Grand Solar Minimum, not a problem

[mamooth]

But you posted no experiment. Why is that?

Because I've listed hundreds of such experiments before, the reference list of the HITRAN database.

When you claim the IR properties of CO2 haven't been precisely quantified by experiment, you sound like a lunatic. But you're not, not really. You're just lying.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But you posted no experiment. Why is that?

Because I've listed hundreds of such experiments before, the reference list of the HITRAN database.

When you claim the IR properties of CO2 haven't been precisely quantified by experiment, you sound like a lunatic. But you're not, not really. You're just lying.

And by "Hundreds" you mean none. Must be Common core.

Please post one experiment showing what a 280 to 400 PPM CO2 does to temperature

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If your "theory" is correc

Its not "my theory", ya weirdo...

increase from 280 to 400ppm "traps heat", enough heat to radically alter the climate of an entire planet, its a simple experiment that should yield a non-imaginary number

Haha...im enjoypng your desperate conman act. "An entire planet!!!!"....uh, hey genius...the atmosphere covers the entire planet.

How much heat would need to be trapped? Please phrase your answer in the proper units. Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

I know why. You love being ignorant. It's true. You do. You would rather be wrong and not know you are wrong than learn something and have to stray from your odd little paradigm.

Like, a cultist.

Let me help. Here's an experiment that demonstrates the greenhouse effect.

Thanks!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If your "theory" is correc

Its not "my theory", ya weirdo...

increase from 280 to 400ppm "traps heat", enough heat to radically alter the climate of an entire planet, its a simple experiment that should yield a non-imaginary number

Haha...im enjoypng your desperate conman act. "An entire planet!!!!"....uh, hey genius...the atmosphere covers the entire planet.

How much heat would need to be trapped? Please phrase your answer in the proper units. Thanks.

So you can't post the experiment because....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If your "theory" is correc

Its not "my theory", ya weirdo...

increase from 280 to 400ppm "traps heat", enough heat to radically alter the climate of an entire planet, its a simple experiment that should yield a non-imaginary number

Haha...im enjoypng your desperate conman act. "An entire planet!!!!"....uh, hey genius...the atmosphere covers the entire planet.

How much heat would need to be trapped? Please phrase your answer in the proper units. Thanks.

So you can't post the experiment because....

What experiment? Don't waste my time. Act like an adult, and tell me what sort of experiment/evidence would convince you that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming. Be specific. And, keep in mind, thay all of your comments thus far have been retarded, as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The numbers and history showing that even if we have a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, it will make little difference to the warming of the Earth.

LAWD that was painful... Same old song.. Only with more deception or at least ignorance from "Just Have a Think" LOL....

Here's the deal old friend.. Total RECOVERY from the last Grand Solar minimum took over 80 YEARS... That's MORE than just "one solar cycle" and the total recovery in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) was about 0.8 Watts/M2...

What these naive comparisons DON'T take into account is the DIFFERENCE between power and energy.. A loss of a LITTLE power over time can INTEGRATE into a lot of cooling..

That's the entire argument for the both the short time and long time "residency time constants" for FORCINGS that are CO2 based.. They accumulate heating EVEN IF THEY ARE STABLE until a new long term equilibrium is reached in the atmosphere and at the surface..

So what's GOOD for CO2 forcing effects is DOUBLY good for solar irradiation effects -- ESPECIALLY the direct incoming reduced flux of WIDEBAND solar "light" that tends to warm (or cool) the oceans much more EFFICIENTLY than the back radiation from CO2..

So this horseshit of JUST looking at the forcing doesn't tell you in the LEAST what the effect or long term effects on the climate will be... Just as CO2 forcings "stick around" for quite awhile when those levels change...

And the best guesses I've heard, is that after the 60 or 80 years of a solar minimum -- We'll have reduced the global anomaly to about 1/4 or 1/2 of it's current value....

Yep, understood every word of it, NOT. Don't really care, did my part to get the world in this shape and will not see anything bad. (To Old_+)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If your "theory" is correc

Its not "my theory", ya weirdo...

increase from 280 to 400ppm "traps heat", enough heat to radically alter the climate of an entire planet, its a simple experiment that should yield a non-imaginary number

Haha...im enjoypng your desperate conman act. "An entire planet!!!!"....uh, hey genius...the atmosphere covers the entire planet.

How much heat would need to be trapped? Please phrase your answer in the proper units. Thanks.

So you can't post the experiment because....

What experiment? Don't waste my time. Act like an adult, and tell me what sort of experiment/evidence would convince you that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming. Be specific. And, keep in mind, thay all of your comments thus far have been retarded, as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.

Reread the OP

 

[SSDD]

But you posted no experiment. Why is that?

Because I've listed hundreds of such experiments before, the reference list of the HITRAN database.

When you claim the IR properties of CO2 haven't been precisely quantified by experiment, you sound like a lunatic. But you're not, not really. You're just lying.

Talk about pathological lying...WOW...

 

[Billy_Bob]

But you posted no experiment. Why is that?

Because I've listed hundreds of such experiments before, the reference list of the HITRAN database.

When you claim the IR properties of CO2 haven't been precisely quantified by experiment, you sound like a lunatic. But you're not, not really. You're just lying.

The Physics of LWIR and CO2 are pretty secure, its your understanding of them that is flawed..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If your "theory" is correc

Its not "my theory", ya weirdo...

increase from 280 to 400ppm "traps heat", enough heat to radically alter the climate of an entire planet, its a simple experiment that should yield a non-imaginary number

Haha...im enjoypng your desperate conman act. "An entire planet!!!!"....uh, hey genius...the atmosphere covers the entire planet.

How much heat would need to be trapped? Please phrase your answer in the proper units. Thanks.

So you can't post the experiment because....

What experiment? Don't waste my time. Act like an adult, and tell me what sort of experiment/evidence would convince you that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming. Be specific. And, keep in mind, thay all of your comments thus far have been retarded, as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.

Are you avoiding posting a scientific experiment? That's odd considering how CO2 is even more powerful than the Great and Powerful Oz

 

[SSDD]

If your "theory" is correc

Its not "my theory", ya weirdo...

increase from 280 to 400ppm "traps heat", enough heat to radically alter the climate of an entire planet, its a simple experiment that should yield a non-imaginary number

Haha...im enjoypng your desperate conman act. "An entire planet!!!!"....uh, hey genius...the atmosphere covers the entire planet.

How much heat would need to be trapped? Please phrase your answer in the proper units. Thanks.

So you can't post the experiment because....

What experiment? Don't waste my time. Act like an adult, and tell me what sort of experiment/evidence would convince you that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming. Be specific. And, keep in mind, thay all of your comments thus far have been retarded, as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.

Are you avoiding posting a scientific experiment? That's odd considering how CO2 is even more powerful than the Great and Powerful Oz

The Wizz is a magical lightweight compared to CO2...all hail the great and powerful CO2 molecule...

 

[daveman]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

I know why. You love being ignorant. It's true. You do. You would rather be wrong and not know you are wrong than learn something and have to stray from your odd little paradigm.

Like, a cultist.

Let me help. Here's an experiment that demonstrates the greenhouse effect.

Thanks!

Hint: The link doesn't prove what you think it proves.

 

[SSDD]

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

I know why. You love being ignorant. It's true. You do. You would rather be wrong and not know you are wrong than learn something and have to stray from your odd little paradigm.

Like, a cultist.

Let me help. Here's an experiment that demonstrates the greenhouse effect.

Thanks!

Hint: The link doesn't prove what you think it proves.

You really don't expect him to know that do you? That experiment is side show huxterism, but it is more than good enough to fool people like him.

 

[daveman]

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

I know why. You love being ignorant. It's true. You do. You would rather be wrong and not know you are wrong than learn something and have to stray from your odd little paradigm.

Like, a cultist.

Let me help. Here's an experiment that demonstrates the greenhouse effect.

Thanks!

Hint: The link doesn't prove what you think it proves.

You really don't expect him to know that do you? That experiment is side show huxterism, but it is more than good enough to fool people like him.

Yup, he's the target audience. And he performs exactly as ordered.