New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating’

[IanC]

And which one of those do not involve the retention of thermal energy?

dude, why dont you take a turn at explaining your version of some of this stuff. in your own words so we know that you have some grasp of the material.

 

[jc456]

feel free to jump in with any evidence you have. even with your pet subject of the second law of thermodynamics you appear to be all bluster and no backup.

In case you didn't notice, skeptics (actual skeptics) have been asking for a very long time for an experiment, or some physical evidence that proves that CO2 can cause the temperature on earth to rise. The warmer wackos haven't been able to come up with anything as you well know. Are you now claiming that there is some physical evidence that proves that the climate is sensitive to CO2, or are you asking me to prove a negative out of frustration?

CO2 absorbs longwave at 15 microns. if CO2 wasnt there that 15micron surface radiation would directly escape to space at the speed of light. therefore that energy is held up in the atmosphere and forms a heatsink. which of those three statements do you believe to be false?

Ok, so I'm not science expert, but the research I've done since coming in here I have learned that CO2 is logarithmic. Now being such, I understand there is a slope and it is not linear. The first 120 PPM of CO2 is the most important and absorbs and holds most of the IR and after that initial 120 PPM the amount of IR absorbed is released quicker than that initial 120PPM. So as we increase CO2 in the atmosphere, very little happens to temperatures. I use the Koch experiment from 1901, it was a small test, but it proved that added IR waves do very little to temperatures. Now every warmest boofoos that test, however, it's a very basic test and to date, not one of these warmers can submit a test that disproves that.

So I agree that CO2 does hold heat, how much again has not been shown in here, but only during the initial 120 PPM of the gas, after that, it becomes useless for adding heat:

Now again, if someone has any other information that contradicts this, feel free to submit it. fifteen months now though, that hasn't happened.

 

[SSDD]

feel free to jump in with any evidence you have. even with your pet subject of the second law of thermodynamics you appear to be all bluster and no backup.

In case you didn't notice, skeptics (actual skeptics) have been asking for a very long time for an experiment, or some physical evidence that proves that CO2 can cause the temperature on earth to rise. The warmer wackos haven't been able to come up with anything as you well know. Are you now claiming that there is some physical evidence that proves that the climate is sensitive to CO2, or are you asking me to prove a negative out of frustration?

CO2 absorbs longwave at 15 microns. if CO2 wasnt there that 15micron surface radiation would directly escape to space at the speed of light. therefore that energy is held up in the atmosphere and forms a heatsink. which of those three statements do you believe to be false?

Ok, so I'm not science expert, but the research I've done since coming in here I have learned that CO2 is logarithmic. Now being such, I understand there is a slope and it is not linear. The first 120 PPM of CO2 is the most important and absorbs and holds most of the IR and after that initial 120 PPM the amount of IR absorbed is released quicker than that initial 120PPM. So as we increase CO2 in the atmosphere, very little happens to temperatures. I use the Koch experiment from 1901, it was a small test, but it proved that added IR waves do very little to temperatures. Now every warmest boofoos that test, however, it's a very basic test and to date, not one of these warmers can submit a test that disproves that.

So I agree that CO2 does hold heat, how much again has not been shown in here, but only during the initial 120 PPM of the gas, after that, it becomes useless for adding heat:

Now again, if someone has any other information that contradicts this, feel free to submit it. fifteen months now though, that hasn't happened.

CO2 doesn't have any mechanism by which to absorb and hold on to heat, or energy...it absorbs and emits. Of all the so called greenhouse gasses, only water vapor can actually absorb and hold on to energy...it has to do with its ability to change phases at temperatures that can be found in the open atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

And which one of those do not involve the retention of thermal energy?

dude, why dont you take a turn at explaining your version of some of this stuff. in your own words so we know that you have some grasp of the material.

As I've said on multiple occasions, you can find my version explained in GREAT depth at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[jc456]

And which one of those do not involve the retention of thermal energy?

dude, why dont you take a turn at explaining your version of some of this stuff. in your own words so we know that you have some grasp of the material.

As I've said on multiple occasions, you can find my version explained in GREAT depth at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

so you can't summarize your own thoughts. A-typical.

 

[Crick]

So you can't speak English. There's no hyphen in atypical.

 

[SSDD]

As I've said on multiple occasions, you can find my version explained in GREAT depth at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

So you believe that back radiation from the atmosphere actually warms the surface of the earth?

 

[Crick]

Why yes I do. You don't?

 

[mamooth]

Given you can point an infrared spectrometer at the sky and measure the backradiation directly, only an outright lunatic would deny backradiation warms the earth.

 

[Crick]

The evidence in that regard is manifold

 

[SSDD]

Why yes I do. You don't?

Of course not. The very idea is absurd. You know....people who can make you believe absurdities can also make you commit atrocities....take a look at your quote in my sig and tell me you aren't as primed to go along with atrocities as the average german citizen was in the 40's.

 

[Crick]

So we see that you have no argument with which to support your ridiculous claim and need to try to steer the conversation elsewhere. Tell us why you think IR can't warm the surface. Doesn't it penetrate far enough for you?

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Given you can point an infrared spectrometer at the sky and measure the backradiation directly, only an outright lunatic would deny backradiation warms the earth.

Sorry, but you can't. You can certainly fool yourself with an infrared spectrometer, but you can't measure back radiation. What you are measuring with that IR detector is detected voltage and the instrument temperature. Temperature changes within the instrument indicate the gross energy emitted towards the cooler atmosphere and the instrument invents DLR via a mathematical model.

If you wan't to measure downward radiation, you must cool the instrument to a temperature below that of the atmosphere so that the atmosphere is then radiating to the cooler instrument.

 

[SSDD]

So we see that you have no argument with which to support your ridiculous claim and need to try to steer the conversation elsewhere. Tell us why you think IR can't warm the surface. Doesn't it penetrate far enough for you?

God are you stupid.

Neither heat nor energy (by the way, is heat energy or is it the "fingerprint" of energy moving from one place to another?) will move from cool to warm without some work having been done to accomplish the task....absorption and emission are not work.

And it is more than obvious that you don't know what caused the previous warm periods any more than anyone else.

 

[Crick]

I know for a fact they weren't caused by human GHG emissions, don't I.

And when are you going to give up "Physics for Complete Idiots"?

 

[IanC]

CO2 doesn't have any mechanism by which to absorb and hold on to heat, or energy...it absorbs and emits. Of all the so called greenhouse gasses, only water vapor can actually absorb and hold on to energy...it has to do with its ability to change phases at temperatures that can be found in the open atmosphere.

of course CO2 can warm the atmosphere. it absorbs 15 micron radiation (amongst others) and collides with another molecule, that energy is now part of the pool of energy that leaves the collision (kinetic and blackbody radiation). because the average time between absorption and emission in the CO2 molecule is roughly one order of magnitude (ie. 10 times) longer than the average time between collisions (at sea level, atmospheric density), most excited CO2 molecules lose that energy via collision rather than re-emittance.

 

[SSDD]

I know for a fact they weren't caused by human GHG emissions, don't I.

The point is you don't know what caused past warm periods...no one does. But rather than actually learn what caused them, you are perfectly willing to attribute them to an entirely new, made up reason which we know has never caused a warm period in the past....a reason which can not be tested or falsified. How stupid is that?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 doesn't have any mechanism by which to absorb and hold on to heat, or energy...it absorbs and emits. Of all the so called greenhouse gasses, only water vapor can actually absorb and hold on to energy...it has to do with its ability to change phases at temperatures that can be found in the open atmosphere.

of course CO2 can warm the atmosphere. it absorbs 15 micron radiation (amongst others) and collides with another molecule, that energy is now part of the pool of energy that leaves the collision (kinetic and blackbody radiation). because the average time between absorption and emission in the CO2 molecule is roughly one order of magnitude (ie. 10 times) longer than the average time between collisions (at sea level, atmospheric density), most excited CO2 molecules lose that energy via collision rather than re-emittance.

Sorry Ian... Give it time and actual research and watch the sensitivity to CO2 drop to zero and below.

 

[IanC]

As I've said on multiple occasions, you can find my version explained in GREAT depth at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

So you believe that back radiation from the atmosphere actually warms the surface of the earth?

the Sun warms the earth. the atmosphere affects the equilibrium of (energy input - energy output) which leads to a range of possible surface temperatures.

 

[Crick]

Ian, are you unwilling to make the simple statement that the sensitivity is positive?