Scientist: Do We Really Know?

[Old Rocks]

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

LOL

The Rutherford–Bohr model of the hydrogen atom(Z = 1) or a hydrogen-like ion (Z > 1), where the negatively charged electron confined to an atomic shellencircles a small, positively charged atomic nucleus and where an electron jump between orbits is accompanied by an emitted or absorbed amount of electromagnetic energy (hν).[1] The orbits in which the electron may travel are shown as grey circles; their radius increases as n2, where n is the principal quantum number. The3 → 2 transition depicted here produces the first line of the Balmer series, and for hydrogen (Z = 1) it results in a photon of wavelength 656 nm (red light).

Bohr model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, jc, done.

 

[jc456]

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

CO2 absorbs heat and leaves our atmosphere....the CO2 heads into outer space?
Neat.
Any other gas decide it doesn't want to stick around?

are you saying that all CO2 is only in the oceans? LOL. or does it move up vertically and is spread through the atmosphere from convection and circulation? You are still talking about magic bubba.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

CO2 absorbs heat and leaves our atmosphere....the CO2 heads into outer space?
Neat.
Any other gas decide it doesn't want to stick around?

are you saying that all CO2 is only in the oceans? LOL. or does it move up vertically and is spread through the atmosphere from convection and circulation? You are still talking about magic bubba.

Huh? Explain this "going out to space" theory.
Unless there is an ocean in space, it sound like you're switching topics.

 

[Old Rocks]

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

CO2 absorbs heat and leaves our atmosphere....the CO2 heads into outer space?
Neat.
Any other gas decide it doesn't want to stick around?

are you saying that all CO2 is only in the oceans? LOL. or does it move up vertically and is spread through the atmosphere from convection and circulation? You are still talking about magic bubba.

jc, what about 'Bohr's Theory'?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

CO2 absorbs heat and leaves our atmosphere....the CO2 heads into outer space?
Neat.
Any other gas decide it doesn't want to stick around?

are you saying that all CO2 is only in the oceans? LOL. or does it move up vertically and is spread through the atmosphere from convection and circulation? You are still talking about magic bubba.

jc, what about 'Bohr's Theory'?

It's Bohring.

 

[jc456]

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

CO2 absorbs heat and leaves our atmosphere....the CO2 heads into outer space?
Neat.
Any other gas decide it doesn't want to stick around?

are you saying that all CO2 is only in the oceans? LOL. or does it move up vertically and is spread through the atmosphere from convection and circulation? You are still talking about magic bubba.

jc, what about 'Bohr's Theory'?

what about it?

 

[Crick]

jc, can we get this straight? Are you saying that CO2 is cooling the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat and then leaving the atmosphere for space - that it is leaving the planet?

If so

1) What is driving CO2 to do such a thing?

2) Are other gases doing this as well?

3) Do you believe the Earth is losing its atmosphere?

 

[jc456]

jc, can we get this straight? Are you saying that CO2 is cooling the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat and then leaving the atmosphere for space - that it is leaving the planet?

If so

1) What is driving CO2 to do such a thing?

2) Are other gases doing this as well?

3) Do you believe the Earth is losing its atmosphere?

Atmospheric escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One classical thermal escape mechanism is Jeans escape.[1] In a quantity of gas, the average velocity of a molecule is determined by temperature, but the velocities of individual molecules change as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy. The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution. The kinetic energy and mass of a molecule determine its velocity by E k i n = 1 2 m v 2 {\displaystyle E_{\mathit {kin}}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}}

."

 

[LaDexter]

Crick certainly loves "skeptics" who don't understand JACK.

Meanwhile, there are only 3 "sinking" islands, Antarctic ice continues to grow, the atmosphere continues to show no warming, and Crick keeps telling us that Co2 is a huge problem,.. even as it continues to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...

 

[Crick]

Atmospheric escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One classical thermal escape mechanism is Jeans escape.[1] In a quantity of gas, the average velocity of a molecule is determined by temperature, but the velocities of individual molecules change as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy. The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution. The kinetic energy and mass of a molecule determine its velocity by E k i n = 1 2 m v 2 {\displaystyle E_{\mathit {kin}}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}}

."

This is lovely text. I first learned that equation in high school physics about 1968 or so. It does not explain why CO2 would leave the atmosphere. Whoever told you it was doing that didn't have the faintest **** of an idea what they were talking about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Atmospheric escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One classical thermal escape mechanism is Jeans escape.[1] In a quantity of gas, the average velocity of a molecule is determined by temperature, but the velocities of individual molecules change as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy. The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution. The kinetic energy and mass of a molecule determine its velocity by E k i n = 1 2 m v 2 {\displaystyle E_{\mathit {kin}}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}}

."

This is lovely text. I first learned that equation in high school physics about 1968 or so. It does not explain why CO2 would leave the atmosphere. Whoever told you it was doing that didn't have the faintest **** of an idea what they were talking about.

I think that stupid claim is even too dumb for SSDD.

 

[jc456]

Atmospheric escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One classical thermal escape mechanism is Jeans escape.[1] In a quantity of gas, the average velocity of a molecule is determined by temperature, but the velocities of individual molecules change as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy. The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution. The kinetic energy and mass of a molecule determine its velocity by E k i n = 1 2 m v 2 {\displaystyle E_{\mathit {kin}}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}}

."

This is lovely text. I first learned that equation in high school physics about 1968 or so. It does not explain why CO2 would leave the atmosphere. Whoever told you it was doing that didn't have the faintest **** of an idea what they were talking about.

I think that stupid claim is even too dumb for SSDD.

And yet crickets from your dumb arse, by the way, does CO2 even heat up as it goes up vertically?

 

[Crick]

Crickets concerning what? That CO2 is leaving the atmosphere? There is no reason for it to do so. We asked you for one and you give us the equation for kinetic energy. Sorry Jack, that don't do it. You need to explain why your magical process affects CO2 but not other molecules and how your magical process gives CO2 molecules sufficient energy to reach escape velocity, which, last time I checked was roughly 11 kilometers/second or about 25,000 mph. Not a trivial feat. And then you need some observation that anyone has ever observed it actually doing so. Given that the amount of increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution matches very, very closely with a simple bookkeeping calculation of the amount of fossil fuel burned since that time, there is firm evidence that it is NOT leaving.

 

[jc456]

Crickets concerning what? That CO2 is leaving the atmosphere? There is no reason for it to do so. We asked you for one and you give us the equation for kinetic energy. Sorry Jack, that don't do it. You need to explain why your magical process affects CO2 but not other molecules and how your magical process gives CO2 molecules sufficient energy to reach escape velocity, which, last time I checked was roughly 11 kilometers/second or about 25,000 mph. Not a trivial feat. And then you need some observation that anyone has ever observed it actually doing so. Given that the amount of increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution matches very, very closely with a simple bookkeeping calculation of the amount of fossil fuel burned since that time, there is firm evidence that it is NOT leaving.

I tell you what, I'll post something once you post the evidence that CO2 radiates. Can you do that?

 

[RollingThunder]

Crickets concerning what? That CO2 is leaving the atmosphere? There is no reason for it to do so. We asked you for one and you give us the equation for kinetic energy. Sorry Jack, that don't do it. You need to explain why your magical process affects CO2 but not other molecules and how your magical process gives CO2 molecules sufficient energy to reach escape velocity, which, last time I checked was roughly 11 kilometers/second or about 25,000 mph. Not a trivial feat. And then you need some observation that anyone has ever observed it actually doing so. Given that the amount of increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution matches very, very closely with a simple bookkeeping calculation of the amount of fossil fuel burned since that time, there is firm evidence that it is NOT leaving.

I tell you what, I'll post something once you post the evidence that CO2 radiates. Can you do that?

Of course, retard. From many sources.

Here's a scientist that deniers usually love to quote.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
I’m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible. More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming. These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect.

Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER. In fact, this is happening all around us, all the time. The reason why we might be confused by the apparent incongruity of the statement is that we don’t spend enough time thinking about why the temperature of something is what it is.

 

[jc456]

Crickets concerning what? That CO2 is leaving the atmosphere? There is no reason for it to do so. We asked you for one and you give us the equation for kinetic energy. Sorry Jack, that don't do it. You need to explain why your magical process affects CO2 but not other molecules and how your magical process gives CO2 molecules sufficient energy to reach escape velocity, which, last time I checked was roughly 11 kilometers/second or about 25,000 mph. Not a trivial feat. And then you need some observation that anyone has ever observed it actually doing so. Given that the amount of increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution matches very, very closely with a simple bookkeeping calculation of the amount of fossil fuel burned since that time, there is firm evidence that it is NOT leaving.

I tell you what, I'll post something once you post the evidence that CO2 radiates. Can you do that?

Of course, retard. From many sources.

Here's a scientist that deniers usually love to quote.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
I’m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible. More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming. These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect.

Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER. In fact, this is happening all around us, all the time. The reason why we might be confused by the apparent incongruity of the statement is that we don’t spend enough time thinking about why the temperature of something is what it is.

Top Scientists: CO2-Induced Warming Is “Weak” To Non-Existent For Greenland, Antarctica!

"But is the science of polar amplification due to a rise in atmospheric CO2 really settled? A paper published recently (2015) by Dr. Schmithüsen (Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany) and colleagues may seriously undermine this conceptualization. The scientists analyze observational measurements (using the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer) of global-scale CO2 radiative forcing and find the greenhouse warming effect for CO2 is “weak” (Greenland) to non-existent (Antarctica) at polar locations, and that the CO2 greenhouse warming effect is instead strongest in the equatorial regions. Not only is the polar amplification paradigm rendered questionable by these observed results, but Schmithüsen et al. (2015) have found that, for central Antarctica, increasing CO2 actually leads to a “negative greenhouse effect”, or a net cooling. "

 

[Old Rocks]

Crap, jc, how about an article from a credible source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crap, jc, how about an article from a credible source.

Did JC think that stupid link refuted your "CO2 emits" source?

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic sea ice extent is flirting with a new record-low maximum. Wide expanses of dry grass exposed on snowless ground are raising concerns about early wildfires. Ski races are being canceled or converted into contests of repeated circuits on a loop of manmade snow.

So far, this winter in Alaska and much of the rest of the far north resembles a rerun of last winter, a season marked by record-high temperatures and record-low snow and ice measurements.

"It seems like we've heard this story before," said Rick Thoman, climate science and services manager for the National Weather Service in Alaska.

In Anchorage, for example, average temperatures for last month were 9.9 degrees above normal and those for the first half of this month were 8.4 degrees above normal. January snow depth was only 10 percent of normal, according to National Weather Service statistics.

Expect warmer-than-normal conditions to persist in all of Alaska through May, especially in the southern part of the state, the National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center advises in itslatest forecast, issued on Thursday.

"Every tool in our toolbox is pointing in the same direction, toward a warm spring," Thoman said.

Blame, or credit, goes to a variety of factors, he said. The powerful El Nino pattern, though losing its strength at its point of origin in the tropics of the western Pacific, is still funneling heat to North and South America. The big "blob" of warm water in the North Pacific has been breaking up and morphing into a more traditional positive -- and warming -- Pacific decadal oscillation pattern, he said. Ice extent in the Bering Sea is much lower than normal for this time of year, affecting Western Alaska, he said.
Love it or hate it, Alaska's warm winter is predicted to last until breakup

So, no polar amplification? Tell that to the people in Alaska.

 

[Old Rocks]

Crap, jc, how about an article from a credible source.

Did JC think that stupid link refuted your "CO2 emits" source?

Don't know what jc thinks. Obviously has never had even a high school class in physics.