Ignorant, and willfully so. Mean of spirit and small of soul. You people only bow down to Mammon.
The evidence is overwhelming that we have changed the climate. And that the change will negatively impact all of us. The science is settled. Actually was settled a long time ago, but the denialists continue to lie about what science has said and even what science is.
And yet while this mantra is consistent, the only other constant is the LACK of any evidence to support the claim.
There has always been "climate change". The Earth wasn't static until 20 years ago when you morons dreamed up this CO2 trace-gas boogeyman that you can not predict, can not reasonably prove and yet continue to claim as real.
I've known children that claim the boogeyman is in their closet, too. Then when you open the closet and there is no boogeyman, suddenly Im told he's under the bed, then when checked, back in the closet....round and round we go.
So you want to prove the depths of your ignorance. The science is a bit more than 20 years old, you senile old fart. Joseph Fourier first noted that something in the atmosphere was absorbing outgoing heat in the 1820's. John Tyndall first measured the absorption of heat by various atmospheric gases in 1859. And Arrhenius of Sweden first quantified the affects in 1896.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Before flapping your silly yap and proving what an ignorant fool you truly are, perhaps a little research would be in order.
Okay let`s try and discuss this (again) right here and right now, even though this thread is about what the IPCC said might happen if we add more CO2:
John Tyndall first measured the absorption of heat by various atmospheric gases in 1859. And Arrhenius of Sweden first quantified the affects in 1896.
There are tons of graphs but none of them is as precise and revealing as the one in this video.
How CO2 traps sun's warmth | Thin Ice
Hugh Mortimer and Neil Bowles explain how the absorption of heat by greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water can be measured with a spectrometer.
I know Perkin Elmer IR`s and can assure everyone that what it recorded is dead accurate, but....
pay attention to the details now at 1:35
He`s got the perfect spectral snapshot of the
intensity of incoming solar radiation at ground level after the beam of sunlight passed through the atmosphere.
Then at 2:17 he tells you that the peak on the right is "heat generated by the atmosphere" which has been absorbed by the earth and is re-emitted
by the atmosphere.
The problem is that the telescope was still aimed at the sun and later captured how much less passed through "a puff of CO2" from his fire extinguisher.
The only way this claim would be valid is
if he had not pointed the telescope at the sun but rather at a different sky sector where the setup does not capture the
direct light beam coming from the sun.
Then and only then could he claim the peak intensity after 1500 cm^(-1) came from the atmosphere
and not from the sun...
But he did not because had he done so the rest of the demonstration would have failed completely.
No matter it still failed.
Pay attention at 2:44, when
and where he "puffs CO2 into the beam between the sun and the instrument"...and keep in mind that the IR spec is
still in intensity, not in absorption mode....
Oooops what happened here at 3:09?
All these (blue) peaks which are supposed to be heat (back-) radiation that supposedly came from the H2O and the CO2 in the atmosphere
shrank and they should have done the opposite, because no matter what how many times he says "absorbed", the IR was still in intensity mode
The AGW theory claims that if you add more CO2 then back radiation
intensity increases, but as you can see
it decreased,
And so it should, because the Perkin Elmer IR faithfully recorded how much less IR
(intensity) was in "the beam between the sun and the instrument" after he "puffs CO2" into that beam which was a straight line from the sun down to the instrument.
At 3:19 in that video you can see the 750 to 650 cm^(-1) part of the spectrum in better detail and by how much the
intensity has collapsed because the CO2
absorbed what was coming down this as he says, "beam
between the sun and the instrument".
And that video demonstrates precisely the
technical (as opposed to empirical) problem I`m having with AGW.
We could argue about the empirical data till hell freezes over to no avail if the physics as demonstrated in this experiment can`t back it up, but in fact shows that more CO2
does not just absorb IR leaving the surface ,but as shown here (substantially) absorbed it also from the
IR coming down from the sun and lessening what is reaching the surface at the same time.
It would have been no trouble at all to point the telescope
away from the sun and check if the(back-radiation)
intensity is going up as you empty out, if you wish, the entire fire extinguisher into a 10 meter column of air ...which is said to be the layer which absorbs the up going IR and radiates 1/2 of the energy back down.
Again I have no issues with CO2/IR absorption, the issue is that CO2 is not a one-way mirror for IR,
it absorbs and re-emits in all directions !...up and down, not just in the vertical up direction.
If it were as AGW would have it, then the Ivanpah engineers would gladly make use of a "back-radiation" with a quartz glass cap filled with "greenhouse gas" on the towers instead of loosing all that heat by radiation + convection and generate more steam instead of frying birds.
