Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[SSDD]

There is no possible alternative to back radiation proportional to GHG concentration in the atmosphere. That's the very definition of GHG and the properties that make them that are easily measured and confirmed.

Shows how little you actually know. The atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature here on earth using little more than the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws and everything that goes along with them. The hypothesis has been proven via actual real world experiment by Graeff. No real world experiment supports your belief in the magic.

 

[PMZ]

I

There is no possible alternative to back radiation proportional to GHG concentration in the atmosphere. That's the very definition of GHG and the properties that make them that are easily measured and confirmed.

Shows how little you actually know. The atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature here on earth using little more than the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws and everything that goes along with them. The hypothesis has been proven via actual real world experiment by Graeff. No real world experiment supports your belief in the magic.

What do you believe the definition of GHGs is?

I can find nothing on the Internet about Graeff 's world changing experiments.

 

[SSDD]

I

There is no possible alternative to back radiation proportional to GHG concentration in the atmosphere. That's the very definition of GHG and the properties that make them that are easily measured and confirmed.

Shows how little you actually know. The atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature here on earth using little more than the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws and everything that goes along with them. The hypothesis has been proven via actual real world experiment by Graeff. No real world experiment supports your belief in the magic.

What do you believe the definition of GHGs is?

I can find nothing on the Internet about Graeff 's world changing experiments.

First, I don't operate on belief like you.

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all. They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.

 

[westwall]

I

Shows how little you actually know. The atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature here on earth using little more than the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws and everything that goes along with them. The hypothesis has been proven via actual real world experiment by Graeff. No real world experiment supports your belief in the magic.

What do you believe the definition of GHGs is?

I can find nothing on the Internet about Graeff 's world changing experiments.

First, I don't operate on belief like you.

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all. They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.

Here you go....

Lucy Skywalker recaps: In Part One I described my visit to Graeff’s seminar. In Part Two I described some of his experiments in detail. In Part Three I showed how he developed the backing theory. Finally in Part Four I now consider the implications of this work, and plans for replicating the experiments. Replication is of crucial importance both to Climate Science in particular, and Science in general; without it, no theory is sacrosanct.



Graeff?s experiments and 2LoD: Replication and Implications | Tallbloke's Talkshop

 

[PMZ]

I

Shows how little you actually know. The atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature here on earth using little more than the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws and everything that goes along with them. The hypothesis has been proven via actual real world experiment by Graeff. No real world experiment supports your belief in the magic.

What do you believe the definition of GHGs is?

I can find nothing on the Internet about Graeff 's world changing experiments.

First, I don't operate on belief like you.

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all. They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.

It's a simple experiment to measure the portion of the EM spectrum absorbed by different compounds. In fact, QM tells is what the answer will be before the experiment.

It's simple to compare the absorbed spectrum with the wavelength distribution of average outgoing reflections from Earth. Gaseous compounds that match are called GHGs.

It's simple to estimate the relationship between GHG atmospheric concentration and the probability of collision between outgoing photons and GHG molecules.

It's a QM given that when those molecules are elevated to a higher energy state than their neighbors, they will emit energy to return to a stable state, and that energy can be treated as radiating in all directions. Roughly half up, and half down.

The half going down will return to warm the earth, nanoseconds after its departure cooled the earth.

The net effect is that, instead of all of earth's reflections leaving the system, only half do.

Same in, reduced out in proportion to GHG atmospheric concentrations, nets more energy to be absorbed by land, water, ice, atmosphere.

The only possible reaction to that is warming, until the energy out is increased, until balance between in and out is restored.

This is not rocket science.

But, long term, accurate predictions of the weather reactions of achieving rebalance are beyond present science. But they can use both short and long term history under similar conditions to make approximations.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I

What do you believe the definition of GHGs is?

I can find nothing on the Internet about Graeff 's world changing experiments.

First, I don't operate on belief like you.

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all. They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.

It's a simple experiment to measure the portion of the EM spectrum absorbed by different compounds. In fact, QM tells is what the answer will be before the experiment.

It's simple to compare the absorbed spectrum with the wavelength distribution of average outgoing reflections from Earth. Gaseous compounds that match are called GHGs.

It's simple to estimate the relationship between GHG atmospheric concentration and the probability of collision between outgoing photons and GHG molecules.

It's a QM given that when those molecules are elevated to a higher energy state than their neighbors, they will emit energy to return to a stable state, and that energy can be treated as radiating in all directions. Roughly half up, and half down.

The half going down will return to warm the earth, nanoseconds after their departure cooled the earth.

The net effect is that, instead of all of earth's reflections leaving the system, only half do.

Same in, reduced out in proportion to GHG atmospheric concentrations, nets more energy to be absorbed by land, water, ice, atmosphere.

The only possible reaction to that is warming, until the energy out is increased, until balance between in and out is restored.

This is not rocket science.

But, long term, accurate predictions of the weather reactions of achieving rebalance are beyond present science. But they can use both short and long term history under similar conditions to make approximations.

PMS sees nothing wrong in anything he s/he has posted.

 

[IanC]

I

What do you believe the definition of GHGs is?

I can find nothing on the Internet about Graeff 's world changing experiments.

First, I don't operate on belief like you.

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all. They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.

It's a simple experiment to measure the portion of the EM spectrum absorbed by different compounds. In fact, QM tells is what the answer will be before the experiment.

It's simple to compare the absorbed spectrum with the wavelength distribution of average outgoing reflections from Earth. Gaseous compounds that match are called GHGs.

It's simple to estimate the relationship between GHG atmospheric concentration and the probability of collision between outgoing photons and GHG molecules.

It's a QM given that when those molecules are elevated to a higher energy state than their neighbors, they will emit energy to return to a stable state, and that energy can be treated as radiating in all directions. Roughly half up, and half down.

The half going down will return to warm the earth, nanoseconds after their departure cooled the earth.

The net effect is that, instead of all of earth's reflections leaving the system, only half do.

Same in, reduced out in proportion to GHG atmospheric concentrations, nets more energy to be absorbed by land, water, ice, atmosphere.

The only possible reaction to that is warming, until the energy out is increased, until balance between in and out is restored.

This is not rocket science.

But, long term, accurate predictions of the weather reactions of achieving rebalance are beyond present science. But they can use both short and long term history under similar conditions to make approximations.

Too simplistic. The atmosphere was already returning half of the appropriate radiation at 300ppm. Totally diffuse at 29 feet above the surface rather than 30 feet.

The alternate routes of escape get more heavily used as GHG concentrations go up.

That is significantly different than what you are saying.

 

[PMZ]

What I posted is happening. There is no scientific doubt about that. Only political dismay.

If someone can offer evidence of something else happening, that offsets what IPCC science has proven is happening, and I explained in simplified form, supply the evidence, the theory, the data.

So far none has been supplied by anyone here. Only the political dismay.

Here's a chance to upgrade pointless whining to useful science.

 

[IanC]

First, I don't operate on belief like you.

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all. They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.

It's a simple experiment to measure the portion of the EM spectrum absorbed by different compounds. In fact, QM tells is what the answer will be before the experiment.

It's simple to compare the absorbed spectrum with the wavelength distribution of average outgoing reflections from Earth. Gaseous compounds that match are called GHGs.

It's simple to estimate the relationship between GHG atmospheric concentration and the probability of collision between outgoing photons and GHG molecules.

It's a QM given that when those molecules are elevated to a higher energy state than their neighbors, they will emit energy to return to a stable state, and that energy can be treated as radiating in all directions. Roughly half up, and half down.

The half going down will return to warm the earth, nanoseconds after their departure cooled the earth.

The net effect is that, instead of all of earth's reflections leaving the system, only half do.

Same in, reduced out in proportion to GHG atmospheric concentrations, nets more energy to be absorbed by land, water, ice, atmosphere.

The only possible reaction to that is warming, until the energy out is increased, until balance between in and out is restored.

This is not rocket science.

But, long term, accurate predictions of the weather reactions of achieving rebalance are beyond present science. But they can use both short and long term history under similar conditions to make approximations.

PMS sees nothing wrong in anything he s/he has posted.

PMZ's response to his obvious error is to retreat into political name calling.

D-K writ large.

 

[PMZ]

Zero science in your reply. I'm disappointed but not surprised.

 

[westwall]

Zero science in your reply. I'm disappointed but not surprised.

Where is yours? If you post something legit that requires a response we will happily do so. But you post provably false horse shit and expect to be taken seriously. D-K writ large is an understatement.

 

[PMZ]

Zero science in your reply. I'm disappointed but not surprised.

Where is yours? If you post something legit that requires a response we will happily do so. But you post provably false horse shit and expect to be taken seriously. D-K writ large is an understatement.

Here's something that you don't or can't comprehend or accept. You don't speak for science. You are not qualified to.

the IPCC has both the responsibility and qualifications and resources to.

I described their findings. They conflict with your politics. Tough shit.

Nobody but you cares how you want the world to be except you.

You and your kind, following your cult leaders, who desire to impose their politics on all of us, have been effectively removed from power. That's what democracies do to minorities who believe that their needs should be satisfied first and foremost.

You've earned every bit of disrespect you can be shown.

 

[RollingThunder]

First, I don't operate on belief like you.

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all. They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.

It's a simple experiment to measure the portion of the EM spectrum absorbed by different compounds. In fact, QM tells is what the answer will be before the experiment.

It's simple to compare the absorbed spectrum with the wavelength distribution of average outgoing reflections from Earth. Gaseous conmpounds that match are called GHGs.

It's simple to estimate the relationship between GHG atmospheric concentration and the probability of collision between outgoing photons and GHG molecules.

It's a QM given that when those molecules are elevated to a higher energy state than their neighbors, they will emit energy to return to a stable state, and that energy can be treated as radiating in all directions. Roughly half up, and half down.

The half going down will return to warm the earth, nanoseconds after their departure cooled the earth.

The net effect is that, instead of all of earth's reflections leaving the system, only half do.

Same in, reduced out in proportion to GHG atmospheric concentrations, nets more energy to be absorbed by land, water, ice, atmosphere.

The only possible reaction to that is warming, until the energy out is increased, until balance between in and out is restored.

This is not rocket science.

But, long term, accurate predictions of the weather reactions of achieving rebalance are beyond present science. But they can use both short and long term history under similar conditions to make approximations.

PMS sees nothing wrong in anything he s/he has posted.

Well, of course not, I'mALiar. There isn't anything "wrong" in the description of the greenhouse effect that he posted. The only reason you mistakenly believe there is something wrong with it is because you're an ignorant, anti-science denier cult retard who denies the scientific facts for political reasons that are totally insane.