Recent Rapid SST Rise

[jc456]

The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback is due to spectral windows getting saturated. It has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

cool, what's the logarithmic nature of CO2 say?

 

[jc456]

Global warming isn't about the earth's surface absorbing more heat from the sun. It's about the earth's atmosphere not letting that heat back out as readily.

Are you suggesting that all this CO2 doesn't radiate to space?

 

[ReinyDays]

The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback is due to spectral windows getting saturated. It has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CO) ... this is the equation from classical physics, what Oldham and his contemporaries worked out towards the end of the 19th Century ... integrating always gives values that are too high above violet ...

Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In 1900, Max Planck derived the correct form for the intensity spectral distribution function by making some strange (for the time) assumptions. In particular, Planck assumed that electromagnetic radiation can be emitted or absorbed only in discrete packets, called quanta, of energy ..."

Still strange for most ... alas, the universe is not smooth ... so, not like your brain ... Ludwig Boltzmann should always be included with Max Planck's name in these discussions ... more the polymath than Planck IMEIO ...

 

[EMH]

cool, what's the logarithmic nature of CO2 say?

The Zionist Fascist trolls try to make themselves appear smart by posting BS math and parroting and bullshit.


Their theory is that Co2 causes warming.

There is PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

We have TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons.

Both recorded NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite a rise in Co2.


The logarithmic bullshit is because mamoooooooooo doesn't like

THE TRUTH OF THE DATA

 

[ReinyDays]

The Zionist Fascist trolls try to make themselves appear smart by posting BS math and parroting and bullshit.


Their theory is that Co2 causes warming.

There is PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

We have TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons.

Both recorded NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite a rise in Co2.


The logarithmic bullshit is because mamoooooooooo doesn't like

THE TRUTH OF THE DATA

Math is bullshit? ... then how are you defining "zero"? ... how are you defining gravity? ... are Newton's Laws of Motion out too? ... college level science sucks, I know, but there it is ... CO2 causes slight warming ... like a degree or two is all ... warming by definition ...

Are you sure you're not getting confused with accounting, because accountants are good at making 2+2 equal what you need it to equal [wink] ... hopefully a $10,000 refundable tax credit [nudge] ... know what I mean? ...

 

[EMH]

CO2 causes slight warming

You have PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

The evidence is the data. Satellite and balloon data. Co2 does NOTHING.

 

[ReinyDays]

You have PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

The evidence is the data. Satellite and balloon data. Co2 does NOTHING.

Shine light on a flask of air and on a flask of CO2 ... which is warmer? ... use 15µm light and really see the difference ...

 

[EMH]

use 15µm light

Use a flask of OZONE and shine UV on it.

IR is WEAK, weaker than visible on EM spectrum... which is why absorbing it does NOTHING to "warm" the actual Earth atmosphere...

All gas absorbs something from EM spectrum. So what.

Greenland froze while North America thawed, which RULES OUT THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE as a suspect...

 

[Crick]

"Weak" does not equal "Nothing"

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Solar-spectra-and-absorption-bands-of-atmospheric-gases_fig3_291164378

 

[EMH]

"Weak" does not equal "Nothing"

According to highly correlated satellite and balloon data, it does equal NOTHING because


Co2 went up

Atmosphere did NOT WARM


=

NOTHING

 

[jc456]

Shine light on a flask of air and on a flask of CO2 ... which is warmer? ... use 15µm light and really see the difference ...

isn't dry ice CO2?

 

[jc456]

Shine light on a flask of air and on a flask of CO2 ... which is warmer? ... use 15µm light and really see the difference ...

Why no experiment?

Bing answers CO2 question

Sent message. Assume that we find an Earth like exoplanet orbiting a Sun like star in the goldilocks zone of habitability. The Atmosphere is comparable to Earth, 80% nitrogen 19% oxygen, traces of water vapor, argon and 250 parts per million of CO2. Assuming that CO2 increases by 1 PPM a year...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[ReinyDays]

Why no experiment?

Bing answers CO2 question

Sent message. Assume that we find an Earth like exoplanet orbiting a Sun like star in the goldilocks zone of habitability. The Atmosphere is comparable to Earth, 80% nitrogen 19% oxygen, traces of water vapor, argon and 250 parts per million of CO2. Assuming that CO2 increases by 1 PPM a year...

www.usmessageboard.com

That's a GREAT question ... I have no answer ... seems simple enough but apparently it's not been done ...

The experiment I described actually only demonstrates CO2's lower specific heat capacity ... not it's radiative properties ... 5ºC for 1,000,000 ppm works out to 0.002ºC for 425 ppm ... and everybody knows AGW is closer to 0.02ºC per century ...

Oh I'm sorry ... I forgot that using math in this thread was so upsetting to so many posters ... all this "college science" is wearing thin on the disbelievers ...

 

[Crick]

That's a GREAT question ... I have no answer ... seems simple enough but apparently it's not been done ...

The experiment I described actually only demonstrates CO2's lower specific heat capacity ... not it's radiative properties ... 5ºC for 1,000,000 ppm works out to 0.002ºC for 425 ppm ... and everybody knows AGW is closer to 0.02ºC per century ...

Oh I'm sorry ... I forgot that using math in this thread was so upsetting to so many posters ... all this "college science" is wearing thin on the disbelievers ...

Of course its been done before. In high schools, junior high schools and grades schools across the nation.

 

[jc456]

That's a GREAT question ... I have no answer ... seems simple enough but apparently it's not been done ...

The experiment I described actually only demonstrates CO2's lower specific heat capacity ... not it's radiative properties ... 5ºC for 1,000,000 ppm works out to 0.002ºC for 425 ppm ... and everybody knows AGW is closer to 0.02ºC per century ...

Oh I'm sorry ... I forgot that using math in this thread was so upsetting to so many posters ... all this "college science" is wearing thin on the disbelievers ...

Dude, I'm laughing. The number one issue in demofks heads and not one iota of evidence to their declaration. In fact, they spit at you if you ask. Ask Abu and Crick!!!! they'll write a five page essay on models, not one experiment. Must be close to fifty threads and the number one question that has gone unanswered since 2013 when I joined, post the experiment.

BTW, the issue with your experiment is that the Air sample has Co2 in it.

 

[jc456]

Of course its been done before. In high schools, junior high schools and grades schools across the nation.

yeah, yeah, yeah tens of threads in here and still today since 2013, you can't post that simple ass experiment. I posted the thread Frank started, nothing yet there. Quite a lot of nonsense posts, but failure of that experiment still evades the thread.

 

[ReinyDays]

Dude, I'm laughing. The number one issue in demofks heads and not one iota of evidence to their declaration. In fact, they spit at you if you ask. Ask Abu and Crick!!!! they'll write a five page essay on models, not one experiment. Must be close to fifty threads and the number one question that has gone unanswered since 2013 when I joined, post the experiment.

BTW, the issue with your experiment is that the Air sample has Co2 in it.

0.001997845ºC ... my apologies ... what is clear is that the flask with the greater concentration of carbon dioxide will be warmer ... and in some kind of proportion to the ratios of concentration ...

The CO2 component of AGW Theory assumes CO2 has an extraordinary radiative reactivity ... which doesn't seem to be demonstrated ... however, CO2 does have ordinary radiative reactivity, so it does have a little effect on Earth's surface temperature ... but nothing to support the assumptions in AGW ... that nasty fourth root relationship in SB ...

Physics is physics and math is math ... I get that ... explaining physics with math is succinct and without ambiguity ... if the Law of Physics says temperature is equal to something ... then temperature better damn well equal what something says it is ... we don't dismiss it just because it's college level science ... sheesh ...

 

[Crick]

0.001997845ºC ... my apologies ... what is clear is that the flask with the greater concentration of carbon dioxide will be warmer ... and in some kind of proportion to the ratios of concentration ...

The CO2 component of AGW Theory assumes CO2 has an extraordinary radiative reactivity ... which doesn't seem to be demonstrated ... however, CO2 does have ordinary radiative reactivity, so it does have a little effect on Earth's surface temperature ... but nothing to support the assumptions in AGW ... that nasty fourth root relationship in SB ...

Physics is physics and math is math ... I get that ... explaining physics with math is succinct and without ambiguity ... if the Law of Physics says temperature is equal to something ... then temperature better damn well equal what something says it is ... we don't dismiss it just because it's college level science ... sheesh ...

Radiative reactivity? You love to make up new terms, don't you.

AGW theory doesn't assume any more IR absorption than its spectral data tell us. The problem from the denier's point of view is feedback mechanisms from increasing water vapor, loss of albedo from ice melt and release of methane from melting permafrost.

 

[jc456]

0.001997845ºC ... my apologies ... what is clear is that the flask with the greater concentration of carbon dioxide will be warmer ... and in some kind of proportion to the ratios of concentration ...

The CO2 component of AGW Theory assumes CO2 has an extraordinary radiative reactivity ... which doesn't seem to be demonstrated ... however, CO2 does have ordinary radiative reactivity, so it does have a little effect on Earth's surface temperature ... but nothing to support the assumptions in AGW ... that nasty fourth root relationship in SB ...

Physics is physics and math is math ... I get that ... explaining physics with math is succinct and without ambiguity ... if the Law of Physics says temperature is equal to something ... then temperature better damn well equal what something says it is ... we don't dismiss it just because it's college level science ... sheesh ...

The test should be one of two scenarios

1. 280 in one vs 400

Or

2. 280 vs 120

 

[ReinyDays]

The test should be one of two scenarios

1. 280 in one vs 400

Or

2. 280 vs 120

Flasks are cheap ... so is air ... I'd run the the whole damn spectrum ... 1 ppm all the way to 1,000,000,000 ppm ... and wavelength by wavelength ... mix in water ammonia methane ether marijuana esters ketones rayon pollen salt flu death dust cat hair dog hair rabbit hair ...

Volcanic gases volcanic liquids volcanic solids ... non-volcanic gases non-volcanic liquids non-volcanic solids ...

This is tax payer money ... spend at will ...