Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2
I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.
LOL...."
Your near complete ignorance of the actual science"...talking to yourself again, eh wiredup&bentover.
CO2 molecules in our atmosphere absorb infrared radiation that is being emitted by the Earth after the Earth has been warmed by solar radiation. Some of that higher energy level in the CO2 molecule is transferred through conduction to adjacent molecules of atmospheric gases, warming the atmosphere, and most is re-radiated in all directions with approximately half going down and half going up towards space, being absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some portion of the energy reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Nobody is saying that the CO2 molecule "
traps" energy inside itself permanently. The IR drives it to a higher energy state but it immediately loses that energy through re-radiation and conduction. The overall effect though is indeed to "
retain or trap energy" inside Earth's atmosphere, warming the air, the ground and the oceans. This is exactly what has been observed by scientists as CO2 levels have gone up by 40% as a result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels and deforestation practices.
All it takes to falsify a really dumbass hypothesis is on example. The coastal area of Chile is a desert, and exhibits all the features of a desert in spite of being next to the ocean. You hypothesis is falsified.
You doofus. Are you referrring to the Atacama Desert? In your zeal to try to win an argument,
you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information that would prevent a rational person from arguing in the first place. Clearly, you are completely unaware of the Humbolt current that runs just off shore of the land. The presence of this current prevents clouds from making landfall and thus creates the desert in the first place. The Humbolt current is as obvious a barrier to the normal coastal humidity as the miles of land one might encounter between most coastal areas and inland deserts. Observe
Aso, I clearly stated that one should pick a coastal area and a desert area in the same lattitude and roughly the same ALTITUDE. I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet. Had you a hint of geography, you would have known that the land assends almost immediately into high mountains. Mountain areas almost universally have less humidity than lowlands.
Geez guy, learn something and you won't be subject to nearly so much public humiliation.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are always good for a laugh! And you're so fearless about that old public humiliation thingie.....even though you subject yourself to so much of it....LOL...
"In your zeal to try to win an argument, you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information..."
"I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet."
The highest mountain peak in South America is Aconcagua in Argentina at
22,841 ft.
List of mountains
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Atacama Desert of Chile actually has an average elevation of about
13,000 feet.
New World Encyclopedia
Actually, wired&bent, you were a lot closer to being accurate about something with this error than you usually are with your totally mistaken and very half-assed, nonsensical claims. Too bad you're so clueless and retarded.
At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.
So tell me what you believe the maximum atmospheric pressure to have been during this time of a "considerably" denser atmosphere?
And the Permian extinction happened during a time of catastrophic volcanic activity. I suppose if you get volcanoes the likes of which we have never seen to go unabated for a few thousand years, and were somehow able to bring most of the continents into a single land mass agin along with the accompanying sluggish ocean currents, and the low atmospheric oxygen content of the time, you might get the same sort of extinction as during the permian, but then again, man wouldn't be responsible.
"Catastrophic volcanic activity" was only the trigger. Those eruptions released vast quantities of CO2 which warmed the Earth and caused the methane clathrates on the ocean floor to destabilize which caused an even greater warming. It was the higher temperatures and the ocean acidification that produced the Permian mass extinction and mankind is producing those factors now without the aid of "
volcanoes" or "
sluggish ocean currents".
However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.
There is no rapid change in weather patterns. Neither the weather nor the climate is in any way exceptional nor unprecedented when viewed in the context of the climate for the relatively recent past.
So, you're in denial....we knew that....it is humorously demented but quite expected of a clueless denier cult fanatic like you. Your delusional claims are belied by the testimony of the world's climate scientists who have stated unequivocally that the rising temperatures are outside the bounds of natural variability and that the climate patterns are changing in response to that global warming. They have a great deal of evidence to back them up and all you've got are denier cult myths and half-witted misinformation and lies.
Abrupt climate shifts since 1976
Wringing your hands hysterically is not going to alter the observable facts and bring about your imagined catastrophe.
Hysterically denying the scientific evidence and the testimony of the world's climate scientists and general science community is not going to alter the observable facts regarding rising temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc., or prevent the very real and fast developing climate change catastrophe from kicking your dumb ass to the curb.
You should be more concerned about the present cooling trend and the effects that will bring on. A warmer climate would be welcome everywhere while an extended cooling trend is something to be genuinely concerned about. Cold kills far more than warm.
LOLOLOL....soooo delusional...
If there was a "
cooling trend" perhaps someone would be concerned about it but since that is just one of your demented delusions, no problem. Since 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record for the last 150 years and the last decade was the warmest decade on record, as was each preceding decade in turn going back to the 1970's, just where do you imagine you see a "
cooling trend"? LOLOLOL....you are truly retarded, wired&bent and very funny in your dementia.
bent, you're just expressing your own ignorance and non-comprehension of the facts again. No one is claiming that "the downward emitted radiation is adding additional energy to the system". All of the energy in the 'system' comes from the sun which heats the Earth which then radiates towards outer space some of that energy as long wave radiation which is then repeatedly absorbed by the greenhouse gases and re-radiated in all directions as it works its way up through the levels of atmosphere until some of the energy escapes into space and out of the 'system'. Still just the same energy that originally came from the sun, no "additional energy added".
