Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[Billy_Bob]

NOW THEN FLASH, LET'S SEE ONE FUCKING LINK TO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CHARGE THAT ALL THESE DATA ARE FABRICATED.

Wow... You really are ignorant...

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

You have been shown this over and over and you still lie about it..

 

[Crick]

NOW THEN FLASH, LET'S SEE ONE FUCKING LINK TO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CHARGE THAT ALL THESE DATA ARE FABRICATED.

Wow... You really are ignorant...

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

You have been shown this over and over and you still lie about it..

That was ten years ago. Every single climate scientist named in that article is still working. Not one of them was found guilty of diddly squat

From Wikipedia's article on ClimateGate:

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]"

Additionally NO ONE admitted fabricating data.

 

[Crick]

Sorry skidmark...just not so. But if you have any observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means...lets see it.

He is pumping compressed CO2 into the tube.

No. He is venting it from a compressed tank

....it is expanding and cooling and having a pretty profound effect on the temperature stability.

By the time it has reached the tube, the CO2 has finished expanding. Certainly it was cooler than ambient but I reject the suggestion that there were sufficient density gradients to make the flame disappear, steadily, for the several seconds it is seen gone in that video.

..You would get the same effect with N2, O2, or practically any other bottled gas you care to inject into the tube...

No, you would not.

There is also the fact that CO2 only absorbs in narrow bands...those narrow bands...the candle is emitting IR in a very broad spectrum...those 3 narrow bands aren't going to mask all the rest of the wavelengths the candle is emitting in...can you say FAKE?...

I would suggest that the IR camera had been selectively tuned to emphasize the absorption of CO2.

Then there is the fact that it didn't show any warming at all...he merely showed that CO2 absorbs infrared...who is arguing that it doesn't,...you think that bit of side show bullshit establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? Good enough to fool you...right?

It shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. The next link showed the warming. Have you looked at it yet?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Crick]

CO2 being warmed by infrared

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Tell me Crick, what band of IR was he using? What was the radiative power being used? What was the CO2 concentration level?

The claim is that CO2 cannot be warmed by infrared radiation. You are clearly attempting to weasel out of that claim.

A gas can only "trap" heat if the gas itself is trapped...little wonder that you are a dupe...

More weaseling.

This demonstration unambiguously shows that CO2 is warmed by exposure to IR radiation. Your claim, as the rest of us have known all along, is completely specious. Period.

 

[IanC]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

Sorry skidmark...just not so. But if you have any observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means...lets see it.

Years ago I read an article describing the making of this video.

Basically the image of the candle is a false pallet of colours, and the camera is tightly filtered to one of the higher wavelengths.

A little misleading but much better than most of these experiments.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 being warmed by infrared

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Tell me Crick, what band of IR was he using? What was the radiative power being used? What was the CO2 concentration level?

The claim is that CO2 cannot be warmed by infrared radiation. You are clearly attempting to weasel out of that claim.

A gas can only "trap" heat if the gas itself is trapped...little wonder that you are a dupe...

More weaseling.

This demonstration unambiguously shows that CO2 is warmed by exposure to IR radiation. Your claim, as the rest of us have known all along, is completely specious. Period.

Actually...it shows no such thing....but as has already been noted...it is good enough to fool you...guess you didn't notice that when the candle flame disappeared, the whole image was of a uniform cool blue...no changing to warmer tones...that is because it wasn't warming...and the arguments I placed above stand unless you care to prove otherwise...All you did was tell us how he fooled you...

 

[SSDD]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

Sorry skidmark...just not so. But if you have any observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means...lets see it.

Years ago I read an article describing the making of this video.

Basically the image of the candle is a false pallet of colours, and the camera is tightly filtered to one of the higher wavelengths.

A little misleading but much better than most of these experiments.

"little" misleading? Really? It was typical alarmist showmanship. Did you note that there was no warming of the CO2 as evidenced by the cool blue image...all he showed was that CO2 absorbs IR...that experiment didn't show anything like warming. He didn't claim any warming, but dupes like crick look at it and then proudly present it as unimpeachable evidence of CO2 being warmed by IR. It was obviously good enough to fool him, was it good enough to fool you too?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

Sorry skidmark...just not so. But if you have any observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means...lets see it.

Years ago I read an article describing the making of this video.

Basically the image of the candle is a false pallet of colours, and the camera is tightly filtered to one of the higher wavelengths.

A little misleading but much better than most of these experiments.

"little" misleading? Really? It was typical alarmist showmanship. Did you note that there was no warming of the CO2 as evidenced by the cool blue image...all he showed was that CO2 absorbs IR...that experiment didn't show anything like warming. He didn't claim any warming, but dupes like crick look at it and then proudly present it as unimpeachable evidence of CO2 being warmed by IR. It was obviously good enough to fool him, was it good enough to fool you too?

Did you note that there was no warming of the CO2 as evidenced by the cool blue image...all he showed was that CO2 absorbs IR...that experiment didn't show anything like warming.

You're such a dolt. If it absorbed IR, it warmed.

 

[Crick]

Which the link that follows shows explicitly. it was not the easiest thing in the world to find. There aren't a lot of people on this planet that need to be shown that absorbing IR radiation will cause something to warm.

 

[jc456]

The Environmental Wackos can't prove AGW so they fabricate data and almost always get caught at it.

They aren't that bright.

It's only my opinion but I think the odds of you being brighter than just about anyone on Earth with a PhD is extraordinarily slim. I suspect that you were unable to get through college for academic reasons. Thus your opinion as to who is and is not "bright" aren't of much value.

AGW is supported by mountains of evidence. The contentions of deniers are not. When was the last time you posted a link to a published scientific study supporting your position?

No its not.

Yes it is. Read "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

You are confused. It is only supported by fabricated data. Go read the Climategate revelations where the principle scientist admit to fabricating the data. Go look at how under the filthy corrupt Obama administration NASA and NOAA were corrupted to produce fabricated data. The same with the UN Climate Commission.

I am not confused. You are ignorant. The conclusions of the IPCC are supported by an enormous amount of valid and verified data. There were no Climategate revelations - have you not noticed that the rest of your AGW denier buddies stopped making that particular argument a couple years back? There have been no admissions by any principal scientist of data fabrication. The Obama administration ran for 8 years without a single scandal; no one in his administration was ever charged much less convicted of any crimes. If you want to lay a charge of "filly corrupt" on someone, have an honest gander at the Trump Administration. Neither NASA nor NOAA were corrupted under the Obama administration and neither fabricated data. The same is true of the IPCC.

The Environmental Wackos have lost all credibility on this subject. They have nothing of substance. It is a scam and it is despicable. If it wasn't a scam then there would be no need to fabricate data.

The IPCC has lost no credibility at all. The Trump Administration has acted with inconceivable irresponsibility and the president has demonstrated himself to be an ignorant ass. No one has fabricated data. The only folks pulling major scams around here are the Trump Administration, elected with the assistance and cooperation of a hostile foreign power. I personally believe the president is guilty of treason.

NOW THEN FLASH, LET'S SEE ONE FUCKING LINK TO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CHARGE THAT ALL THESE DATA ARE FABRICATED.

Yes it is. Read "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

which part?

 

[Crick]

I'd like the OP to explain precisely what he means by " SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence". I assume by "solid" he means verifiable. Empirical and observed are redundant. But what, Billy Boy, do you mean by "physical"?

 

[IanC]

. He didn't claim any warming, but dupes like crick look at it and then proudly present it as unimpeachable evidence of CO2 being warmed by IR. It was obviously good enough to fool him, was it good enough to fool you too?

Absorption and emission are two sides of the same coin. Somehow you have duped yourself into believing that only emission leads to a change in the amount of energy contained within an object. Somehow you are blind to the fact that absorbing the energy contained in radiation will increase the amount of total energy in the object.

That flaw in your logic is impossible to get past.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. He didn't claim any warming, but dupes like crick look at it and then proudly present it as unimpeachable evidence of CO2 being warmed by IR. It was obviously good enough to fool him, was it good enough to fool you too?

Absorption and emission are two sides of the same coin. Somehow you have duped yourself into believing that only emission leads to a change in the amount of energy contained within an object. Somehow you are blind to the fact that absorbing the energy contained in radiation will increase the amount of total energy in the object.

That flaw in your logic is impossible to get past.

So many flaws, so little time.

 

[Likkmee]

 

[jc456]

NOW THEN FLASH, LET'S SEE ONE FUCKING LINK TO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CHARGE THAT ALL THESE DATA ARE FABRICATED.

Wow... You really are ignorant...

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

You have been shown this over and over and you still lie about it..

That was ten years ago. Every single climate scientist named in that article is still working. Not one of them was found guilty of diddly squat

From Wikipedia's article on ClimateGate:

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]"

Additionally NO ONE admitted fabricating data.

so the fact they admitted they did what they did didn't matter? is that what you're saying? too fking funny crick.

 

[Crick]

. He didn't claim any warming, but dupes like crick look at it and then proudly present it as unimpeachable evidence of CO2 being warmed by IR. It was obviously good enough to fool him, was it good enough to fool you too?

Absorption and emission are two sides of the same coin. Somehow you have duped yourself into believing that only emission leads to a change in the amount of energy contained within an object. Somehow you are blind to the fact that absorbing the energy contained in radiation will increase the amount of total energy in the object.

That flaw in your logic is impossible to get past.

So many flaws, so little time.

I'm a bit puzzled. Same Shit seems to be saying that CO2 will get rid of the energy it absorbs so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to warm up. But, if it has the energy it just absorbed and can give it away either by collision or by radiation, what's the difference? Haven't you been talking about it passing off that energy to the N2 and O2 of the atmosphere and going on and on about conductive vice radiative transfer?

Just what ARE you saying? Why don't you describe to us what happens to IR energy radiated by the surface absorbed by greenhouse gases some distance above. What happens to that ENERGY after that Shit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. He didn't claim any warming, but dupes like crick look at it and then proudly present it as unimpeachable evidence of CO2 being warmed by IR. It was obviously good enough to fool him, was it good enough to fool you too?

Absorption and emission are two sides of the same coin. Somehow you have duped yourself into believing that only emission leads to a change in the amount of energy contained within an object. Somehow you are blind to the fact that absorbing the energy contained in radiation will increase the amount of total energy in the object.

That flaw in your logic is impossible to get past.

So many flaws, so little time.

I'm a bit puzzled. Same Shit seems to be saying that CO2 will get rid of the energy it absorbs so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to warm up. But, if it has the energy it just absorbed and can give it away either by collision or by radiation, what's the difference? Haven't you been talking about it passing off that energy to the N2 and O2 of the atmosphere and going on and on about conductive vice radiative transfer?

Just what ARE you saying? Why don't you describe to us what happens to IR energy radiated by the surface absorbed by greenhouse gases some distance above. What happens to that ENERGY after that Shit?

Same Shit seems to be saying that CO2 will get rid of the energy it absorbs so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to warm up.

I guess if the "hot potato" IR photon energy is passed along quickly enough, the heating doesn't count...…..

But, if it has the energy it just absorbed and can give it away either by collision or by radiation, what's the difference?

Both ways slow the escape of IR and warm the atmosphere. He loves to contradict himself.

 

[Crick]

He seems to want to destroy energy because it embarrasses him and offends his sensibilities. I think he had a bad experience with energy as a young child and still carries the scars.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He seems to want to destroy energy because it embarrasses him and offends his sensibilities. I think he had a bad experience with energy as a young child and still carries the scars.

The old fork in the outlet lesson.

 

[Crick]

Ow...