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.
You sure do bitterly cling to your double standards, don't you?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.
\
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.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.
Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics, Volume 67, Number 3 - SpringerLink
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.
NONE AT ALL
Optics InfoBase - Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared
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
2.0 μm? Odd they chose that wavelength. 3, 5, and 18 μm are absorbed far more by CO2.
Oh, did I mention my degree in Laser/Electro-Optics? I know a little something about how light and matter interact.
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.
NONE AT ALL
Optics InfoBase - Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared
And you know what the really funny part is?
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.
You haven't refuted my claim in the OP. You know, the one where I show Tyndall's experiment doesn't prove what the AGW cult says it proves.
Very impressive, Dr. Strawman. You're refuting claims I've never made.
Odd indeed. why would they study that?
Optics InfoBase - High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2
Clearly this proves that the resutls of Tyndall have never been reproduced.
Optics InfoBase - Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ
Oh, did I mention my degree in Laser/Electro-Optics? I know a little something about how light and matter interact.
Oh well shit, you've got a degree! Fuck, if I had known that, I wouldn't have bothered to post all those links to articles about measuring the absorptivity of CO2 using a variety of methords in a variety of IR bands - because clearly your degree makes all those expertiments have never have existsed!
Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions 10.1016/j.jms.2003.11.001 : Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy | ScienceDirect.com
Wait...where did I claim that?Not a single experiment to measure CO2 absorption of infrared radiation has been conducted since Tyndall..
Oh, yeah -- nowhere.
Good job, Dr. Strawman!
ME: We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
YOU: If it has, you'll have no problem linking it.
Very impressive, Dr. Strawman. You're refuting claims I've never made.2.0 μm? Odd they chose that wavelength. 3, 5, and 18 μm are absorbed far more by CO2.
Odd indeed. why would they study that?
Optics InfoBase - High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2
Clearly this proves that the resutls of Tyndall have never been reproduced.
Optics InfoBase - Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ
Oh, did I mention my degree in Laser/Electro-Optics? I know a little something about how light and matter interact.
Oh well shit, you've got a degree! Fuck, if I had known that, I wouldn't have bothered to post all those links to articles about measuring the absorptivity of CO2 using a variety of methords in a variety of IR bands - because clearly your degree makes all those expertiments have never have existsed!
Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions 10.1016/j.jms.2003.11.001 : Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy | ScienceDirect.com
Why would I say I was wrong? I never made that claim.
And you know what the really funny part is?
That you said:
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.
And I've provided link after link after link after link - and you've yet to say "I was wrong, I guess Tyndal isn't the ONLY experimental measurement of CO2 absorptivity"
Okay, then show me where Tyndall's paper quantifies the absorption of IR radiation by CO2.You haven't refuted my claim in the OP. You know, the one where I show Tyndall's experiment doesn't prove what the AGW cult says it proves.
All you have done is show it doesn't prove what YOU say the AGW cult says it proves.
Again -- I never claimed they didn't exist, did I?And made a fool out of yourself. As if having a fucking degree makes all the papers I linked to not exist.
...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.
Indeed it has. But again, I never claimed it hadn't been, did I?Wait...where did I claim that?Not a single experiment to measure CO2 absorption of infrared radiation has been conducted since Tyndall..
Oh, yeah -- nowhere.
Good job, Dr. Strawman!
ME: We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
YOU: If it has, you'll have no problem linking it.
Wow, I guess I misinterpreted your statement here. See I thought, by your response of "If it has, you'll have no problem linking it", you were of the opnion that I would have a problem linking to it. But what you really meant was "Actually, the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has been addressed repeatedly and often since 1861."
I got it!
Why would I say I was wrong? I never made that claim.And you know what the really funny part is?
That you said:
And I've provided link after link after link after link - and you've yet to say "I was wrong, I guess Tyndal isn't the ONLY experimental measurement of CO2 absorptivity"
Y'know, if you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
But you're a leftist. You have to lie.
Okay, then show me where Tyndall's paper quantifies the absorption of IR radiation by CO2.All you have done is show it doesn't prove what YOU say the AGW cult says it proves.
Again -- I never claimed they didn't exist, did I?And made a fool out of yourself. As if having a fucking degree makes all the papers I linked to not exist.
Indeed it has. But again, I never claimed it hadn't been, did I?Wait...where did I claim that?
Oh, yeah -- nowhere.
Good job, Dr. Strawman!
ME: We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.
YOU: If it has, you'll have no problem linking it.
Wow, I guess I misinterpreted your statement here. See I thought, by your response of "If it has, you'll have no problem linking it", you were of the opnion that I would have a problem linking to it. But what you really meant was "Actually, the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has been addressed repeatedly and often since 1861."
I got it!
I suppose it's asking too much for a little honesty from you.
A little background:Very impressive, Dr. Strawman. You're refuting claims I've never made.Odd indeed. why would they study that?
Optics InfoBase - High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2
Clearly this proves that the resutls of Tyndall have never been reproduced.
Optics InfoBase - Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ
Oh well shit, you've got a degree! Fuck, if I had known that, I wouldn't have bothered to post all those links to articles about measuring the absorptivity of CO2 using a variety of methords in a variety of IR bands - because clearly your degree makes all those expertiments have never have existsed!
Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions 10.1016/j.jms.2003.11.001 : Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy | ScienceDirect.com
What exactly is your claim? That AGW rests on an experiment from 1861, in spite of the fact there have been dozens of experiments since 1861 that come to the same basic conclusion as the 1861 expriment?
Why would I say I was wrong? I never made that claim.That you said:
And I've provided link after link after link after link - and you've yet to say "I was wrong, I guess Tyndal isn't the ONLY experimental measurement of CO2 absorptivity"
Y'know, if you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
But you're a leftist. You have to lie.
Okay, then show me where Tyndall's paper quantifies the absorption of IR radiation by CO2.
Again -- I never claimed they didn't exist, did I?And made a fool out of yourself. As if having a fucking degree makes all the papers I linked to not exist.
No, no, of course not. You merely ridiculed the idea that it would even be possible for me to find such papers. That's in now way a claim that the papers don't exist, I get that now!
Keep reading....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.
Please quote the "cultists" claiming it proves anything.
I assume by "cultist" you mean peer reviewed scientific author. Or do you mean Al Gore, or a hippie, or someone in hollywood, or a journalist who writes about science?
OK. why should I give a fuck about Roxy?A little background:Very impressive, Dr. Strawman. You're refuting claims I've never made.
What exactly is your claim? That AGW rests on an experiment from 1861, in spite of the fact there have been dozens of experiments since 1861 that come to the same basic conclusion as the 1861 expriment?
Whenever anyone asked for an experiment showing the greenhouse effect of CO2, Roxy would screech "Tyndall's paper!! Tyndall's paper!! " He never referenced anything else.
So I got curious, and found the link in the OP. Turns out that Tyndall's paper doesn't actually prove what Roxy claimed it does.
But then, Roxy isn't very bright.
Man, it really burns you up that I'm not kissing your ass, doesn't it?Indeed it has. But again, I never claimed it hadn't been, did I?Wow, I guess I misinterpreted your statement here. See I thought, by your response of "If it has, you'll have no problem linking it", you were of the opnion that I would have a problem linking to it. But what you really meant was "Actually, the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has been addressed repeatedly and often since 1861."
I got it!
I suppose it's asking too much for a little honesty from you.
Oh yes! I AM CLEARLY THE DISHONEST ONE HERE. The statement "If it has, you'll have no problem linking it", in no way implies I should have trouble linking to it. It would be dishonest of me to say that statement means anything at all, in fact. You're the honest one here!
Why would I say I was wrong? I never made that claim.
Y'know, if you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
But you're a leftist. You have to lie.
Okay, then show me where Tyndall's paper quantifies the absorption of IR radiation by CO2.
Again -- I never claimed they didn't exist, did I?
No, no, of course not. You merely ridiculed the idea that it would even be possible for me to find such papers. That's in now way a claim that the papers don't exist, I get that now!
No, you don't. You think you've won, when all you did was build a strawman and knock it down.
Chicks dig that. No, really.
