The huge benefits of MORE CO2!!!

[Billy_Bob]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

To be honest, in a lab of pure CO2 controlled experiments it does warm slightly. But in an open atmosphere where other gases dwarf the trace gas and have lower emittance temperatures than CO2, the heating is almost nonexistent. In fact, given the last 150 years and natural variation there is no discernible rise that can be attributed to CO2. So you are right in the real world.

The problem comes when alarmist, who can not separate fantasy from real world grasp on to this and all cognitive thought ability (which most dont have anyway) goes out the window.

 

[Flopper]

Translation?

More AGW k00k losing...............

Energy industry now says carbon dioxide is good for us - The Arkansas City Traveler Columns

Oh, wonderful; back to the Carboniferous period, a hot humid world of rich plant life and no human life.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Translation?

More AGW k00k losing...............

Energy industry now says carbon dioxide is good for us - The Arkansas City Traveler Columns

Oh, wonderful; back to the Carboniferous period, a hot humid world of rich plant life and no human life.

But the mammals of that period flourished.. grew to be huge and multiplied... Then came an Ice age and a comet. An ELE which none could predict...

And funny how the CO2 levels were near 7,000ppm but the earth never burned up....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

To be honest, in a lab of pure CO2 controlled experiments it does warm slightly. But in an open atmosphere where other gases dwarf the trace gas and have lower emittance temperatures than CO2, the heating is almost nonexistent. In fact, given the last 150 years and natural variation there is no discernible rise that can be attributed to CO2. So you are right in the real world.

The problem comes when alarmist, who can not separate fantasy from real world grasp on to this and all cognitive thought ability (which most dont have anyway) goes out the window.

I've never seen this experiment so I conclude it doesn't exist

 

[Billy_Bob]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

To be honest, in a lab of pure CO2 controlled experiments it does warm slightly. But in an open atmosphere where other gases dwarf the trace gas and have lower emittance temperatures than CO2, the heating is almost nonexistent. In fact, given the last 150 years and natural variation there is no discernible rise that can be attributed to CO2. So you are right in the real world.

The problem comes when alarmist, who can not separate fantasy from real world grasp on to this and all cognitive thought ability (which most dont have anyway) goes out the window.

I've never seen this experiment so I conclude it doesn't exist

This graph represents CO2 in a controlled environment through actual observations and the modeled expected output using the IPCC and EPA models.

The actual observations show us that one; the models are wrong and two; that we have already seen 95% of any warming that could occur on earth due to CO2. Model divergence from reality starts at just 60ppm. Water vapor cuts the rate of potential doubling to less than 0.4 deg C rise and empirically has been shown to be 0.0 over the last 150 years.

We are currently in process of replicating this and I can assure you most of the lab work has been done. What has not been done is what effect do certain other atmospheric gases have on it. When water vapor is input all warming ceases which is exactly the opposite of what all the AGW folks say should be happening. The earths circulations do not favor CO2 as a driver as the heat necessary to be a driver is not capable in CO2 above 280ppm. Thermal dynamics take over and CO2 looses every time.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Calculations suggest that Global warming caused by the doubling of CO2 will be less than 0.6K

OK... This just happens to show up during this discussion, and it confirms many things i have already stated. His calculations are a little different than mine but there in is the fun of looking at what they have done and what I have done.. That's Science..

As the actual thickness of the atmosphere is about 8000m at ordinary atmospheric pressure, the saturation of infrared absorption by CO2 will be almost complete and the actual increase in a caused by the doubling of CO2 concentration must be much less than 0.5% and the resulted increase in T must be also actually much less than 0.6K.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf (p. 1042)

Well that sums it up.. Must be LESS THAN... he is talking absolute maximum range... not the probable range..

 

[Billy_Bob]

P{9deleted)
Wrong paper.. I'll find one not nuked by commonsense.

 

[Flopper]

Translation?

More AGW k00k losing...............

Energy industry now says carbon dioxide is good for us - The Arkansas City Traveler Columns

Oh, wonderful; back to the Carboniferous period, a hot humid world of rich plant life and no human life.

But the mammals of that period flourished.. grew to be huge and multiplied... Then came an Ice age and a comet. An ELE which none could predict...

And funny how the CO2 levels were near 7,000ppm but the earth never burned up....

No, ancestors of birds, mammals, and reptiles but no mammals

The Carboniferous Period

 

[jon_berzerk]

"CO2 is plant food!" nonsense. Boring and stupid. Standard Skook kook-loser stuff.

Most of the denier cult has stopped even pretending to care about science, and they don't care that everyone knows. The whole point of the cult now is to milk kook losers of money and votes, and they don't need science for that. They only need blind obedience, and people like skook provide it.

"CO2 is plant food!" nonsense.

--LOL

the science is settled

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

 

[Flopper]

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

This is all simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing."

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of beneficial botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

 

[Old Rocks]

Translation?

More AGW k00k losing...............

Energy industry now says carbon dioxide is good for us - The Arkansas City Traveler Columns

Oh, wonderful; back to the Carboniferous period, a hot humid world of rich plant life and no human life.

But the mammals of that period flourished.. grew to be huge and multiplied... Then came an Ice age and a comet. An ELE which none could predict...

And funny how the CO2 levels were near 7,000ppm but the earth never burned up....

Ah yes, the mammals of the Carboniferous. Gosh dang, ol' Billy Boob, do tell us more.

 

[Old Rocks]

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is neccessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

Yep..........MOST scientists, Masters and Phd level, call BS on climate science based upon this fact.......scientific methods are of no concern to the climate scientist. Of course, to the AGW religion, these tens of thousands of scientists are "fake" scientists!!!

Very funny. Since I see scientists, Masters and Phd level every time I go to class, and to the man, they consider AGW to be real, and a problem, I would have to ask you what kind of evidence do you have to back up a statement like that?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is neccessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that many greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

To be honest, in a lab of pure CO2 controlled experiments it does warm slightly. But in an open atmosphere where other gases dwarf the trace gas and have lower emittance temperatures than CO2, the heating is almost nonexistent. In fact, given the last 150 years and natural variation there is no discernible rise that can be attributed to CO2. So you are right in the real world.

The problem comes when alarmist, who can not separate fantasy from real world grasp on to this and all cognitive thought ability (which most dont have anyway) goes out the window.

I've never seen this experiment so I conclude it doesn't exist

View attachment 35343
This graph represents CO2 in a controlled environment through actual observations and the modeled expected output using the IPCC and EPA models.

The actual observations show us that one; the models are wrong and two; that we have already seen 95% of any warming that could occur on earth due to CO2. Model divergence from reality starts at just 60ppm. Water vapor cuts the rate of potential doubling to less than 0.4 deg C rise and empirically has been shown to be 0.0 over the last 150 years.

We are currently in process of replicating this and I can assure you most of the lab work has been done. What has not been done is what effect do certain other atmospheric gases have on it. When water vapor is input all warming ceases which is exactly the opposite of what all the AGW folks say should be happening. The earths circulations do not favor CO2 as a driver as the heat necessary to be a driver is not capable in CO2 above 280ppm. Thermal dynamics take over and CO2 looses every time.

You posted a model. In years of asking we've never once seen any lab work backing this up

 

[Flopper]

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is neccessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that many greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Greenhouse co2 generators are run at 1000pm to increase growth. At 1000pm, the Greenland ice sheet would disappear and the acidity of the oceans would be devastating to marine life.

 

[elektra]

The electromagnetic spectrum describes the various types of electromagnetic energy based on wavelength.

Infrared Basics - IR Heating Equipment and Infrared Ovens by PROTHERM

Now Elektra, I really don't know who is the most ignorant of science, you or Billy Boob. Long wave IR refers to Infrared.

Old Crock, if you actually looked at Science and not Coloring Book pictures you would discover that some radiation is made up of particles.

Either way, the Study eliminated the Temperature data. The Study does not include all the data, the Study ignores findings that disagree with the "researchers" or "professors" pre-conceived ideas.

Where is the Temperature data, I will not call these idiots Scientists, they are not scientist.

So Duke University elevates the level of CO2 and does not record the difference in temperature? You know why, because the Temperature went DOWN!

Higher CO2 levels lower the temperature, hence temperature data is discarded or ignored.

Fucked up nitwits like you do not get to decide who is or isn't a scientist. Your lack of understanding basic science is apparent to all.

Last I checked, "Scientist" is misused. Tell me, are they certified? Is there a Society? They get a "Certificate"? What makes someone a scientist? In Old Crocks world, its the Dictator who decides.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.

well without CO2 you will not see photosynthesis

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is neccessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that many greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Greenhouse co2 generators are run at 1000pm to increase growth. At 1000pm, the Greenland ice sheet would disappear and the acidity of the oceans would be devastating to marine life.

according to global warmists anyhow --LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

To be honest, in a lab of pure CO2 controlled experiments it does warm slightly. But in an open atmosphere where other gases dwarf the trace gas and have lower emittance temperatures than CO2, the heating is almost nonexistent. In fact, given the last 150 years and natural variation there is no discernible rise that can be attributed to CO2. So you are right in the real world.

The problem comes when alarmist, who can not separate fantasy from real world grasp on to this and all cognitive thought ability (which most dont have anyway) goes out the window.

I've never seen this experiment so I conclude it doesn't exist

View attachment 35343
This graph represents CO2 in a controlled environment through actual observations and the modeled expected output using the IPCC and EPA models.

The actual observations show us that one; the models are wrong and two; that we have already seen 95% of any warming that could occur on earth due to CO2. Model divergence from reality starts at just 60ppm. Water vapor cuts the rate of potential doubling to less than 0.4 deg C rise and empirically has been shown to be 0.0 over the last 150 years.

We are currently in process of replicating this and I can assure you most of the lab work has been done. What has not been done is what effect do certain other atmospheric gases have on it. When water vapor is input all warming ceases which is exactly the opposite of what all the AGW folks say should be happening. The earths circulations do not favor CO2 as a driver as the heat necessary to be a driver is not capable in CO2 above 280ppm. Thermal dynamics take over and CO2 looses every time.

You posted a model. In years of asking we've never once seen any lab work backing this up

the only "lab" work i have seen if you could call it that was

a hit piece done by mythbusters

--LOL

but i suppose that is enough for the believers

--LOL