Evidence supporting AGW

[CrusaderFrank]

Its re-emitted isotropically.

But only towards Earth, right?

You don't even know what the **** you're talking about, do you?

Which one of us said it's physically impossible to test the correlation between CO2 and warming because you had to build a container bigger than 25m?

I know it wasn't me

Isotropically means "uniform in all directions" right? That means that for a molecule in Earth atmosphere, more than 50% of the directions must not be toward Earth.

So the majority of the emission are radiated places other than Earth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.

Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.

And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

 

[jc456]

And as I think we all know, Kosh's complaint here is a lie. He has been given a large set of data files and a large set of GCM source code files. Since then, he has repeatedly continued to make this asinine and now utterly false charge.

The truth is Kosh doesn't have the faintest idea what to do with those things. If you'd care to correct me on this Kosh, please feel free to let us know what you plan to do with them. Perhaps one of your buddies will be good enough to tell you how to compile and link a program and how to run a global scale GCM on your home laptop for a 30 year run or so and how to compare the output to.... well now I'm giving it all away. I want to leave something for you to figure out on your own. Have at it Kosh.

For the fourth time:

Climate datasets

General Circulation models code

So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.

Particulates in the air.

And you know this how?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.

Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.

And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.

 

[jc456]

So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.

Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.

And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Since you can't explain it, then I'd say you failed the basics. The basics is you have no friggin idea.

 

[jc456]

Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.

And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.

Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate? I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.

Particulates in the air.

And you know this how?

Man made articulates were just the pre-dominant cause (regulations would decrease the amount of man-made particulates in the air). There was also more volcanic eruption + a decrease in solar activity. We know this because its the only way the models work.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.

Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate? I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.

1) By applying the laws of physics.

2) By observing the greenhouse effect on other planets.

3) Observation of its effect on past climate.

 

[jc456]

Its re-emitted isotropically.

How much is absorbed to re-emit? If there is 120PPM of CO2, how much absorbtion is there? and, is the absorbtion the same everywhere?

It depends more on the depth of the optically thick layer in the atmosphere. As we extend this layer, the cooling rate at the interface between thick and thin decreases, so the temperature underneath that layer increases to compensate.

It's a crapshoot then?

 

[jc456]

There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.

Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate? I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.

1) By applying the laws of physics.

2) By observing the greenhouse effect on other planets.

3) Observation of its effect on past climate.

Then why are the models all wrong?

 

[jc456]

Particulates in the air.

And you know this how?

Man made articulates were just the pre-dominant cause (regulations would decrease the amount of man-made particulates in the air). There was also more volcanic eruption + a decrease in solar activity. We know this because its the only way the models work.

So you have no evidence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.

And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.

LOL

Did the attorney for the Jailed Nigerian Finance Minister tell you that?

We can replicate black holes and the conditions of the Universe a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, we can handle and modify the world's most virulent pathogens in a lab, but good Lord adding 120PPM of CO2 to a fish tank is sew hard!! It's sew hard! We need a Container the size of the Solar System, because even if we only have a container the size of the Earth we have to have the Sun in there as well. Sew Hard!

You and your Twin G.T. provide hours of entertainment

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How much is absorbed to re-emit? If there is 120PPM of CO2, how much absorbtion is there? and, is the absorbtion the same everywhere?

It depends more on the depth of the optically thick layer in the atmosphere. As we extend this layer, the cooling rate at the interface between thick and thin decreases, so the temperature underneath that layer increases to compensate.

It's a crapshoot then?

? No. Did you actually understand the words I just wrote to you or are you just pretending to?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate? I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.

1) By applying the laws of physics.

2) By observing the greenhouse effect on other planets.

3) Observation of its effect on past climate.

Then why are the models all wrong?

They aren't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And you know this how?

Man made articulates were just the pre-dominant cause (regulations would decrease the amount of man-made particulates in the air). There was also more volcanic eruption + a decrease in solar activity. We know this because its the only way the models work.

So you have no evidence?

What are you disputing exactly?

When global atmospheric sulphate emission levelled off, the cooling ceased. Plus we know measurements of solar activity.

 

[mamooth]

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

So vague as to be meaningless. You'll need to describe this "lab setting", exactly defining every piece of equipment and environmental variable.

I suggest you look at the HITRAN database to get some answers. HITRAN is maintained by those well-known pinkos at the Air Force to precisely catalog the spectral absorption of all gases found in the atmosphere. They are constantly updating and refining those measurements. Dig into a bit, and you can find the papers describing the lab setups to get the numbers. If anyone wants more than that, go get it yourselves, ya big lazy lugs.

HITRAN

Now, if you'd like to tell the Air Force that they're doing it all wrong, and that CO2 really doesn't absorb infrared, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. Give it a shot.

The history of the science is interesting. The first experimenters screwed it up. They send infrared radiation into a tube, and found adding more CO2 didn't change anything, because the CO2 absorption band was already saturated over that short distance, and thus they concluded CO2 wasn't important. Deniers here usually make the same screwup. They miss the fact that when CO2 absorbs heat, it re-radiates more IR in all directions, meaning each little layer of the atmosphere keeps absorbing and re-remitting. A tube can't simulate that 3-dimensional situation, being the tube is close to approximating a 1-dimensional setup. It wasn't until the 1950's and the first computers that scientists correctly figured out what was going on with CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

So vague as to be meaningless. You'll need to describe this "lab setting", exactly defining every piece of equipment and environmental variable.

I suggest you look at the HITRAN database to get some answers. HITRAN is maintained by those well-known pinkos at the Air Force to precisely catalog the spectral absorption of all gases found in the atmosphere. They are constantly updating and refining those measurements. Dig into a bit, and you can find the papers describing the lab setups to get the numbers. If anyone wants more than that, go get it yourselves, ya big lazy lugs.

HITRAN

Now, if you'd like to tell the Air Force that they're doing it all wrong, and that CO2 really doesn't absorb infrared, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

The history of the science is interesting. The first scientists screwed it up. They send infrared radiation into a tube, and found adding more CO2 didn't change anything, because the CO2 absorption band was already saturated over that short distance. Deniers here usually make the same screwup. They miss the fact that when CO2 absorbs heat, it re-radiates more IR in all directions, meaning each little layer of the atmospher keeps absorbing and re-remitting. A tube can't simulate that 3-dimensional situation, being the tube is close to approximating a 1-dimensional setup. It wasn't until the 1950's and the first computers that scientist figured out what was going on with CO2 in the atmosphere.

Did you not understand the question?

 

[mamooth]

Did you not understand the question?

I'd ask you the same. You don't seem to know what you're babbling about; you now just reflexively autospew it without thinking about it. It's almost as if it were a religious mantra you use so you can avoid thinking. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.

 

[Kosh]

So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

So vague as to be meaningless. You'll need to describe this "lab setting", exactly defining every piece of equipment and environmental variable.

I suggest you look at the HITRAN database to get some answers. HITRAN is maintained by those well-known pinkos at the Air Force to precisely catalog the spectral absorption of all gases found in the atmosphere. They are constantly updating and refining those measurements. Dig into a bit, and you can find the papers describing the lab setups to get the numbers. If anyone wants more than that, go get it yourselves, ya big lazy lugs.

HITRAN

Now, if you'd like to tell the Air Force that they're doing it all wrong, and that CO2 really doesn't absorb infrared, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. Give it a shot.

The history of the science is interesting. The first experimenters screwed it up. They send infrared radiation into a tube, and found adding more CO2 didn't change anything, because the CO2 absorption band was already saturated over that short distance, and thus they concluded CO2 wasn't important. Deniers here usually make the same screwup. They miss the fact that when CO2 absorbs heat, it re-radiates more IR in all directions, meaning each little layer of the atmosphere keeps absorbing and re-remitting. A tube can't simulate that 3-dimensional situation, being the tube is close to approximating a 1-dimensional setup. It wasn't until the 1950's and the first computers that scientists correctly figured out what was going on with CO2 in the atmosphere.

Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.

CO2 does not drive climate.

No scientific proof has been provided to prove that.

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.

 

[Kosh]

Did you not understand the question?

I'd ask you the same. You don't seem to know what you're babbling about; you now just reflexively autospew it without thinking about it. It's almost as if it were a religious mantra you use so you can avoid thinking. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.

No you like to argue just to argue like any two year old kid would like to do.

Typical AGW cult mentality.