My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

[ding]

The guy who doesn't understand that once IR is absorbed it doesn't just "disappear" would be the guy who clearly doesn't understand thermo.

I'm not arguing over that, dummy. I'm arguing over the magnitude of the response and the subsequent feedbacks.

Within 30 years everything you believe will be disproved by colder temperatures.

 

[ding]

You think all science has to be done "in the lab" to be meaningful? What a HOOT!

You don't actually know any geologists do you?

There you go again downplaying the significance and necessity of laboratory experiments.

 

[ding]

Read the article for yourself.

Or just keep speaking out of pure ignorance.

I have and the basis for his conclusion were that they did not cool down at the same rate. Ergo... what were the temperature differences?

Too small to measure.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I have and the basis for his conclusion were that they did not cool down at the same rate. Ergo... what were the temperature differences?

Too small to measure.

I honestly don't understand how someone who doesn't even know the First Law of Thermo would think he somehow figured out that Tyndall was wrong in concluding CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Do you really NOT believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?????

And tell me one actual temperature measurement in Tyndall's paper. Just one number. Find it, quote it. Show me. WHAT TEMPERATURE NUMBER SHOWS UP IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

There you go again downplaying the significance and necessity of laboratory experiments.

Dude, I've spent more time in the lab than you have. I have always been a lab scientist. Always.

But I am also a trained scientist and I know that not all concepts are proven "in the lab". In fact a HUGE fraction of the earth sciences cannot be done "in the lab".

But you wouldn't know since you seem to have never had ANY association with the earth sciences.

Your ignorance astounds me, but your PRIDE in your ignorance really impresses me.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm not arguing over that, dummy. I'm arguing over the magnitude of the response and the subsequent feedbacks.

No, you claimed Tyndall couldn't measure a temperature change with CO2.

It was, in your words, "too small to measure".

Of course Tyndall didn't conclude that. Not even close.

Within 30 years everything you believe will be disproved by colder temperatures.

Now you are a psychic?

I guess you have to be something because your shit at this science stuff.

 

[ding]

I honestly don't understand how someone who doesn't even know the First Law of Thermo would think he somehow figured out that Tyndall was wrong in concluding CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Do you really NOT believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?????

And tell me one actual temperature measurement in Tyndall's paper. Just one number. Find it, quote it. Show me. WHAT TEMPERATURE NUMBER SHOWS UP IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE?

I'm pretty well versed on the FLoT. Did you know that matter was created from nothing without violating the FLoT? Cause if you don't know how that could happen, maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[ding]

Dude, I've spent more time in the lab than you have. I have always been a lab scientist. Always.

But I am also a trained scientist and I know that not all concepts are proven "in the lab". In fact a HUGE fraction of the earth sciences cannot be done "in the lab".

But you wouldn't know since you seem to have never had ANY association with the earth sciences.

Your ignorance astounds me, but your PRIDE in your ignorance really impresses me.

I don't believe anyone here believes that for one second. Certainly not me.

 

[ding]

No, you claimed Tyndall couldn't measure a temperature change with CO2.

It was, in your words, "too small to measure".

Of course Tyndall didn't conclude that. Not even close.



Now you are a psychic?

I guess you have to be something because your shit at this science stuff.

Incorrect. I asked you what the temperature difference was that he measured. Clearly he observed a temperature difference, no?

The point I am making is that if Tyndall was able to observe the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment then you should be able to measure the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment, right?

 

[ding]

Do you really NOT believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?????

I'm not arguing over that, dummy. I'm arguing over the magnitude of the response and the subsequent feedbacks.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm not arguing over that, dummy. I'm arguing over the magnitude of the response and the subsequent feedbacks.

You seemed to indicate it was "too small to measure". That sounds like you don't believe it is a greenhouse gas.

I doubt you actually believe that, but if you think there's no way to measure it or you want something from the 19th century to be the be-all/end-all then you are mistaken about pretty much everything in this topic.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Incorrect. I asked you what the temperature difference was that he measured. Clearly he observed a temperature difference, no?

Did you read the article? He wasn't measuring temperature directly. He was measuring a galvanometer needle deviation.

The point I am making is that if Tyndall was able to observe the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment then you should be able to measure the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment, right?

Not even close to what was established by his study.

He clearly established that some gases (CO2, H2O, O3, etc.) are able to stop the transmission of heat by absorption of said heat. He wasn't measuring the relationship between concentration and temperature change (climate sensitivity).

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing what Tyndall was dealing with?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I don't believe anyone here believes that for one second. Certainly not me.

At least I believe in the First Law of Thermo.

Unlike you I've actually seen CO2 absorb IR. I used to see it every single day I was alive. I ran an FTIR on the organic geochemical samples (you remember that discussion? The stuff you didn't understand AT ALL) and every time I ran the FTIR I had to run a background scan which showed a MASSIVE CO2 ABSORPTION PEAK.

Since I believe that energy cannot be destroyed or created out of nothing I knew the energy had to go somewhere. You wouldn't have known that given your lack of belief in the First Law.

 

[ding]

You seemed to indicate it was "too small to measure". That sounds like you don't believe it is a greenhouse gas.

I doubt you actually believe that, but if you think there's no way to measure it or you want something from the 19th century to be the be-all/end-all then you are mistaken about pretty much everything in this topic.

Why would you make that assumption? There was an observed difference. It wasn't zero. Again... I'm arguing over the magnitude of the response and the subsequent feedbacks.

Again... Tyndall was able to observe the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment so you should be able to measure the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment, right?

 

[ding]

Did you read the article? He wasn't measuring temperature directly. He was measuring a galvanometer needle deviation.

Which is a measurement of heat or temperature.

Not even close to what was established by his study.

He clearly established that some gases (CO2, H2O, O3, etc.) are able to stop the transmission of heat by absorption of said heat. He wasn't measuring the relationship between concentration and temperature change (climate sensitivity).

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing what Tyndall was dealing with?

I haven't mischaracterized anything.

Again... Tyndall was able to observe the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment, right? So you should be able to measure the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment, right?

 

[ding]

At least I believe in the First Law of Thermo.

Unlike you I've actually seen CO2 absorb IR. I used to see it every single day I was alive. I ran an FTIR on the organic geochemical samples (you remember that discussion? The stuff you didn't understand AT ALL) and every time I ran the FTIR I had to run a background scan which showed a MASSIVE CO2 ABSORPTION PEAK.

Since I believe that energy cannot be destroyed or created out of nothing I knew the energy had to go somewhere. You wouldn't have known that given your lack of belief in the First Law.

You don't know what I know or believe. You just think you do.

So if matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed how was the universe spontaneously created from nothing? I know how. Do you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You don't know what I know or believe. You just think you do.

If you think you come across as someone who believes in the First Law you are doing a really bad job of it.

So if matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed how was the universe spontaneously created from nothing? I know how. Do you?

Oh god, now we're going to be treated to your "cosmology" or "religion"? -sigh- I can't imagine that will be particularly interesting given your general lack of basic science in the real world.

If you want to tell me go ahead. You won't, but I bet it's interesting. Not valuable, but interesting.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again... Tyndall was able to observe the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment, right? So you should be able to measure the GHG effect in action in a laboratory controlled experiment, right?

No. Why would you assume that? What you could potentially measure is the simple concept of how much heat CO2 absorbs. But that isn't the greenhouse effect. You should really know all this but I'll write it out for you:

When CO2 absorbs IR it re-emits it and that photon is further absorbed by another CO2 molecule etc. etc. Ultimately the IR leaves the atmosphere leaving our entire system in general energy balance. The Greenhouse effect is when the level at which the IR re-radiates back out into space gets higher and higher and higher. At increasing elevations the efficiency of that re-radiation is less as there is less gas in the atmosphere at high levels and less CO2 and other greenhouse gases. This generally leads to an increase in the temperature at lower levels. The "heat trapping" aspect (but the heat isn't really trapped forever).

Along with that there are a number of positive feedbacks, not the least of which is H2O. As you warm the atmosphere more H2O is vaporized into the atmosphere where it acts as a feedback to increase the warming.

That's the key difference here. Tyndall WAS NOT MEASURING AGW. IT WASN'T EVEN AN IDEA AT THAT TIME. He was determining what would happen when various gases with different structures were put in the path of heat. He found that some (NOT ALL) gases were capable of absorbing IR.

His technique was with highly concentrated gases as well. Certainly higher than in our atmosphere. His technique was also quite crude by modern comparison. Brilliant, but not 21st century technology or equipment by a long shot.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I don't believe anyone here believes that for one second. Certainly not me.

I believe you were an engineer. Probably a mid-level performer (striving for mediocrity).

I know I MUST be wrong because you told us all bout your giant bonuses because you are so impressive! I wonder if they knew you didn't believe in the First Law of Thermo.

 

[ding]

If you think you come across as someone who believes in the First Law you are doing a really bad job of it.

That's your opinion. I believe you are the one who doesn't understand the FLoT.

Oh god, now we're going to be treated to your "cosmology" or "religion"? -sigh- I can't imagine that will be particularly interesting given your general lack of basic science in the real world.

If you want to tell me go ahead. You won't, but I bet it's interesting. Not valuable, but interesting.

I have no desire to educate you on anything. Of course science is valuable. How else do you think we figured out the origin of the universe? Which by the way did not violate the FLoT.