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.
That's not what the experts say.
It was covered before. Ground measurements were made which observed the amount of back-radiation by CO2. Ask your favorite physicist, Prof Raeder about the physics of that.So again...that would be a no...you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Just as I said. All the rest is nothing more than smoke screen to divert from the fact that you can't provide even one piece of real data to support your faith.
Thank you for admitting that you do not have even a basic grasp on the physics of the garbage your spewing...Now this is truly funny.
You don't have even a basic grasp of the physics involved. I posted the LOG of your beloved CO2 a few posts back and you have yet to respond to my question, what does it show?
It shows I don't need to respond to nonsense.
Oh look another cherry picked snipet.... of just a warming period and not the cooling period that preceded it..Yeah right. It is well known that the history of global warming is a succession of cooling periods...Right now...cooler
http://www.columbia.edu
Absolutely. After all, what this graphic shows is a series of declining temperature anomalies, one after another...There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.
Republicans believe Trump.First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?
Here’s what the author of this piece writes:
First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.
In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.
Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.
1. Rampant scientific fraud
2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public
3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions
4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history
All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html
The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html
Republicans believe Trump.
They can be fooled into anything.
You have broken the dumbass meter...Absolutely. After all, what this graphic shows is a series of declining temperature anomalies, one after another...There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.
Global Temperature
Look into the atmosphere of Venus. The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C. Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K. Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.
So do the math and tell me why, at a point in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, but is composed mostly of CO2, the temperature is not considerably warmer once you take into account the difference in incoming solar energy if the greenhouse effect behaves as climate science claims.
Look into the atmosphere of Venus. The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C. Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K. Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.
So do the math and tell me why, at a point in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, but is composed mostly of CO2, the temperature is not considerably warmer once you take into account the difference in incoming solar energy if the greenhouse effect behaves as climate science claims.
If you want to use the atmosphere height on Venus at the point where the pressures are equivalent, I agree that is a reasonable baseline to test the “ideal gas law theory” of temperature as a function of altitude. That baseline altitude for Venus is about 50 KM. I would agree that the pressures from that baseline point up would be close because of the ideal gas law under the effect of gravity predicts that.
However, the interest here is in the temperature profile, or lapse rate. Compare the lapse rate for the two planets, earth starting at zero KM and Venus starting at 50KM. You see that they are entirely different quantitatively and qualitatively.
EARTH
VENUS
Notice at 50 KM above earth which is equivalent in pressure to 100 KM above Venus, the temperature of the earth is at a local maximum while the temperature of Venus is at a local minimum.
Also, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.
Is it coincidence that the Earth temperature is in the ball park of Venus at 50 KM? I couldn't begin to guess.
The ideal gas law fails miserably in predicting the lapse rate of those two planets which are wildly different in atmospheric content.
.
No point in continuing this in two different threads. My response is in the thread,I asked for measurements of discrete bands of radiation emitted by CO2
That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.
With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.
So the bottom line is that the ideal gas law damned near nails the temperature on venus just as it does on any other planet with an atmosphere.
Physical rotation speed, Composition of the atmosphere, external gravity draws (moons) are all reasons why there is only one change in temp as the depth thickens.. While the weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature, there are mitigating factors which affect its circulations.That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.
With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.
So the bottom line is that the ideal gas law damned near nails the temperature on venus just as it does on any other planet with an atmosphere.
In other words, your +10 K/km simply does not work for higher altitudes and even goes negative at certain ranges.
wuwei said:That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.
That quotation is not mine...That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.
Actually, it doesn't change smoothly just once.
sorry guy, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't predict the temperature of venus while the ideal gas law does...just as it predicts the temperatures of every planet with an atmosphere.
Venus (at the surface)
P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K
92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K
Earth (at the surface)
P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K
1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K
Jupiter (at 1 bar)
P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K
Saturn (at 1 bar)
P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K
Uranus (at 1 bar)
P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K
Neptune (at 1 bar)
P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K
Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?
That quotation is not mine...
I was attempting to show why the circulation patterns are different. On earth there are thermoclines which hold temperature due to earths rotation an combinations of makeup. On Venus the composition is such that there are no thermoclines.
First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?
Here’s what the author of this piece writes:
First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.
In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.
Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.
1. Rampant scientific fraud
2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public
3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions
4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history
All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html
The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html
Now hear this:
‘Sobering’ New UN Report Challenges Republican Climate Hawks’ Free-Market Dogma | HuffPost
I am 71 hears old and I actually fear reincarnation more than death and this is why. I do not want to come back into a world on fire, plagued by drought, extreme weather, and famine That is where we are headed. The pig headed and greedy conservatives had better wake up and realize that they can't kill the earth for short term profits which is exactly what this is all about.
Younger people had better wake the fuck up and think about their future regardless of their spiritual beliefs
A landmark new United Nations report warning of catastrophic global warming doesn’t seem to have shaken many Republican climate hawks’ faith that market tweaks alone can deliver the unprecedented emissions cuts needed to avert disaster.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. consortium of researchers from 40 countries, said Sunday the reductions needed to avoid average global warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”
“The only force that I know of on the planet that can deliver innovation as quickly as we need it is the free enterprise system,” said former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), now the executive director of RepublicEn, a group urging Republicans to support a ca
And please spare us the hysterical horsesit which I can already hear about the evil UN plotting to usurp our soverenty and establish a one world government . Get the fuck over it.
