jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 141,583
- 30,066
- 2,180
cool, what's the logarithmic nature of CO2 say?The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback is due to spectral windows getting saturated. It has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
cool, what's the logarithmic nature of CO2 say?The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback is due to spectral windows getting saturated. It has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Are you suggesting that all this CO2 doesn't radiate to space?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.
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?
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
CO2 causes slight warming
You have PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.
The evidence is the data. Satellite and balloon data. Co2 does NOTHING.
use 15µm light
"Weak" does not equal "Nothing"
isn't dry ice CO2?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?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
Of course its been done before. In high schools, junior high schools and grades schools across the nation.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.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 ...
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.Of course its been done before. In high schools, junior high schools and grades schools across the nation.
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.
Radiative reactivity? You love to make up new terms, don't you.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 scenarios0.001997845ºC ... 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