#ourocean2014

[jc456]

CO2 does not radiate a thing.

CO2, like any other matter in the universe, radiates according to Stefan-Boltzman.

Where is the proof that CO2 radiates heat? I have been asking and asking, and you haven't provided it. then you post this? tsk, tsk on you. more mumbo jumbo

 

[mamooth]

The purpose of triple pane glass is to minimize the transmission of heat. CO2 would not accomplish that.

It would do a good job ... for a short time. Argon and CO2 have about the same thermal conductivity, lower than that of air. Low thermal conductivity is what you're looking for in a window filler, not IR absorption. However, CO2 is chemically reactive, and argon is not. The CO2 would eventually react with the wood and paint and plastic, so it wouldn't last, hence argon is used. Vacuum would be even better between the panes, but vacuum puts stress on the glass, so it requires a more durable and expensive window.

 

[mamooth]

Where is the proof that CO2 radiates heat? I have been asking and asking, and you haven't provided it. then you post this? tsk, tsk on you. more mumbo jumbo

What was it about "all substances radiate infrared energy" that you failed to understand?

Are you stating that the physics of the past century is all wrong, and that matter doesn't radiate, or Is it your contention that CO2 is the only substance in the universe that doesn't radiate infrared energy?

 

[jc456]

Where is the proof that CO2 radiates heat? I have been asking and asking, and you haven't provided it. then you post this? tsk, tsk on you. more mumbo jumbo

What was it about "all substances radiate infrared energy" that you failed to understand?

Are you stating that the physics of the past century is all wrong, and that matter doesn't radiate, or Is it your contention that CO2 is the only substance in the universe that doesn't radiate infrared energy?

Dude, I merely asked you for the experiment that actually show it radiating heat. AND YOU CAN'T

 

[mamooth]

I'll type more slowly, jc.

1. All matter radiates IR.

2. CO2 is matter.

3. Therefore, CO2 radiates IR.

At what stage in that logic chain there did you fall off the logic train? Let us know what's blocking you from such basic comprehension, and maybe we can help remedy it.

 

[SSDD]

I'll type more slowly, jc.

1. All matter radiates IR.

2. CO2 is matter.

3. Therefore, CO2 radiates IR.

At what stage in that logic chain there did you fall off the logic train? Let us know what's blocking you from such basic comprehension, and maybe we can help remedy it.

Radiating IR does not equal a greenhouse effect or AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still no Experiment posted by the AGW Faithful

 

[jc456]

I'll type more slowly, jc.

1. All matter radiates IR.

2. CO2 is matter.

3. Therefore, CO2 radiates IR.

At what stage in that logic chain there did you fall off the logic train? Let us know what's blocking you from such basic comprehension, and maybe we can help remedy it.

So you don't have one. Thanks!

So if I hold my hand just next to an empty glass, I will raise the temperature of the glass?

 

[elektra]

CO2 radiates heat?

Sure, CO2 radiates heat, but along with that scientific paper people have never posted is the fact that if CO2 is bombarded with the type of radiation it is said to like, that radiation is absorbed, dispersed, weakened, the word is you do not get more going in than you get coming out, so we are to believe that the evil heat is amplified, not weakened as it bounces around in the atmosphere? A great idea, an invisible wave getting hotter and hotter that is not affected but man, and the only way to save us is to believe in a theory impossible to prove, but said try by government, with government money, in government schools, along with hundreds of other political organizations and even more government schools.

No more biscuits would be a good start in saving the world. I bet its the Baking Soda in my Biscuit recipe throwing off the temperature as I bake, lots of CO2 in that oven must just explode re-radiating, re-radiating, and re-radiating all that heat.

Classic Baking-Powder Biscuits | Williams-Sonoma

The key to making featherlight biscuits and scones is minimal handling of the flaky, crumbly dough. You may think the dough needs more kneading to hold together, but the less you work it, the lighter the result will be. When adding the butter, work quickly so it does not melt into the dough before the biscuits go in the oven. If it becomes soft, the biscuits will be tough. Shape the dough on a lightly floured surface, gently pressing and patting it into a thick circle.
Ingredients:

• 2 cups all-purpose flour
• 2 tsp. baking powder
• 1⁄2 tsp. baking soda
• 1 tsp. fine sea salt
• 8 Tbs. (1 stick) cold unsalted butter, cut into
  1⁄4-inch dice
• 2⁄3 cup milk
• Whipped butter for serving (optional)
• Warmed maple syrup for serving (optional

 

[mamooth]

Sure, CO2 radiates heat, but along with that scientific paper people have never posted is the fact that if CO2 is bombarded with the type of radiation it is said to like, that radiation is absorbed, dispersed, weakened, the word is you do not get more going in than you get coming out,

But we do get more going in than coming out. The satellites measure it. It's why the world is warming. We measure the outgoing infrared energy squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands, as AGW theory predicts. Smoking gun #1.

We also directly measure downward longwave radiation -- that is, backradiation -- increasing. Again, as AGW theory predicts. Smoking gun #2.

Currently, AGW theory is the only explanation for such changes in the heat flow balance of the earth. If you've got a different way to explain it, write it up, publish, and collect your Nobel Prize.

so we are to believe that the evil heat is amplified, not weakened as it bounces around in the atmosphere?

From here on, you're babbling nonsense. You don't have the physics background or the common sense to understand what's going on. There's nothing wrong with not understanding a field, as long as you understand your own limitations. However, if you think your own failure to understand means the rest of the world is all wrong and engaging in fraud, you've crossed the line into belligerent ignorance and conspiracy retardation, and that is a problem.

 

[jc456]

Sure, CO2 radiates heat, but along with that scientific paper people have never posted is the fact that if CO2 is bombarded with the type of radiation it is said to like, that radiation is absorbed, dispersed, weakened, the word is you do not get more going in than you get coming out,

But we do get more going in than coming out. The satellites measure it. It's why the world is warming. We measure the outgoing infrared energy squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands, as AGW theory predicts. Smoking gun #1.

We also directly measure downward longwave radiation -- that is, backradiation -- increasing. Again, as AGW theory predicts. Smoking gun #2.

Currently, AGW theory is the only explanation for such changes in the heat flow balance of the earth. If you've got a different way to explain it, write it up, publish, and collect your Nobel Prize.

so we are to believe that the evil heat is amplified, not weakened as it bounces around in the atmosphere?

From here on, you're babbling nonsense. You don't have the physics background or the common sense to understand what's going on. There's nothing wrong with not understanding a field, as long as you understand your own limitations. However, if you think your own failure to understand means the rest of the world is all wrong and engaging in fraud, you've crossed the line into belligerent ignorance and conspiracy retardation, and that is a problem.

So again, you have no experiment to back your claim. Thanks for playing. You're useless.

 

[mamooth]

jc, I'll start you out with a couple papers. Got at least a dozen more once you finish discussing these. But since you're most likely going to rage and run, like you always do when confronted with actual data, there's no point in linking to more right now. If you surprise everyone and start acting like a grownup, we can move on to all the other papers.

Satellite based reconstruction of the tropical oceanic clear sky outgoing longwave radiation and comparison with climate models (Gastineau 2014)

https://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 (Wang 2009)

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

 

[jc456]

jc, I'll start you out with a couple papers. Got at least a dozen more once you finish discussing these. But since you're most likely going to rage and run, like you always do when confronted with actual data, there's no point in linking to more right now. If you surprise everyone and start acting like a grownup, we can move on to all the other papers.

Satellite based reconstruction of the tropical oceanic clear sky outgoing longwave radiation and comparison with climate models (Gastineau 2014)

https://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 (Wang 2009)

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

So the same old docs, but no experiment. Again, just so you don't continue to waste your time copying and pasting useless docs on the thread, why not search out the 120 ppm of CO2 info first and ensure that there is data on how hot the 120 radiates heat. let's start there. so we know what each wants.

 

[SSDD]

But we do get more going in than coming out. The satellites measure it. It's why the world is warming. We measure the outgoing infrared energy squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands, as AGW theory predicts. Smoking gun #1.

No hairball....satellites measure an increase in OLR at the top of the atmosphere...couple that with decreased solar activity and it does not equal warming...it equals cooling.

Even your buddy crick acknowledges that the outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...he just didn't take reduced incoming solar into account before he claimed that the globe is still warming...or maybe he thinks that reduced energy input coupled with increased output equals warming....wouldn't be the stupidest thing he believes.

We also directly measure downward longwave radiation -- that is, backradiation -- increasing. Again, as AGW theory predicts. Smoking gun #2.

There has never been a measurement of back radiation at ambient temperature...Your smoking guns are just smoke.. Here hairball...from your post.. In this article, we first evaluate two widely accepted methods to estimate global atmospheric downward long wave radiation...

They are talking about estimates because no direct measurement at ambient temperature is possible because it doesn't happen....backradiation is a myth.

 

[Crick]

This buddy Crick says you are filled to the very tippy top with shit. Outgoing LW is increasing because - despite your bullshit contentions to the contrary - we are getting warming. The BALANCE between incoming and outgoing - the thing you quite noticeably ignore despite numerous point-outs - shows that THE EARTH IS ACCUMULATING HEAT. MORE IS COMING IN THAN IS GOING OUT. If you once again pretend you didn't read that, we will call your silly ass on the carpet.

 

[SSDD]

This buddy Crick says you are filled to the very tippy top with shit. Outgoing LW is increasing because - despite your bullshit contentions to the contrary - we are getting warming. The BALANCE between incoming and outgoing - the thing you quite noticeably ignore despite numerous point-outs - shows that THE EARTH IS ACCUMULATING HEAT. MORE IS COMING IN THAN IS GOING OUT. If you once again pretend you didn't read that, we will call your silly ass on the carpet.

There is no warming...there are an ever growing number of excuses for the lack of it....only a genuine idiot would claim warming at this point...increasing outgoing and decreasing incoming equals cooling....except in the realm of magic where a hypothetical effect is more powerful than the natural laws of physics an can unbalance the ideal gas law equation on a permanent basis just by adding a wisp of CO2.

 

[Crick]

But YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SUCH ******* THING. All you EVER show us is increased outgoing LW which is PROOF that the world is getting warmer. We HAVE shown you that the balance of in and out clearly and irrefutably demonstrates that the Earth is taking in more thermal energy than it is radiating to space. The world is getting warmer and it is doing so because it is trapping infrared and it is doing so because the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing and it is doing so because humans are putting them there by deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels.

You ******* idiot.

 

[elektra]

[, QUOTE="mamooth, post : 9664,762, member: 39072"]jc, I']ll start you out with a couple papers. Got at least a dozen more once you finish discussing these. But since you're most likely going to rage and run, like you always do when confronted with actual data, there's no point in linking to more right now. If you surprise everyone and start acting like a grownup, we can move on to all the other papers.

Satellite based reconstruction of the tropical oceanic clear sky outgoing longwave radiation and comparison with climate models (Gastineau 2014)

https://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 (Wang 2009)

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library[/QUOTE]


Talk about babble, did you read your link.

1. It is old, from 2004.

2. The study states it's an estimate t

3. That they can not account for clouds

4. and that their results vary greatly.

If this satellite measures out going radiation as mamMOOT claims, then MAMMOOT should easily post the out going reading for this month.

go ahead mamoot, your post is based on ten year old information, it's obvious you have not read or mamoot does not understand mamooth own link, so go ahead, post the new, relevant data.

the link is to pdf of a therory, the pdf is not data, it's a theory with nothing more than estimates. The paper states they can not measure what MAMMOOT claims, there is no data from a satellite that us a measure of the outgoing radiation as re-radiated from co2.

maMOOT, the satellite is not providing the data that mamoot claims.

OH, and thanks for the flame

 

[elektra]

But YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SUCH ******* THING. All you EVER show us is increased outgoing LW which is PROOF that the world is getting warmer. We HAVE shown you that the balance of in and out clearly and irrefutably demonstrates that the Earth is taking in more thermal energy than it is radiating to space. The world is getting warmer and it is doing so because it is trapping infrared and it is doing so because the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing and it is doing so because humans are putting them there by deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels.

You ******* idiot.

The world is getting warmer, yet it's colder?

Wow, crick takes theories and calls them facts, nice. Science does not matter, crick dictates what is fact despite what the scientist state is theory or an estimate.

good job, crick

 

[flacaltenn]

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F)

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750), the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 to 392.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2012

Brilliant.... Well done Dottie.. Did ya get the part about the warming power of CO2 being logarithmic and not linear? So 120ppm sounds like a lot dont it? And accounting for so much warmth.. holy toadstools. But heres the reason that doesnt impress me. Heres what logarithmic means..

When the earth was at 10ppm -- the change to 20 ppm added about 1degC. Then going to 40ppm added another degree. 40 to 80, 80 to 160, 160 to 320 -- all added about a degree. So NOW, heres your test. To get another degree of warming Dottie with us being at 400ppm, What would the concentration be? And WHEN DO YOU THINK WE WILL BE THERE??? This nonsense about the warming power of CO2 is NOT what your theory depends on to scare folks. It depends on magic multipliers BEYOND THE WARMING POWER OF CO2, to get to the castrophies you mystics thrive on.. Rave on dudes.dudettes...[/QUOTE]