What is the Greenhouse Effect?

[IanC]

SSDD, nobody is obligated to respond to an avalanche o' crap, and only intellectual cowards use the tactic. Like you did.

Honest people state a point succinctly. Cult liars cut and paste vast volumes of garbage, and then, in their mewling lisping voices, whimper that you have to ANSWER IT ALL, otherwise they'll cry extra hard at you.

SSDD, you may proceed to cry now. jc, make sure you jump in and suck his ass extra hard, as he'll need the support.

Have you see the avalanche of crap we get whenever we ask you to post one single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature 2-7 degrees?

pants on fire!!!!!

they dont respond to that question anymore because there isnt any experiment.

but you can be sure that there have been many attempts that just didnt work out as hoped.

 

[Crick]

Several different videos and articles of experimental recreations of atmospheric CO2 levels have been posted here. The lot of you have chosen to deny that fact. If you think that encourages us to waste more time with you, you'd be mistaken.

Tell me Ian, how would you produce a graph such as the following:

Or any of the dozens that may be seen here: co2 absorption spectra - Google Search

 

[mamooth]

Do you have any different info regarding how the photosynthesis happens as the percentage increase?

Edit: and why I'm always asking for the experiment that disproves that graph.

And it's an astonishingly stupid question, because the graph has almost nothing to do with global warming.

We've been taking pity on you by ignoring such a godawful stupid question, because laughing at you feels uncomfortably like picking on the short bus kid. That seems to have been a mistake. Left uncorrected, you've started assuming that everyone politely tiptoeing around your ignorance is proof that you're "winning".

And BTW, not one person on here has provided any evidence to disprove it. Not one!! So if there are all of the scientists all over this earth so smart why can't they dispute this, as a result I refuse to accept anything about AGW.

You're just remarkably stupid. Your graph, while roughly correct, has little to do with the global warming issue. That's the answer. You're tossing up an irrelevant red herring, so nobody pays any attention to it.

But please, young Einstein, if you insist, provide us with some laughs. Explain to everyone exactly how a graph of photosynthesis rates disproves global warming.

 

[SSDD]

Several different videos and articles of experimental recreations of atmospheric CO2 levels have been posted here. The lot of you have chosen to deny that fact. If you think that encourages us to waste more time with you, you'd be mistaken.

Tell me Ian, how would you produce a graph such as the following:

Or any of the dozens that may be seen here: co2 absorption spectra - Google Search

All you are showing is that CO2 absorbs IR...it also emits IR....causing warming is an unproven assumption. No one is arguing that CO2 absorbs IR...we all know that....those of us with critical thinking skills know, however that if CO2 actually caused warming, it would be possible to demonstrate it in a laboratory....and alas, it has not been demonstrated because CO2 doesn't cause warming.

 

[IanC]

Several different videos and articles of experimental recreations of atmospheric CO2 levels have been posted here. The lot of you have chosen to deny that fact. If you think that encourages us to waste more time with you, you'd be mistaken.

Tell me Ian, how would you produce a graph such as the following:

Or any of the dozens that may be seen here: co2 absorption spectra - Google Search

are you actually asking me about the nuts and bolts of measuring absorption and/or emission? or are you subtly accusing me of something?

I have described many variations of experiments that should be able to detect the warming effect of CO2.

yet another one is to simply illuminate a cuvette with the desired type of IR until it comes to a steady temp. one for dry air as a standard, then start increasing the CO2 concentration by 120ppm, 240, 480, etc. graph it up and see what the curve looks like. it would probably be a good idea to replicate the runs with a known non-GHG of the same approx weight of CO2 as a control. argon perhaps?

the simplicity of that experiment makes me think it has been done many, many times. that it has not been publicized makes me think that the actual increase in temp is quite small and wouldnt have the desired effect on the public.

if it has been done, and withheld from the public, wouldnt that be the propaganda that SSDD was talking about?

 

[Crick]

It would if you and your buddy SSDD had any evidence of such information being withheld. And I have to ask you to tell us who you think has the capacity to withhold all such information - and over a span of over one hundred years. I do hope you're not buying in to the mass conspiracy view Ian.

Here is a good article at the website of the American Institute of Physics that discusses the development of the greenhouse theory and many experiments conducted along the way.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[SSDD]

It would if you and your buddy SSDD had any evidence of such information being withheld. And I have to ask you to tell us who you think has the capacity to withhold all such information - and over a span of over one hundred years. I do hope you're not buying in to the mass conspiracy view Ian.

Here is a good article at the website of the American Institute of Physics that discusses the development of the greenhouse theory and many experiments conducted along the way.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, rocks likes to post that collection of dogma...I ask him every time which part of it, or any of the links constitutes proof of either a greenhouse effect as described by climate science or actual evidence of a human influence on the global climate. He doesn't seem to be able to point out anything there that constitutes proof of anything, but he keeps posting it anyway...do you see anything in there that might be construed as proof of a greenhouse effect or AGW?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Start here, at you level...

What a farce.... violates major laws of thermodynamics.. the developers of that site need to go back to high school..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It would if you and your buddy SSDD had any evidence of such information being withheld. And I have to ask you to tell us who you think has the capacity to withhold all such information - and over a span of over one hundred years. I do hope you're not buying in to the mass conspiracy view Ian.

Here is a good article at the website of the American Institute of Physics that discusses the development of the greenhouse theory and many experiments conducted along the way.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, rocks likes to post that collection of dogma...I ask him every time which part of it, or any of the links constitutes proof of either a greenhouse effect as described by climate science or actual evidence of a human influence on the global climate. He doesn't seem to be able to point out anything there that constitutes proof of anything, but he keeps posting it anyway...do you see anything in there that might be construed as proof of a greenhouse effect or AGW?

Crick and old goat like to post that crap over and over and over again. they also refuse to allow any new works by skeptics which show their dogma falsified. But that is expected now that they have dug up the Dr Ben Santer's 17 year goal posts and moved them out to thirty years now.

The fact is Nature has already done the math and the experiment over the last 114 years and the result was.... Natural Variation rates that were equal so there is no warming caused by CO2.

 

[Bfgrn]

It would if you and your buddy SSDD had any evidence of such information being withheld. And I have to ask you to tell us who you think has the capacity to withhold all such information - and over a span of over one hundred years. I do hope you're not buying in to the mass conspiracy view Ian.

Here is a good article at the website of the American Institute of Physics that discusses the development of the greenhouse theory and many experiments conducted along the way.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, rocks likes to post that collection of dogma...I ask him every time which part of it, or any of the links constitutes proof of either a greenhouse effect as described by climate science or actual evidence of a human influence on the global climate. He doesn't seem to be able to point out anything there that constitutes proof of anything, but he keeps posting it anyway...do you see anything in there that might be construed as proof of a greenhouse effect or AGW?

Crick and old goat like to post that crap over and over and over again. they also refuse to allow any new works by skeptics which show their dogma falsified. But that is expected now that they have dug up the Dr Ben Santer's 17 year goal posts and moved them out to thirty years now.

The fact is Nature has already done the math and the experiment over the last 114 years and the result was.... Natural Variation rates that were equal so there is no warming caused by CO2.

Works by skeptics? NONE peer reviewed.

Why don't you try something new...EDUCATE yourself and stop being a naive fool. There is BIG money behind your 'skeptics' and their "tobacco strategy"...

I would not at all be surprised if you know nothing about that strategy...

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer

 

[Bfgrn]

Special insert--An open letter to Ben Santer

 

[Crick]

It would if you and your buddy SSDD had any evidence of such information being withheld. And I have to ask you to tell us who you think has the capacity to withhold all such information - and over a span of over one hundred years. I do hope you're not buying in to the mass conspiracy view Ian.

Here is a good article at the website of the American Institute of Physics that discusses the development of the greenhouse theory and many experiments conducted along the way.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, rocks likes to post that collection of dogma...

Dogma? The article is a historical review of the development of the greenhouse theory. Every bit of the material in this article is demonstrably factual. On what grounds do you categorize it dogma?

I ask him every time which part of it, or any of the links constitutes proof of either a greenhouse effect as described by climate science or actual evidence of a human influence on the global climate.

He is either stunned by the ignorance implicit in your question or aware that there is no answer you would actually accept and that your response is purely rhetorical.

He doesn't seem to be able to point out anything there that constitutes proof of anything, but he keeps posting it anyway...do you see anything in there that might be construed as proof of a greenhouse effect or AGW?

Of course he doesn't. He never will and neither will you. You aren't involved in a discussion. You have no interest in learning anything. You made up your mind long ago and then closed it to all inputs that might challenge your prejudice. That much is completely obvious.

Virtually NO ONE with even a modicum of science education rejects the greenhouse effect. You do. That doesn't challenge the greenhouse effect, it simply demonstrates the extremity of your bias and ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

It would if you and your buddy SSDD had any evidence of such information being withheld. And I have to ask you to tell us who you think has the capacity to withhold all such information - and over a span of over one hundred years. I do hope you're not buying in to the mass conspiracy view Ian.

Here is a good article at the website of the American Institute of Physics that discusses the development of the greenhouse theory and many experiments conducted along the way.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, rocks likes to post that collection of dogma...

Dogma? The article is a historical review of the development of the greenhouse theory. Every bit of the material in this article is demonstrably factual. On what grounds do you categorize it dogma?

It is a historical review, yes...but what part of it do you think constitutes proof of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...I was perfectly clear with the question...and like rocks, you are shucking and jiving rather than answering the question.

He is either stunned by the ignorance implicit in your question or aware that there is no answer you would actually accept and that your response is purely rhetorical.

And I see that like him, you can't answer the very straight forward question.

Of course he doesn't. He never will and neither will you. You aren't involved in a discussion. You have no interest in learning anything. You made up your mind long ago and then closed it to all inputs that might challenge your prejudice. That much is completely obvious.

At least rocks is smart enough to simply ignore the request and move on....never admitting, as you have that there is nothing there beyond the history of assumption upon assumption upon assumption that has led us to this unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable greenhouse effect.

Virtually NO ONE with even a modicum of science education rejects the greenhouse effect. You do. That doesn't challenge the greenhouse effect, it simply demonstrates the extremity of your bias and ignorance.

And just everyone, doncha know, can see the emperors clothes...I asked you which part of that bit of dogma represents anything like proof of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...clearly, you can't answer the question because you know as well as I that none of it does.. In the end, the best you can do is hurl forth another logical fallacy, and tell me that everyone accepts it so it must be true, because what everyone accepts must be true...

 

[jc456]

I found this posted on WUWT Frday. Happy reading

Link The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide Watts Up With That

 

[SSDD]

I found this posted on WUWT Frday. Happy reading

Link The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide Watts Up With That

CO2 has no warming power be it logarithmic or otherwise....the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for you to prove that absorption and emission equals warming...you people work on assumption after assumption....

Did you see the new epic fail thread where it is found that the oceans don't absorb IR in the CO2 wavelength...even if the oceans were cooler than the atmosphere and energy could move in that direction?

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for you to prove that absorption and emission equals warming...you people work on assumption after assumption....

Are you also waiting for us to prove that the Earth is round and that the moon is not made of green cheese? You rattle off that line as if it had any meaning. All matter constantly absorbs and radiates infrared radiation. The radiation takes place in accordance with its temperature. The net balance determines whether an objects temperature increases or decreases. Your semantic nonsense is just that.

Did you see the new epic fail thread where it is found that the oceans don't absorb IR in the CO2 wavelength...even if the oceans were cooler than the atmosphere and energy could move in that direction?

I DID! And you know what? You are about the stupidest PoS on this board. You need to look up E M I S S I V I T Y. It comes from EMIT, not ABSORB. Your article was telling us that we're worse off than we thought, that the world is radiating less energy to space than our models assume that the world might be 2K higher than expected in as little as 25 years. THAT'S what you "epic fail" paper was saying.

What a ******* IDIOT.

 

[SSDD]

Are you also waiting for us to prove that the Earth is round and that the moon is not made of green cheese? You rattle off that line as if it had any meaning. All matter constantly absorbs and radiates infrared radiation. The radiation takes place in accordance with its temperature. The net balance determines whether an objects temperature increases or decreases. Your semantic nonsense is just that.

So you can't prove that absorption and emission equal warming...unsurprising since they don't...they equal absorption and emission...nothing else.

I DID! And you know what? You are about the stupidest PoS on this board. You need to look up E M I S S I V I T Y. It comes from EMIT, not ABSORB. Your article was telling us that we're worse off than we thought, that the world is radiating less energy to space than our models assume that the world might be 2K higher than expected in as little as 25 years. THAT'S what you "epic fail" paper was saying.

What a ******* IDIOT.

And again, you prove beyond any doubt that you don't have a clue...I know perfectly well what emissivity means...but unlike you, I know that Kirchhoff's Law says that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....Try real hard and see if you can grasp the ramifications of that statement....emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....if the oceans have low emissivity at the wavelength emitted by CO2, what does that say about the absorptivity of the oceans at the wavelength emitted by CO2? Think real hard asshat...what does it mean? And what does it say regarding warmers claims that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?

 

[Crick]

It all says that you're as stupid as stupid can be. Go back to the thread where you linked to that article and look at what I quoted from its abstract that clearly shows the authors conclusion was that the difference would be reduced radiation to space and higher future temperatures. See if the light comes on for you then.