And POOF, it was gone....

[westwall]

It was? Hmmm. I don't think so. And once again for the learning impaired, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Everything you have presented is simple correlation. Correlation that stopped 18 years ago.

I am missing your retraction of your false accusations - not able to read a graph, scientific illiteracy. I am also missing you acknowledging your falsehood that 300ppm is above the current level of CO2 concentrations (404ppm). The historical record of relatively steady CO2 concentrations is the result of causation, namely, production roughly in line with storage, not correlation.

Okay then.

That's because I didn't make a false accusation.

 

[Wuwei]

That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.

It was, according to you an accurate representation of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...now your claim is that it was something else entirely...and it is clearly titled "energy balance at the earth's surface...not the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere...lies upon top of lies topped off with a great big cherry of ignorance....you still don't have a clue...

I was not referring to the University diagram and analysis as being inane.
I was referring to your inane computation that lead to a value -18C. That has nothing to do with the diagram nor the GHE. Yet you thought it did.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.

Bully for you. And the millions of cars in China, India and other third world countries that have no pollution monitoring?

 

[westwall]

[

The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.

Bully for you. And the millions of cars in China, India and other third world countries that have no pollution monitoring?

How about we deal with the very real particulate, and toxic material pollution that China suffers from, instead of the imaginary "pollution" of CO2.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
How about we deal with the very real particulate, and toxic material pollution that China suffers from, instead of the imaginary "pollution" of CO2.

So all the smoke and toxic fumes coming out of the tailpipes of those cars is CO2? Is that what you are saying??

 

[westwall]

[
How about we deal with the very real particulate, and toxic material pollution that China suffers from, instead of the imaginary "pollution" of CO2.

So all the smoke and toxic fumes coming out of the tailpipes of those cars is CO2? Is that what you are saying??

Nope. This is what I'm talking about... These two pictures are from the chinese textile industry...

This one is from their dirty coal fired power plants. They could be using anthracite coal, which burns very cleanly, but they use lignite, which is the cheapest, dirtiest form of coal to burn.

And finally, this gentleman is the victim of the chinese mining industry. He is afflicted with heavy metal poisoning from a closed lead mine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.

Bully for you. And the millions of cars in China, India and other third world countries that have no pollution monitoring?

Pollute more. And?

 

[Dr Grump]

[

The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.

Bully for you. And the millions of cars in China, India and other third world countries that have no pollution monitoring?

Pollute more. And?

and?

 

[SSDD]

That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.

It was, according to you an accurate representation of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...now your claim is that it was something else entirely...and it is clearly titled "energy balance at the earth's surface...not the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere...lies upon top of lies topped off with a great big cherry of ignorance....you still don't have a clue...

I was not referring to the University diagram and analysis as being inane.
I was referring to your inane computation that lead to a value -18C. That has nothing to do with the diagram nor the GHE. Yet you thought it did.

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....but hey, I don't mind doing it again, at an even simpler level for you....

At the university of washington site, they begin with this graph.... a single input..the sun...a single radiator, the surface of the earth...it assumes no atmosphere....simple radiation in...radiation out.....if you see anything other than that, then you know even less than I had given you credit for and after the past few days, that is very little....

See the equation at the bottom of the page? The 239.7 wm2 is representing the radiation going out from the surface...it isn't claiming any temperature that the earth would be without an atmosphere...it is simply stating what the earth radiates out after it has absorbed the incoming radiation from the sun...note according to their model...239.7 wm2 is coming in from the sun. You understand that...or do you think it says something else?

And your claims that I was somehow being dishonest for calculating a radiating temperature from the radiating wm2 from the various radiators is nothing more than bullshit because that is precisely what they have done in this graphic and the next...see the T = (239.7)/(5.67 x 10^-8) = 255K...that is nothing more than calculating the radiating temperature of the radiation leaving the earth's surface...an object radiating at 239.7 wm2 has a radiating temperature of 255K 255K is -18.15 degrees C...

Then they move on to this graphic...which is according to them and you, describing the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science... Not much has changed on the graphic...except they have now added radiation from the atmosphere......the real 239.7 wm2 radiating out to space through the atmosphere...and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...

Now look at the equation at the bottom of the graphic... T=(239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 x 10^-8)....again, all this equation is stating is that they are adding the 239.7 wm2 leaving the earth to the 239.7 wm2 radiating down from the atmosphere...and the graphic above says clearly that the 239.7 wm2 equals a radiating temperature of 255K or -18.15C....I suppose I will do the addition for you also...math doesn't seem to be your best thing...

(239.7 + 239.7) = 479.4....run that through the SB equation and you get a radiating temperature of 303K...or 29.85 degrees C...that is all that the equations say and according to the source, it is a simple, bare bones, description of the greenhouse effect...you can certainly make the model more complicated, but when you begin with such a terribly flawed basic model, you ca't make it complicated enough to fix it...the model doesn't describe reality and no matter how complicated you make it, it is never going to describe reality....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.

Bully for you. And the millions of cars in China, India and other third world countries that have no pollution monitoring?

Pollute more. And?

and?

Exactly.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....

Sorry guy. At least two people explained the graph to you, but you didn't understand the science and you thought the the graph showed that two ice cubes could warm something up. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. We straightened you out on your misunderstandings. You're welcome.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....

Sorry guy. At least two people explained the graph to you, but you didn't understand the science and you thought the the graph showed that two ice cubes could warm something up. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. We straightened you out on your misunderstandings. You're welcome.

And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...

You straighten nothing out...you lied....you failed to even grasp the basics of what the graphic were saying..and you proved that you can't even plug numbers into the SB law and get radiating temperatures from radiating wattages...the only thing you straighten out was my erroneous impression that you were smarter than a bag of rocks...you straighten out that error post haste...

And the fact that you are still in denial over what it says reveals volumes about you..

 

[Wuwei]

And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...

You straighten nothing out...you lied....you failed to even grasp the basics of what the graphic were saying..and you proved that you can't even plug numbers into the SB law and get radiating temperatures from radiating wattages...the only thing you straighten out was my erroneous impression that you were smarter than a bag of rocks...you straighten out that error post haste...

And the fact that you are still in denial over what it says reveals volumes about you..

Nope. Wrong again. I already said why in a different thread.

 

[Dr Grump]

[


and?

Exactly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what? I think that you think you have proven something. You haven't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and?

Exactly.

Exactly what? I think that you think you have proven something. You haven't.

The CO2 I exhale is identical to CO2 from my car exhaust.

 

[Crick]

The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes

So what?

 

[SSDD]

And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...

You straighten nothing out...you lied....you failed to even grasp the basics of what the graphic were saying..and you proved that you can't even plug numbers into the SB law and get radiating temperatures from radiating wattages...the only thing you straighten out was my erroneous impression that you were smarter than a bag of rocks...you straighten out that error post haste...

And the fact that you are still in denial over what it says reveals volumes about you..

Nope. Wrong again. I already said why in a different thread.

And you were wrong there....you have been wrong all along...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, that's so. Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax? He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out. It was Ken Lay. I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.

You're so needy a guy, you have to assume, for the sake of your self-aggrandizement, I'd need to google Kenny boy? Really...

Of course, Gore denies Ken has had anything to do with the carbon tax, and the late Ken himself cannot defend himself. Whatever, this is infowars-, Alex Jones-grade stuff, just like your World-Wide Grand Conspiracy for population control and 97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme, probably with fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Grand Caymans.

97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme

75 out of 77.....sounds serious!!!

Of over 16,649

0.03%..... ooooooo so scary!

 

[westwall]

The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes

Yeah? So?