Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It certainly wasn't an increase in atmospheric CO2 that's for certain. CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years.What caused the warming you claim has taken place since the last ice age. I hope we all know the actual answer. It starts with a capitol M.
Prove to us it is a lie Tommy.
Here's a chart for him to scribble on:
As the blue dots indicate, the slope is expected to increase thereby possibly hitting 3 degrees in only 30 years instead of the 42 years indicated by the dashed line.
Your complaint that one of the linked experiments (the ones you suggested weren't physically possible and didn't exist) used a very high CO2 concentration indicates that you are unfamiliar with actual experiments. Your repeated attempts to steer the conversation to dead ends tells me you have little to nothing to say about the actual topic: the increased risk of collapse in the Antarctic ice sheets. It is my understanding that discussions of radiative physics are all to be sequestered to the single thread on the topic at the top of the page.
And I have a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering and over 35 years working as a systems engineer. Back i my college days I had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer. I understand and have used both the Stefan-Boltzman equation and the concept of emissivity. If you think that either refutes the greenhouse effect or AGW, you'll have to explain it to me because I and 99+% of the world's scientists say it does not.
I'll give you a hint: the Earth's atmosphere is not a black body.
Your complaint that one of the linked experiments (the ones you suggested weren't physically possible and didn't exist) used a very high CO2 concentration indicates that you are unfamiliar with actual experiments. Your repeated attempts to steer the conversation to dead ends tells me you have little to nothing to say about the actual topic: the increased risk of collapse in the Antarctic ice sheets. It is my understanding that discussions of radiative physics are all to be sequestered to the single thread on the topic at the top of the page.
And I have a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering and over 35 years working as a systems engineer. Back i my college days I had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer. I understand and have used both the Stefan-Boltzman equation and the concept of emissivity. If you think that either refutes the greenhouse effect or AGW, you'll have to explain it to me because I and 99+% of the world's scientists say it does not.
I'll give you a hint: the Earth's atmosphere is not a black body.
So ... none of the papers you listed have anything to do with my question ... your understanding is wrong, the thread pinned to the top of this forum is for discussions denying the Greenhouse effect even exists, as the plain English title states ...
SB pertains the the Earth's surface, not her atmosphere ... and since we're discussing emissivity, we are working with the graybody form of the equation ... the Earth behaves very very close to our idealized greybody radiator ... these are foolish mistakes you've made, especially for an "ocean engineer", no surprise you appear unaware that temperature is proportional to the fourth root of input power ... small increases in power (1.8 W/m^2) makes for tiny increases in temperature (2ºC over 100 years per IPCC report) ...
Let's review:
Crick - "Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?" -- post #89
RD - "The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown" -- post #91
Crick - [Slug of papers which appear have nothing to do with emissivity] -- post #109
You don't understand the question I'm asking ... God knows why you think pure CO2 is the perfect example of an N2/O2 mixture ...
As you know perfectly well, nothing I put up there would qualify as a "paper". They were all experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect after you first claimed doing so appeared to be impossible and then claimed you could find none on Google. I searched for "scholarly, experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect"
I suspect that not one of the world's degreed, publishing climate scientists agree with your author's misinterpretation of basic thermo. That doesn't seem to bother you. Why? Does it not seem a little strange to you that it should be impossible to heat something beyond a given point by increasing it's energy content? Does that correspond to ANYTHING you've ever seen or heard of in your life? What is temperature but a measure of energy content? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the amount of thermal energy it contains. That, in and of itself, is synonymous with an increase in its temperature. The most charitable interpretation I can make of you pushing such blather is that you just want so badly for it to be true that you're unwilling to actually look at with what you're agreeing. Look at poster Westwall who is trying to claim that Greenland and Antarctica can't be losing mass because snow still falls there. There are a lot of people on your side of this argument who seem really, really, shabby about their critical thinking.
