Al Gore's anger

[RollingThunder]

My energy graphs pwn you s0n!!!! None of you assholes have any response for them......none...........not bad for a braindead retard kookle!!!

And yet more meaningless and very delusional drivel from the braindead retard kookles.

 

[jc456]

2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

And there go two more empty meaningless posts from the denier kooks. Mindless denial of reality.

go learn something about CO2: WUWT posts,

link..The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide Watts Up With That

LOLOLOLOL......go learn some real science instead of the bogus BS you find on WattsUpMyButt.

A Saturated Gassy Argument


***

Ok, I missed that was a link. Read your article. Here is what I conclude from it:

"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

IMO, the material is bit hard to read. It isn't until the end of the article where an explanation is provided, however, the conclusion is somewhat in question based on their own research with water vapor. But the initial information by Herr Koch is what my stand is based on. There is no change in temperature with added CO2. Verified in 1901 by Herr Koch.

I stand behind the Logarithmic effect. Your article does not disprove it, but in fact validate it by the experiement from 1901.

 

[RollingThunder]

2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

And there go two more empty meaningless posts from the denier kooks. Mindless denial of reality.

go learn something about CO2: WUWT posts,

link..The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide Watts Up With That

LOLOLOLOL......go learn some real science instead of the bogus BS you find on WattsUpMyButt.

A Saturated Gassy Argument


***

Ok, I missed that was a link. Read your article. Here is what I conclude from it:

"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

IMO, the material is bit hard to read. It isn't until the end of the article where an explanation is provided, however, the conclusion is somewhat in question based on their own research with water vapor. But the initial information by Herr Koch is what my stand is based on. There is no change in temperature with added CO2. Verified in 1901 by Herr Koch.

I stand behind the Logarithmic effect. Your article does not disprove it, but in fact validate it by the experiement from 1901.

What you conclude from that article is crackpot nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual information in that article.

After the part you just quoted the article goes on to say:

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in [Angstrom's] argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

 

[Billy_Bob]

[
{garbage snip}

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

Too funny. You couldn't wipe your ass with both hands. Worse is I have posted the facts and you still want to do the "models are reality" thing when every single model fails to match reality and is show falsified. Yet you want to hang your hat on broken and falsified models that dont prove a dam thing but how fast they fail.

Empirical evidence shows a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling of CO2.. and the near proximity is currently 0.0 when natural variation is considered.

I guess we will have to wait for you to show us how 120 ppm has effected the earth over the last 64 years... wait no you wont because its already been done... and natural variation is responsible for 100% of the warming leaving a nice clean 0.0 as the answer to the equation.

 

[RollingThunder]

[
{garbage snip}

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

Too funny. You couldn't wipe your ass with both hands. Worse is I have posted the facts and you still want to do the "models are reality" thing when every single model fails to match reality and is show falsified. Yet you want to hang your hat on broken and falsified models that dont prove a dam thing but how fast they fail.

Empirical evidence shows a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling of CO2.. and the near proximity is currently 0.0 when natural variation is considered.

I guess we will have to wait for you to show us how 120 ppm has effected the earth over the last 64 years... wait no you wont because its already been done... and natural variation is responsible for 100% of the warming leaving a nice clean 0.0 as the answer to the equation.

And yet more meaningless and very delusional drivel from the braindead retard BoobyBobNutJob.

 

[jc456]

[
{garbage snip}

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

Too funny. You couldn't wipe your ass with both hands. Worse is I have posted the facts and you still want to do the "models are reality" thing when every single model fails to match reality and is show falsified. Yet you want to hang your hat on broken and falsified models that dont prove a dam thing but how fast they fail.

Empirical evidence shows a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling of CO2.. and the near proximity is currently 0.0 when natural variation is considered.

I guess we will have to wait for you to show us how 120 ppm has effected the earth over the last 64 years... wait no you wont because its already been done... and natural variation is responsible for 100% of the warming leaving a nice clean 0.0 as the answer to the equation.

And yet more meaningless and very delusional drivel from the braindead retard BoobyBobNutJob.

and yet still you have nothing. BTW, the mere fact that there were fellow scientist that wanted to poofoo the experiment, the experiment stands today. The experiment Herr Koch did proved my David Archibald graph. No matter what else is stated in that article. One more BTW, if you read on, the author lost his confidence in exactly what he was actually looking at with the water vapor. See he states that in the upper stratosphere, there is no water vapor and as such any added CO2 will react as did the experiment by Herr Koch. Come on man!!!!!! LOL
Here some further information as laid out by Clive Best.

"Radiative Forcing Update: I have now found this reference to the equations used to derive the 4 watts/sq m radiative forcing by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
rf = f * ln([CO2]/[CO2]prein)/ln(2) in watts/m ** 2
It would appear that in order to derive the factor f the IPCC assume that all of the 0.6 degrees warming apparently seen since the industrial revoluton is due to CO2 and thereby derive the constant
AF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
Then we get simply 5.35*ln(2) = 3.7 watts/sq m for the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 !
If it is really true that this formula has been derived only by assuming that all “observed” temperature rise since 1750 is caused only by CO2 increases, then I fear this is a circular argument ! Many skeptics argue that the recent rises in temperature is dominated by a natural recovery from the little Ice Age. In order to be convinced that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming then I would prefer that this formula could be derived from basic physical arguments rather than introducing a fudge factor preset to prove a theory."

 

[Kosh]

More proof that AGW is not science..

AGW is a religion that is getting government funding..

 

[RollingThunder]

An accident. Sorry.