What is the Greenhouse Effect?

[SSDD]

Tell me hairball...

I'll be addressing you only as "pissdrinker" from now on. Now, if you'd like civil treatment from me, you need to offer it. The ball is in your court, pissdrinker.

of what value is it for radiation to penetrate a substance if the substance can not absorb the radiation?

Pissdrinker, you're violating conservation of energy again. Where does the energy go after it penetrates? According to your loony Hockey Schtick cult pseudoscience, the IR and all the energy it carries penetrates into the ocean, and then simply vanishes without a trace.

...and you still have not shown anything that shows either sea water or reflectivity in the far IR wavelength....

I'll repost this here as well, pissdrinker, so you can run from it on two different threads.

Your graph still doesn't go into the far IR wavelengths hairball....and the fact is that there are very few instruments today that even measure into the far IR wavelengths...you, like all of climate science are just making up whatever you think supports your position with no actual observation whatsoever to support it.

And if you think a pastel pansy such as yourself can hurt my feelings, you are sadly mistaken....pissdrinker is about as feeble a moniker one could hang on someone as is possible...it doesn't roll off the tongue like hairball...or admiral hairball...it has nothing to do with reality, and if you say it a million times, it will never catch on because it just isn't pleasant to say, being slightly profane...decent people really don't enjoy using profanity, even mild profanity, casually. Such a choice reveals a great deal about the state of your character...or lack thereof. Hairball on the other hand is a fun word to say as it relates directly to that idiot, and very feminine avatar you chose for yourself and you can even use the term around your grandchildren....although maybe someone like you would use the term pissdrinker around children.

That's one of the problems with being a bitter, humorless, tightass....you can't even come up with a proper insulting name...clearly hairball gets under your skin so the moniker sticks....go ahead and use pissdrinker to your little pansy heart's content..and know that I am laughing my ass off at you. You are the kid in the playground who just can't come up with a snappy comeback to save your ass because you have no snap in your suspenders....

 

[jc456]

Tell me hairball...

I'll be addressing you only as "pissdrinker" from now on. Now, if you'd like civil treatment from me, you need to offer it. The ball is in your court, pissdrinker.

of what value is it for radiation to penetrate a substance if the substance can not absorb the radiation?

Pissdrinker, you're violating conservation of energy again. Where does the energy go after it penetrates? According to your loony Hockey Schtick cult pseudoscience, the IR and all the energy it carries penetrates into the ocean, and then simply vanishes without a trace.

...and you still have not shown anything that shows either sea water or reflectivity in the far IR wavelength....

I'll repost this here as well, pissdrinker, so you can run from it on two different threads.

Your graph still doesn't go into the far IR wavelengths hairball....and the fact is that there are very few instruments today that even measure into the far IR wavelengths...you, like all of climate science are just making up whatever you think supports your position with no actual observation whatsoever to support it.

And if you think a pastel pansy such as yourself can hurt my feelings, you are sadly mistaken....pissdrinker is about as feeble a moniker one could hang on someone as is possible...it doesn't roll off the tongue like hairball...or admiral hairball...it has nothing to do with reality, and if you say it a million times, it will never catch on because it just isn't pleasant to say, being slightly profane...decent people really don't enjoy using profanity, even mild profanity, casually. Such a choice reveals a great deal about the state of your character...or lack thereof. Hairball on the other hand is a fun word to say as it relates directly to that idiot, and very feminine avatar you chose for yourself and you can even use the term around your grandchildren....although maybe someone like you would use the term pissdrinker around children.

That's one of the problems with being a bitter, humorless, tightass....you can't even come up with a proper insulting name...clearly hairball gets under your skin so the moniker sticks....go ahead and use pissdrinker to your little pansy heart's content..and know that I am laughing my ass off at you. You are the kid in the playground who just can't come up with a snappy comeback to save your ass because you have no snap in your suspenders....

It shows the lack of creativity. He couldn't just use piss-ant. A creative adjective you know.

Instead he thought like a little child the word piss would be funny to use, because in his childlike environment, that would be funny to him. To us it is as you say. And not creative at all.

Thanks for the humor today!!!!

 

[SSDD]

Tell me hairball...

I'll be addressing you only as "pissdrinker" from now on. Now, if you'd like civil treatment from me, you need to offer it. The ball is in your court, pissdrinker.

of what value is it for radiation to penetrate a substance if the substance can not absorb the radiation?

Pissdrinker, you're violating conservation of energy again. Where does the energy go after it penetrates? According to your loony Hockey Schtick cult pseudoscience, the IR and all the energy it carries penetrates into the ocean, and then simply vanishes without a trace.

...and you still have not shown anything that shows either sea water or reflectivity in the far IR wavelength....

I'll repost this here as well, pissdrinker, so you can run from it on two different threads.

Your graph still doesn't go into the far IR wavelengths hairball....and the fact is that there are very few instruments today that even measure into the far IR wavelengths...you, like all of climate science are just making up whatever you think supports your position with no actual observation whatsoever to support it.

And if you think a pastel pansy such as yourself can hurt my feelings, you are sadly mistaken....pissdrinker is about as feeble a moniker one could hang on someone as is possible...it doesn't roll off the tongue like hairball...or admiral hairball...it has nothing to do with reality, and if you say it a million times, it will never catch on because it just isn't pleasant to say, being slightly profane...decent people really don't enjoy using profanity, even mild profanity, casually. Such a choice reveals a great deal about the state of your character...or lack thereof. Hairball on the other hand is a fun word to say as it relates directly to that idiot, and very feminine avatar you chose for yourself and you can even use the term around your grandchildren....although maybe someone like you would use the term pissdrinker around children.

That's one of the problems with being a bitter, humorless, tightass....you can't even come up with a proper insulting name...clearly hairball gets under your skin so the moniker sticks....go ahead and use pissdrinker to your little pansy heart's content..and know that I am laughing my ass off at you. You are the kid in the playground who just can't come up with a snappy comeback to save your ass because you have no snap in your suspenders....

It shows the lack of creativity. He couldn't just use piss-ant. A creative adjective you know.

Instead he thought like a little child the word piss would be funny to use, because in his childlike environment, that would be funny to him. To us it is as you say. And not creative at all.

Thanks for the humor today!!!!

They are a humorless lot.

 

[mamooth]

I think the funniest thing about that tantrum is how pissdrinker tosses out "feminine" as an insult.

A lot of deniers here very plainly have serious issues with women. That would explain much about the origins of their bitterness and rage, and their feelings of inadequacy.

 

[SSDD]

I think the funniest thing about that tantrum is how pissdrinker tosses out "feminine" as an insult.

A lot of deniers here very plainly have serious issues with women. That would explain much about the origins of their bitterness and rage, and their feelings of inadequacy.

Being a humorless tights, I am sure that you think what you said is true...you claim to be a man and yet, have one of the most blatantly femine avatars on the board...

 

[Kosh]

I think the funniest thing about that tantrum is how pissdrinker tosses out "feminine" as an insult.

A lot of deniers here very plainly have serious issues with women. That would explain much about the origins of their bitterness and rage, and their feelings of inadequacy.

Being a humorless tights, I am sure that you think what you said is true...you claim to be a man and yet, have one of the most blatantly femine avatars on the board...

As well as irony impaired..

But you have to remember you posting against a computer programmed response propaganda machine..

 

[jc456]

I think the funniest thing about that tantrum is how pissdrinker tosses out "feminine" as an insult.

A lot of deniers here very plainly have serious issues with women. That would explain much about the origins of their bitterness and rage, and their feelings of inadequacy.

prove that!!!!! Talk about shooting off one's mouth through their fingers.

 

[mamooth]

Being a humorless tights, I am sure that you think what you said is true...you claim to be a man and yet, have one of the most blatantly femine avatars on the board...

A cat is feminine?

Damn, you're weird. Normal humans would just say it's a cat, instead of reading gender into it. Again, you plainly have issues.

(Now, those more familiar with cats could identify gender from the facial structure .. and see that it's a boy cat. Boys are bigger around the jaw and muzzle.)

 

[jc456]

Being a humorless tights, I am sure that you think what you said is true...you claim to be a man and yet, have one of the most blatantly femine avatars on the board...

A cat is feminine?

Damn, you're weird. Normal humans would just say it's a cat, instead of reading gender into it. Again, you plainly have issues.

(Now, those more familiar with cats could identify gender from the facial structure .. and see that it's a boy cat. Boys are bigger around the jaw and muzzle.)

damn is this post stupid!!!!

 

[SSDD]

Being a humorless tights, I am sure that you think what you said is true...you claim to be a man and yet, have one of the most blatantly femine avatars on the board...

A cat is feminine?

Damn, you're weird. Normal humans would just say it's a cat, instead of reading gender into it. Again, you plainly have issues.

(Now, those more familiar with cats could identify gender from the facial structure .. and see that it's a boy cat. Boys are bigger around the jaw and muzzle.)

Shallow much? Of course you are. A cat itself is not feminine..it is a cat....identifying yourself with a cat, however is.....just as you would find few women, and then generally only a woman who exhibits certain characteristics who would choose a pit bull, as her visible manifestation on the internet you will find few men, and then generally only a certain sort of man who would choose a cat as his visible manifestation on the internet.

There is a quite interesting psychology behind the choice of one's avatar and the way you choose to personify yourself on the internet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It would if you and your buddy SSDD had any evidence of such information being withheld. And I have to ask you to tell us who you think has the capacity to withhold all such information - and over a span of over one hundred years. I do hope you're not buying in to the mass conspiracy view Ian.

Here is a good article at the website of the American Institute of Physics that discusses the development of the greenhouse theory and many experiments conducted along the way.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, rocks likes to post that collection of dogma...I ask him every time which part of it, or any of the links constitutes proof of either a greenhouse effect as described by climate science or actual evidence of a human influence on the global climate. He doesn't seem to be able to point out anything there that constitutes proof of anything, but he keeps posting it anyway...do you see anything in there that might be construed as proof of a greenhouse effect or AGW?

Crick and old goat like to post that crap over and over and over again. they also refuse to allow any new works by skeptics which show their dogma falsified. But that is expected now that they have dug up the Dr Ben Santer's 17 year goal posts and moved them out to thirty years now.

The fact is Nature has already done the math and the experiment over the last 114 years and the result was.... Natural Variation rates that were equal so there is no warming caused by CO2.

Works by skeptics? NONE peer reviewed.

Why don't you try something new...EDUCATE yourself and stop being a naive fool. There is BIG money behind your 'skeptics' and their "tobacco strategy"...

I would not at all be surprised if you know nothing about that strategy...

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer

GARBAGE... Ben Santer is fool and a liar...

You claim no peer review after your ilk lie and control journals so that only your side gets published and reviewed. that censorship show how weak your argument is and and how easily ripped apart by facts it is..

 

[Crick]

The numerous experiments discussed in the APS article clearly show that our atmosphere gets warmed by added CO2. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to have originated from the combustion of fossil fuels.

SSDD and Billy Bob say they reject that but they don't say why.

 

[SSDD]

The numerous experiments discussed in the APS article clearly show that our atmosphere gets warmed by added CO2. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to have originated from the combustion of fossil fuels.

SSDD and Billy Bob say they reject that but they don't say why.

Measurements showing that CO2 absorbs IR are not experiments proving that CO2 can cause warming goober because the same measurements also show that CO2 immediately emits said IR...absorption and emission do not equal warming. Consider N2 for example, it absorbs and emits UV in the upper atmosphere...a much higher energy exchange than the far IR that CO2 absorbs and yet, it doesn't warm because simple absorption and emission do not cause warming...and no experiment ever done demonstrates that CO2 can cause warming in an open atmosphere....because it doesn't happen.

 

[jc456]

The numerous experiments discussed in the APS article clearly show that our atmosphere gets warmed by added CO2. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to have originated from the combustion of fossil fuels.

SSDD and Billy Bob say they reject that but they don't say why.

and yet...........no experiment, no evidence.......FAIL........

Edit: yo Jiminie, you must love to have sh1t splashed in your face daily, why else would you continue to ignore and publish? It is hmmmm...st00pid? .....yeah,

 

[IanC]

The numerous experiments discussed in the APS article clearly show that our atmosphere gets warmed by added CO2. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to have originated from the combustion of fossil fuels.

SSDD and Billy Bob say they reject that but they don't say why.

Measurements showing that CO2 absorbs IR are not experiments proving that CO2 can cause warming goober because the same measurements also show that CO2 immediately emits said IR...absorption and emission do not equal warming. Consider N2 for example, it absorbs and emits UV in the upper atmosphere...a much higher energy exchange than the far IR that CO2 absorbs and yet, it doesn't warm because simple absorption and emission do not cause warming...and no experiment ever done demonstrates that CO2 can cause warming in an open atmosphere....because it doesn't happen.

I believe that the time between CO2 absorption and emission is roughly one order of magnitude longer than the time between molecular collisions, therefore most of the CO2 specific radiation gets thermalized to warm the atmosphere. this of course is dependent on the height and density of the atmosphere being examined.

if the greenhouse effect was couched in terms of the near atmosphere warming up rather than CO2 absorbing and re-emitting half back to the surface I would have far fewer problems with it. as it stands the public explanation of CO2 theory is a joke and a lie and deserves to be scoffed at.

 

[SSDD]

The numerous experiments discussed in the APS article clearly show that our atmosphere gets warmed by added CO2. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to have originated from the combustion of fossil fuels.

SSDD and Billy Bob say they reject that but they don't say why.

Measurements showing that CO2 absorbs IR are not experiments proving that CO2 can cause warming goober because the same measurements also show that CO2 immediately emits said IR...absorption and emission do not equal warming. Consider N2 for example, it absorbs and emits UV in the upper atmosphere...a much higher energy exchange than the far IR that CO2 absorbs and yet, it doesn't warm because simple absorption and emission do not cause warming...and no experiment ever done demonstrates that CO2 can cause warming in an open atmosphere....because it doesn't happen.

I believe that the time between CO2 absorption and emission is roughly one order of magnitude longer than the time between molecular collisions, therefore most of the CO2 specific radiation gets thermalized to warm the atmosphere. this of course is dependent on the height and density of the atmosphere being examined.

if the greenhouse effect was couched in terms of the near atmosphere warming up rather than CO2 absorbing and re-emitting half back to the surface I would have far fewer problems with it. as it stands the public explanation of CO2 theory is a joke and a lie and deserves to be scoffed at.

Considering the speed at which absorption and emission happen, I don't see how it could possibly be slower than the physical movement of a molecule from one point to another in order to collide with another molecule.

 

[IanC]

The numerous experiments discussed in the APS article clearly show that our atmosphere gets warmed by added CO2. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to have originated from the combustion of fossil fuels.

SSDD and Billy Bob say they reject that but they don't say why.

Measurements showing that CO2 absorbs IR are not experiments proving that CO2 can cause warming goober because the same measurements also show that CO2 immediately emits said IR...absorption and emission do not equal warming. Consider N2 for example, it absorbs and emits UV in the upper atmosphere...a much higher energy exchange than the far IR that CO2 absorbs and yet, it doesn't warm because simple absorption and emission do not cause warming...and no experiment ever done demonstrates that CO2 can cause warming in an open atmosphere....because it doesn't happen.

I believe that the time between CO2 absorption and emission is roughly one order of magnitude longer than the time between molecular collisions, therefore most of the CO2 specific radiation gets thermalized to warm the atmosphere. this of course is dependent on the height and density of the atmosphere being examined.

if the greenhouse effect was couched in terms of the near atmosphere warming up rather than CO2 absorbing and re-emitting half back to the surface I would have far fewer problems with it. as it stands the public explanation of CO2 theory is a joke and a lie and deserves to be scoffed at.

Considering the speed at which absorption and emission happen, I don't see how it could possibly be slower than the physical movement of a molecule from one point to another in order to collide with another molecule.

the 15 micron IR causes a preferred harmonic oscillation in CO2, a relatively stable state. I was under the impression that it takes roughly 10^-4 seconds to give up the energy. and I was also under the impression that there are 10^5 collisions per molecule per second at sea level. I am not sure about these numbers nor where I picked them up from. it should be relatively easy for you to find more exact numbers. actually I would appreciate it.

 

[SSDD]

the 15 micron IR causes a preferred harmonic oscillation in CO2, a relatively stable state. I was under the impression that it takes roughly 10^-4 seconds to give up the energy. and I was also under the impression that there are 10^5 collisions per molecule per second at sea level. I am not sure about these numbers nor where I picked them up from. it should be relatively easy for you to find more exact numbers. actually I would appreciate it.

So are you saying that conduction moves energy more quickly than radiation?....and do all collisions result in energy transfer?

 

[IanC]

the 15 micron IR causes a preferred harmonic oscillation in CO2, a relatively stable state. I was under the impression that it takes roughly 10^-4 seconds to give up the energy. and I was also under the impression that there are 10^5 collisions per molecule per second at sea level. I am not sure about these numbers nor where I picked them up from. it should be relatively easy for you to find more exact numbers. actually I would appreciate it.

So are you saying that conduction moves energy more quickly than radiation?....and do all collisions result in energy transfer?

your question doesnt make sense. conduction is orders of magnitude more efficient at moving energy. does that energy 'move' at the speed of light? probably not.

where do you think blackbody radiation comes from if not from particle collisions? do you think an alpha particle flying through space at 99% of the speed of light has a 'temperature'? does it radiate in space? does it affect local temperature when it rips into the atmosphere? why? a gamma ray can only be produced by a very high energy event but a 15 micron IR photon can be produced from anything with a temperature of 200K to 20,000K.