? There's your "trapping". The length of time is irrelevant. It's the destination that matters. You go from 100% of "trapped" photons heading towards space and end up with 50%. That sure sounds like we're "throwing on an extra blanket"!!!

No konradv, half would not go back towards the earth. You can not transfer heat from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth without having done some work to accomplish the transfer. To do so would violate the second law of thermodynamcs and simple absorption and emission does not constiute work.

I have shown you this and done the math for you repeatedly. You have no rebuttal or alternative equations and yet, you continue to repeat the very thing that has been quanitatively disproven for you.

By the way, even if you could violate the laws of physics and radiate energy from a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth, how much of a sphere do you actually believe is pointing back down towards the earth? Draw yourself a big circle and s small circle above it. Draw yourself some lines and see if 50% of them actually reach the big circle.

I have also mathematically shown you that a blanket results in cooling, not warming as well. Repeating things that have been shown false to you doesn't make you look very smart.

Here konradv, more recent peer published, peer reviewed science that finds that the greenhouse hypothesis as stated by warmists simply doesn't hold water. More and more of it is coming out. When are you going to wake up to the hoax?

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233

CLIP:1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.

The bottom line konradv, (feel free to bookmark this statement for the day the greenhouse hypothesis is finally discarded once and for all) is that IR radiation within the atmosphere which is the basis for AGW hysteria is the result of temperature, not the cause of it. IR radiation is a cooling mechanism, not a warming mechanism. It is the same sort of confusion of cause and effect that led to the ozone hoax.
 
Last edited:
I wish guys like wirebender would stop denying the undeniable. of course CO2 slows down the escape of radiation from the surface to cold space. and no one with a hint of physics is saying that the back radiation is the energy doing the actual warming of the surface. the energy from the sun warms the surface, 'greenhouse effects' only change the equilibrium points.

here is a simplistic example. a hose is filling a bucket that has many small holes in it. the water level will rise until the water being forced out of the holes matches the water flowing in from the hose. if you block some of the holes the water level will rise until a new equilibrium is reached but the amount of water going in and out is still the same (at equilibrium).

CO2 can close off some radiation escape but it is tiny factor at this part of the logrithmic scale.
 
Nobody cares about CO2 levels..........really, its not even debatable. All this talk about CO2 levels isnt amounting to dick in the real world. There are far bigger pressing problems that people are concerned about..........also not debateable, and proveable by looking at ANY poll by ANY polling organization.

Its no different than watching the landscape with this weekend and the NFL playoff games.......to many, its real important but to most, people couldnt give a fuck. All this CO2 debate is nothing but speculation.........but even if it wasnt, still, nobody would give a shit. What..........like tomorrow, the world is going to say, "Fuck everything else in our world........we need to come up with 74 trillion dollars and do something about this, stop eating and hope for the best!!!!". To the k00ks, this is a viable option............and its fucking fascinating. They think we should flip the switch tomorrow.............


But guess what???



burgerking-7.jpg




Its a promise............if you make 20,000 posts in the next two years, it wont mean dick:lol:
 
...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.


If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
 
Last edited:
...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.

It's not like those experiments haven't been repeated over the years using moden equipment with the same results.

They have not.
The bottom line is that GHGs are known to absorb IR and effect the rate at whch it is emitted back to space. More GHGs, slower rate, bottom line!

A lot of people with some really catchy websites disagree with you Mr.
 
...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.

It's not like those experiments haven't been repeated over the years using moden equipment with the same results. The bottom line is that GHGs are known to absorb IR and effect the rate at whch it is emitted back to space. More GHGs, slower rate, bottom line!
Have they been repeated?

No, never.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


Whenever anyone asks for an experiment, they all point to Tyndall's.
Whenever anyone thinks about proving the electron shell model of the atom, they point to the Rutherford experiment. Therefore, Rutherford's experiment has never been repeated.


Your logic is very sound.
 
...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.


If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
If it has, you'll have no problem linking it. Please note that Roxy failed to do so, and you're just as stupid as he is, so good luck with that.
 
It's not like those experiments haven't been repeated over the years using moden equipment with the same results. The bottom line is that GHGs are known to absorb IR and effect the rate at whch it is emitted back to space. More GHGs, slower rate, bottom line!
Have they been repeated?

No, never.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


Whenever anyone asks for an experiment, they all point to Tyndall's.
Whenever anyone thinks about proving the electron shell model of the atom, they point to the Rutherford experiment. Therefore, Rutherford's experiment has never been repeated.


Your logic is very sound.
A blog by a computer engineer? Really?

According to you, that's not an acceptable source.
 
...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.


If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
If it has, you'll have no problem linking it. Please note that Roxy failed to do so, and you're just as stupid as he is, so good luck with that.


Yeah, right, whenever people talk about CO2 IR absorption, they always refer back to that Tyndal paper, so its obvious that must be the only experiment.

Stupid scientists, they didn't bother to repeat an experiment done in 1861 - and they thought people with their own websites wouldn't notice! IDIOTS They didn't count on smart people like you cathing them in the act of basing their entire theory on an experiment from 1861!

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer
 
Last edited:
Have they been repeated?

No, never.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


Whenever anyone asks for an experiment, they all point to Tyndall's.
Whenever anyone thinks about proving the electron shell model of the atom, they point to the Rutherford experiment. Therefore, Rutherford's experiment has never been repeated.


Your logic is very sound.
A blog by a computer engineer? Really?

According to you, that's not an acceptable source.

Obviously the instant a scientist has his paper linked to on a web page by a computer engineer, that disproves the entire paper. I don't know why I even bothered to post that link, its mere existence invalidates all of the peer review literature it links to.
\
 
...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.


If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
If it has, you'll have no problem linking it. Please note that Roxy failed to do so, and you're just as stupid as he is, so good luck with that.


Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics, Volume 67, Number 3 - SpringerLink
 
...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.


If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
If it has, you'll have no problem linking it. Please note that Roxy failed to do so, and you're just as stupid as he is, so good luck with that.



crickets.......
 
No, never.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer



Whenever anyone thinks about proving the electron shell model of the atom, they point to the Rutherford experiment. Therefore, Rutherford's experiment has never been repeated.


Your logic is very sound.
A blog by a computer engineer? Really?

According to you, that's not an acceptable source.

Obviously the instant a scientist has his paper linked to on a web page by a computer engineer, that disproves the entire paper. I don't know why I even bothered to post that link, its mere existence invalidates all of the peer review literature it links to.
\
You sure do bitterly cling to your double standards, don't you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top