You are a moron like EMH.
Alarmists Fail to Refute Realistic Climate Report
- Thread starter Sunsettommy
- Start date
ReinyDays
Platinum Member
Nice Englishing ...
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 12,235
- 11,075
- 2,128
The fundamental mistakes with greenhouse-warming theory are plotting energy on the y-axis of Planck’s empirical law and integrating as a function of frequency to get one number for the total amount of thermal energy flowing per second in units of watts per square meter. This method grossly overestimates the thermal effects of infrared energy.
Greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation have never been shown by experiment to cause any significant increase in air temperature.
Hey, dummy. Do greenhouse gases cause the planet to be warmer than it would without them?
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 12,235
- 11,075
- 2,128
The question is do humans cause the warming. Other than the hot air that comes out of your mouth the answer is no.
You mean besides their changing the planet's albedo by creating urban heat islands and deforestation? And besides their waste heat from burning fossil fuels for generating electricity and powering other internal combustion engines? No one knows because they have never looked into that because there's no money in it.
But if you are talking about from an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the most it could be is 0.5C with a more realistic number being 0.22C. Because the most it could be is based upon 1C per doubling of CO2 with the more realistic number being based upon convection currents which whisk heat away from the surface like it does for all greenhouse gases. Only 44% of the theoretical surface temperatures from the entire atmosphere is actually seen at the surface because of convective currents. So the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping heat at the surface but according to the IPCC CO2 is 350% to 450% effective at trapping heat at the surface which is what I disagree with.
You are know nothing ignorant moron who makes opposition to AGW more difficult because of all the bullshit you say. You are like EMH. You two idiots should darwinize your dumb asses out of existence as soon as possible.
ReinyDays
Platinum Member
Temperature is a single number ... any change to temperature due to change in irradiation will also be a single number ... if it helps, astrophysicists use the symbol j* for irradiation, which is specifically defined to mean all wavelengths of EM energy ...
The other mistake is treating the ocean and atmosphere as a single object ... they're not even the same material ...
The weasel here is you don't define what "significant increase in air temperature" is ... most everybody sees 20 to 30 degrees changes every day, so that's definitely insignificant ... so "significant" is 100 degrees, 200 degrees? ...
How do you explain THIS demonstration?:
Best 4 minutes you'll spend today
A most excellent demonstration. Idiots like Hafar1014 and EMH probably won't be swayed by it because... well... they are idiots. But I think it's important for opponents of AGW to police their ranks because we can't have idiots undermining the cause by spouting nonsense that makes the opposition to AGW look bad. So I thank you for setting this particular idiot straight.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,284
- 14,003
- 2,400
- Thread starter
- #70
It is interesting but he doesn't tell us what the PPM level is in the CO2 bottle and at what pressure.
Meanwhile this comment is worth pondering:
"He overlooked a two key factors in this experiment, specifically 1) what is the concentration of CO2 in each bottle, though we know the atmosphere CO2 concentration in the control bottle is around 400 parts per million, 0.04%, or 1/25th of one percent; 2) both of these bottles are closed systems, while the earth's atmosphere is an open system, i.e. open to the entire universe. However, it is a good experiment to demonstrate how a greenhouse gases can retain radiant energy to help keep the earth from devolving into another ice age."
ReinyDays
Platinum Member
The bottle on left with the pills is supposed to be 100% CO2 ...
Just using simple ratios, we get 1/100th of a degree per 1,000 ppm ... ouch ... I never said carbon dioxide doesn't warm the atmosphere, I just said it's not enough to measure ... or change weather ...
Based upon 1C per doubling of CO2 I think you can assume it was about 10% or 100,000 ppm.
Last edited:
Can’t be. There was air already in the bottle. Pressure monitoring in each bottle would have been useful.
ReinyDays
Platinum Member
Er ... yeah ... the carbon dioxide evolving off the water's surface pushes the air out ... I'm assuming the stopper ain't so good and both bottles are at atmospheric pressure ...
Oh ... my mistake ... 90% CO2 ... at 44ºC, that'll be 10% water vapor ... the "other" greenhouse gas ...
Or due to the solubility CO2 in water the water retained most of the CO2 which wouldn't be that much different in the oceans as the oceans contain ~94% of the planet's CO2.
That's why I said knowing the pressure of each bottle would be useful. Because then one could calculate how much CO2 was liberated from the water and how much remained in solution.
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 30,496
- 17,989
- 2,788
Don't have to, NBC admits it...
Key claim against global warming evaporates
Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.
www.nbcnews.com
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 30,496
- 17,989
- 2,788
... no matter how many times it is completely refuted, and/or outed as complete and total junk science, like calling one ice core from Antarctica's oxygen isotope ratio a "global temperature."
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 30,496
- 17,989
- 2,788
A most excellent demonstration. Idiots like Hafar1014 and EMH probably won't be swayed by it because... well... they are idiots. But I think it's important for opponents of AGW to police their ranks because we can't have idiots undermining the cause by spouting nonsense that makes the opposition to AGW look bad. So I thank you for setting this particular idiot straight.
Earth climate data continues to read precisely...
NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANE ACTIVITY
NO OCEAN RISE
NO RISE in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE
= EARTH NOT WARMING
ReinyDays
Platinum Member
Don't have to, NBC admits it...
Key claim against global warming evaporates
Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.
NBC? ... do you mean Comcast? ... talk about Jew central ... closed today unchanged at $32.43 ... what's the forecast? ...
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 30,496
- 17,989
- 2,788
That link documents that in 2005, after three decades of rising CO2, both satellites and balloons showed precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE.
Then in 2005 the CO2 FRAUD fudged both series with laughable bullshit.
There is NO ACTUAL DATA that shows the atmosphere is warming, JUST FUDGE...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Old Dominion Shooter has been identified and was convicted of providing support for ISIS in 2017 !- Started by yidnar
- Replies: 0
-
Zone1 Record Number Of Bibles Sold In 2025 in the USA and the UK- Started by SaxonJackson
- Replies: 0
-
-
