# CO2 Experiments posted here



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/355976-so-cagw-activism-isn-t-political-huh-2.html#post9144977


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

So which one of those bits of side show slight of hand do you think proves your point?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 14, 2014)

Hydrocarbons are awesome.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 14, 2014)

Solar in 30 years will make up at least 20% of the worlds energy needs.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Solar in 30 years will make up at least 20% of the worlds energy needs.



Yet, your petrophobic tendencies persist...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 14, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Solar in 30 years will make up at least 20% of the worlds energy needs.
> ...





15 years ago solar made up maybe 1gw of total worldwide energy...Today it is 150gw. A mind blowing increase.

In 1983 it was 40mw. 
In 1976 it was 500kw

China added 12gw last year alone
America 4gw last year alone

each year that goes up.

Solar is a fact and I don't think it is insane to think it will grow to a fifth of energy needs by 2035.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

The HITRAN database, maintained by those socialists at the US Air Force, catalogs the spectral properties all all atmospheric gases.

HITRAN on the Web

Use the "references" link to get the many papers. That is, the lab setups.

The US Air Force data says that the "trace gas" CO2 has a big effect. But what do they know? They're just trying to make missiles work with IR seeker heads. Or maybe not. The Air Force must be sabotaging their own weapons in the name of the great socialist conspiracy.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I never even intoned that you were insane. Stoopid maybe. 

Despite the huge demands for all hydrocarbons that is projected along with your correctly assessed renewables supply (EIA), it is hydrocarbons that are being warred upon in this country. 

There is no inherent demand for renewables, as their sole purpose is electrical genaration. They may have evolved into more than just a curious cottage industry, but the world runs on hydrocarbons and their myriad byproducts. 

The petrophobes of this world are deluding themselves, Obama among them. He appears to be succeeding in wrecking the coal industry and his cross-hairs are firmly focused on oil and natural gas. In the 2-1/2 years left in his tenure I think he may very well succeed in bringing this nation to its knees.


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> So which one of those bits of side show slight of hand do you think proves your point?



They both prove that CO2 experiments were posted here.  Thus they both prove that several deniers here lie through their teeth.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 14, 2014)

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2014)

Kosh said:


> People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.



Well, you can lie all you want. 120 out of the 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is man created. About 1100 of the 1800+ ppb of CH4 is man caused. And there has been an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere attributable to the increase in heat caused by AGW. 

You are either a shill for the energy companies, or one really ignorant ass when it comes to science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The HITRAN database, maintained by those socialists at the US Air Force, catalogs the spectral properties all all atmospheric gases.
> 
> HITRAN on the Web
> 
> ...



^ That's not an experiment


----------



## Kosh (Jul 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.
> ...



And the AGW playbook is right on cue, based on the scriptures of the AGW cult.

The AGW cult will do anything to make their religion viable no matter how much real science they have to suppress..







The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot. 

Mind you now that the AGW cult will not have any real science to back up their claims, but they will try and discredit any actual real science as long as it continues their religion..


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2014)

Your first link is dead and the second is a real nice Ideal Gas Law experiment.  Color me unsurprised that you clowns couldn't figure that one out.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The HITRAN database, maintained by those socialists at the US Air Force, catalogs the spectral properties all all atmospheric gases.
> 
> HITRAN on the Web
> 
> ...


Who says sarcasm does not translate over the net? 

That was awesome!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So which one of those bits of side show slight of hand do you think proves your point?
> ...



We skeptics acknowledged that experiments were posted...we also pointed out that none actually demonstrated what you claimed that they demonstrated...so, now that we have exposed yet another lie on your part, again, which one of those bits of side show slight of hand do you claim demonstrates that 100 or even 200 ppm of additional CO2 can have a measurable effect on the climate.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, you can lie all you want. 120 out of the 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is man created. About 1100 of the 1800+ ppb of CH4 is man caused. And there has been an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere attributable to the increase in heat caused by AGW.



So that is a whopper....  Here is where CO2 comes from in order of production.







Man's contribution to CO2 isn't even as large as the variability in natural sources from year to year, much less enough to account for 30%.  You people have let your religion get completely out of hand.


----------



## Crick (Jul 15, 2014)

Your chart does not say what you claim it says.

That 120 of the current 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere comes from humans is an established *fact*.  Feel free to deny it if you wish to continue your perfect run of fundamental science blunders.


----------



## Crick (Jul 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The video from Mythbusters very explicitly recreates actual atmospheric CO2 levels.  And several deniers denied that any experiments had ever been posted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



It's rather fuzzy on what they tested. They never actually show you the amounts of CO2 and they use really sensitive measuring instruments and really crude thermometers.

blalblahblah  blah CO2 blahblahblah Methane blahlblahblah

I went as far as to call the scientist who conducted the experiment to ask him but he never got back to me

In any event we've been asking you to demonstrate the effect a 120PPM increase in CO2 has on temperature and pH and my guess is None


----------



## jc456 (Jul 15, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Also, I went to the Mythbuster facebook page and requested attention on the experiment as well.  I complimented them on the experiment, but explained it failed to demonstrate the current issue which is the 120PPM increase factor.  I asked them to reconsider setting the experiment back up, bench mark the temperature at 270 PPM of CO2 and then add the 120 PPM CO2 to see if there was any increase in the temperature.  I have yet to hear back from them.  I did that over three months ago.

Again, if you listen to the audio carefully, they claimed in the video that they incremently added CO2 and at no time did the increase in temperature change during the incrementation.

One other thing they failed to bench mark, was what the CO2 content was in the controlled chamber and the other chambers prior to execution of the experiment.

And then like I stated, they didn't show what the incremental temperature would be at an add of 120 PPM.

So again, the only experiment out of the hundreds and thousands that exist, can't demonstrate what the effect of 120 PPM of CO2 actually does.  None, zero, nadda.

One last thing, for me I'd like to see the experiment increment at 10 PPM CO2 upto 120 PPM and see at what level would it affect temperature if it indeed does and if it does does it saturate and level off.  Alas, still no proof.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



There was one thing missing, and that was a CO2 meter to show the actual CO2 content of the boxes.  Do you know what the PPM of CO2 was in the box? Any of the boxes?  We know what they claimed to add to the chamber, but was that what the reading in the box actually was?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Your chart does not say what you claim it says.
> 
> That 120 of the current 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere comes from humans is an established *fact*.



No it isn't...it is an unsubstantiated claim.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The HITRAN database, maintained by those socialists at the US Air Force, catalogs the spectral properties all all atmospheric gases.
> ...



You're right. It was literally hundreds of experiments, as described by the references. There were 19 references for CO2 alone.

And you're going to ignore all of it. That's why you're called deniers, because of the way you auto-deny any data that contradicts your cult's teachings.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



ok,

Name the one that shows 120PPM of added CO2 increases temperature or drives climate.  I certainly ain't going to go through hundreds of experiments.  Since you're so confident it's there, offer the one that shows it.  If not, your response becomes the mumbo jumbo we normally get.

Name the one, don't need anymore than one.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Your chart does not say what you claim it says.
> 
> That 120 of the current 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere comes from humans is an established *fact*.  Feel free to deny it if you wish to continue your perfect run of fundamental science blunders.



Once again the deniers of real science are out to push their religion once again..






Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.


----------



## elektra (Jul 15, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Solar Energy increases the use if hydrocarbons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Yes, there are experiments, but none of them test your "Theory" which is a 120PPM increase in CO2 will end Western Civilization


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yes, there are experiments, but none of them test your "Theory" which is a 120PPM increase in CO2 will end Western Civilization



Frank, why are you so consistently such a dishonest piece of shit?

Nobody holds these positions you claim we hold, yet you still always lie your ass off and say we hold them. Other than getting everyone to agree that you're a pathological liar for your cult, what do you hope to accomplish by lying so loud and so often? And given that you'll just lie your ass off in response to anything anyone says, why should anyone waste time addressing you?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I certainly ain't going to go through hundreds of experiments.



That's your problem. The info is there, so look at it. We're not wasting further time trying to educate those who refuse to be educated.

The world doesn't care about your tantrums or proclamations of victory. Scream, pout, stamp your feet, you're still considered to be kooks. The burden of proof is on you to show why the whole world is wrong and your cult is right. If you can't meet that burden of proof, learn to enjoy the humiliation you'll be experiencing for the rest of your life.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly ain't going to go through hundreds of experiments.
> ...



Yet not one link (from the AGW cult) to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there are experiments, but none of them test your "Theory" which is a 120PPM increase in CO2 will end Western Civilization
> ...









My guess would be because he's not.  The experiment posted, demonstrates the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else.  Take a physics course and learn what the hell they are.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2014)

westwall said:


> The experiment posted, demonstrates the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. Take a physics course and learn what the hell they are.



Westwall seems to be reluctant to do the math, as usual, so, as usual, I'll have to help him out. I'll start by pointing out it's not determined by the Ideal Gas Law. This is the gas compression equation for temperature.






k for air is 1.4

Call T1 300K.

(P2/P1), for adding 120 ppm CO2 -- essentially compressing the air -- will be 1.00012

Running the numbers ... T2 is ... 300.01 K.

That is, a 0.01 degree temperature increase. Briefly. For the CO2 case. For the methane case, it was more like .00015 degree. Yet the experiment showed a sustained temperature increases of around 1 degree.

So, those claiming the Mythbusters experiment just showed heat of compression -- that is, Westwall -- are totally wrong. Which was obvious to those with practical experience at physics. Which excludes almost all deniers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results
> ...



Yeah like 500,000 PPM of CO2 added

Fucking fraud


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2014)

Your "Theory" is 120PPM of CO2 raises temperature 2-8 degrees and lowers pH from 8.25 to 8.15


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there are experiments, but none of them test your "Theory" which is a 120PPM increase in CO2 will end Western Civilization
> ...



I'm not the one passing myself off as a nuclear weapons Officer. I'm asking you Warmers to show us how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature 2-8 degrees and lowers pH.

So far, you haven't.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly ain't going to go through hundreds of experiments.
> ...



Wrong that's your problem.  The challenge that has been in front of you is to provide the evidence to support your claim that 120 PPM of CO2 drives climate.  I'm not going to waste my time if you haven't given yours.  LOL, here thousand links find it.  Sir you remain classless.  I can only perceive you are a fraud and have zero evidence.  Good luck with your future endeavors.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of course there is no actual evidence supporting their claims...if there were, it would be splashed across every thread in 15 point red flashing letters every day...You would not be able to escape it as it would be everywhere all the time....such would be their glee at finally having some real evidence to support their claims.

So long as you get bitter insult, ad hominems, and knee deep bullshit when you ask for some actual evidence to support their claims, you can be quite sure than it doesn't exist...ergo the bitter insult, ad hominems and bullshit.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I clearly understand.  This thread is the verification of what you wrote.  A little link with absolutely no reference to their claim.  They fell right on their face!!!!!  The debate is indeed over, the conclusion is 120 PPM of CO2 cannnot do what is claimed. Neither will 400 PPM.  And it is science they do not understand about the properties of CO2.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2014)

With all the money that is available for AGW propaganda it is odd that a few tens of thousands for a realistic experiment hasmt been spent. The likely reason is that it has been spent buut the outcome was disappointing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 16, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm not the one passing myself off as a nuclear weapons Officer



What is it with deniers and their obsessive love of vet-spitting? So many of them are sitting at home drooling in a bucket all day, saving up their spittle so they can drench the vets at the next Memorial Day parade.

No, they're not all doing it, but not a single one of them has ever had the decency to tell their fellow cultists that such behavior is considered totally unacceptable by ethical society. Moral standards are plainly much lower in the denier cult. Because of their "the ends always justify the means for my side" way of thinking, they're able to auto-justify any sleaze tactic that any cult member uses.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one passing myself off as a nuclear weapons Officer
> ...



Let's be clear: You're the phony vet and member of a Death Worshiping Cult, we're asking you for evidence.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 16, 2014)

We've got 3 proud vet-spitters here, Westwall, Frank and SSDD. It's not a coincidence that those simpering half-men that I've spanked the hardest are the ones who choose to resort to vet-spitting. Perhaps I shouldn't have humiliated them so often, as that seems to have driven them over the edge.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> We've got 3 proud vet-spitters here, Westwall, Frank and SSDD. It's not a coincidence that those simpering half-men that I've spanked the hardest are the ones who choose to resort to vet-spitting. Perhaps I shouldn't have humiliated them so often, as that seems to have driven them over the edge.



Who are you talking to?  Sir, the right out failure to provide the evidence is clear to me that you and yours have conceded.  Have a nice day!


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> We've got 3 proud vet-spitters here, Westwall, Frank and SSDD. It's not a coincidence that those simpering half-men that I've spanked the hardest are the ones who choose to resort to vet-spitting. Perhaps I shouldn't have humiliated them so often, as that seems to have driven them over the edge.









Vet spitter?  The only vet spitter is you who claimed to be one when you clearly are not.  You are a insult to the honorable men and women who have served this country and you should be ashamed of your dishonesty and unethical behavior.

And, regardless of the amount of off topic crap you post to try and derail the thread (since you have had your ass handed to you so completely) the fact remains that every CO2 experiment you have posted is a wonderful Ideal Gas Law demonstration but has NOTHING to do with a supposed warming induced by a 120ppm increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2014)

IanC said:


> With all the money that is available for AGW propaganda it is odd that a few tens of thousands for a realistic experiment hasmt been spent. The likely reason is that it has been spent buut the outcome was disappointing.



Of course...probably done in more than one permutation but as with everything else in climate science...if the observation and the data don't support the failed hypothesis, it is promptly disposed of.  Hell, they have tried to dispose of the entire Roman and Medieval periods of history.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one passing myself off as a nuclear weapons Officer
> ...




If you are a vet, you are a disgrace to whatever unfortunate service you belonged to.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > We've got 3 proud vet-spitters here, Westwall, Frank and SSDD. It's not a coincidence that those simpering half-men that I've spanked the hardest are the ones who choose to resort to vet-spitting. Perhaps I shouldn't have humiliated them so often, as that seems to have driven them over the edge.
> ...


\
Being a vet myself, and the husband of a vet, and the son and grandson of vets and the father of two vets, the idea of someone like mammoth in the service makes my stomach clench a bit.  There have been plenty of disgraces in the service and I suppose mammoth could be one....the idea that she/he was in the service diminishes my pride in having served somewhat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



It's a Progressive thing; they pretend to be Veterans and Republicans


----------



## mamooth (Jul 16, 2014)

westwall said:


> Vet spitter?



It fits in well with your sociopathic personalities. I guess you and Frank and SSDD have to go with what you're good at, so vet-spitting is your thing.



> And, regardless of the amount of off topic crap you post to try and derail the thread



When you locate your balls, you can address what you've been trying so hard to deflect from. I'll start posting it again to help you out.

This is the equation for temperature change of a gas being compressed:






k for air is 1.4

Call T1 300K.

(P2/P1), for adding 120 ppm CO2 -- essentially compressing the air -- will be 1.00012

Running the numbers ... T2 is ... 300.01 K.

That is, a 0.01 degree temperature increase. Briefly, until that bit of heat conducts out. That's for the CO2 case. For the adding 1800 ppb methane case, it was more like .00015 degree. Yet the experiment showed a sustained temperature increases of around 1 degree. Can you explain why the temperature rise in the experiment was vastly greater than what would result from heat of compression?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vet spitter?
> ...



What experiment showed a 1 degree increase??????????????????????????????????


----------



## mamooth (Jul 16, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What experiment showed a 1 degree increase??????????????????????????????????



The Mythbusters experiment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What experiment showed a 1 degree increase??????????????????????????????????
> ...



Really? They never said what they were testing!  I don't know how much CO2 was in each tank. I even called the guy they hired to conduct the test to ask him and he never returned my call or email

Show us on the video where they say there's a 120PPM difference between the 2 tanks


----------



## mamooth (Jul 16, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Really? They never said what they were testing!  I don't know how much CO2 was in each tank. I even called the guy they hired to conduct the test to ask him and he never returned my call or email
> 
> Show us on the video where they say there's a 120PPM difference between the 2 tanks



A valid point, they don't give the concentrations. The video is really only a major problem for greenhouse effect deniers like SSDD and Westwall. Well, I think Westwall, but hard to tell, as he never wants to clearly state any position. Lukewarmers who say the greenhouse effect exists but isn't as strong as advertised shouldn't be bothered by the video.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Really? They never said what they were testing!  I don't know how much CO2 was in each tank. I even called the guy they hired to conduct the test to ask him and he never returned my call or email
> ...



Do you find it odd that you can't locate a single experiment that tests for a 120PPM Increase in CO2?


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Really? They never said what they were testing!  I don't know how much CO2 was in each tank. I even called the guy they hired to conduct the test to ask him and he never returned my call or email
> ...








Lying is so your style.  I have never denied the greenhouse effect.  What I have stated is no climatologist can explain how it effects OUR atmosphere.  They can only point to nearly 200 year old experiments and scream "see greenhouse gas!"  I don't dispute that.

I do dispute the simplistic explanation of how the greenhouse effect operates on this planet.  So far we get stupid Ideal Gas Law demonstrations that show a vessel filled with CO2 will absolutelypositivelyfuckinglootely generate a higher temperature than a similar vessel filled with O2.  Wow...what a breakthrough

Your problem...admiral, is you are a simpleton who knows nothing about science that you can't cut and paste from Wikipedia.... and that is a shame.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> I have never denied the greenhouse effect.



You just cheerlead SSDD when he denies it.



> What I have stated is no climatologist can explain how it effects OUR atmosphere.



A reality-denying claim, but when have you ever been connected to reality?



> So far we get stupid Ideal Gas Law demonstrations that show a vessel filled with CO2 will absolutelypositivelyfuckinglootely generate a higher temperature than a similar vessel filled with O2.  Wow...what a breakthrough.



So you're still implying a compressed gas constantly generates heat. Crazy statements about science just keep falling out of your mouth.

A bright sixth grader does better science than you, because that bright sixth grader at least understands his/her limitations. You don't. You stink at the science, and hilariously fail to realize it.

I think deniers got too many participation trophies as kids, and were told too often that they were precious little snowflakes. It shocks them so badly when people point out that their cult's crazy opinions are actually not every bit as valid as actual science.


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have never denied the greenhouse effect.
> ...








Just give it up admiral.  When you use wiki for your scientific education it just makes you look stupid.


----------



## Crick (Jul 17, 2014)

Westwall,

Do you believe SSDD's interpretations of the ideal gas law and radiative heat transfer to be correct or incorrect?  Several of your fellow deniers have already spoken.  What's your opinion?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have never denied the greenhouse effect.
> ...



Actually what we've asked for and never received is the evidence that 120PPM of CO2 causes a temperature change.  For me, that failure means you don't have one and therefore no evidence to prove your claim. So that makes us _*WINNING!!!!*_


----------



## Crick (Jul 18, 2014)

A liar and a loser.  Good combo.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> A liar and a loser.  Good combo.



We all know that is what you are.  I loved your concession BTW.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 18, 2014)

No one has posted a link to an actual experiment that shows how the temp is effected by rising CO2 nor one that shows the specific rise in CO2 we know has occurred. What we have is a lie put out by people bent on keeping the lie going.

I repeat LINK to the SPECIFIC experiment that proves the point. Or admit you don't have one and are a bald faced liar.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> A liar and a loser.  Good combo.



You should know better than anyone here about that..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 18, 2014)

I keep giving the references. Deniers keep ignoring them. Why should I give them again? After all, you'd all just ignore them again. It's what you do, deny, and it's what defines you.

On the one hand, I am filled with a desire to spread the light of knowledge and rationality. On the other, I'm not going to waste time on those actively hostile to learning, the ones who spit on my gifts. But if someone apologizes on behalf of the deniers for their past behavior, I will reconsider and graciously try to educate you all again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I keep giving the references. Deniers keep ignoring them. Why should I give them again? After all, you'd all just ignore them again. It's what you do, deny, and it's what defines you.
> 
> On the one hand, I am filled with a desire to spread the light of knowledge and rationality. On the other, I'm not going to waste time on those actively hostile to learning, the ones who spit on my gifts. But if someone apologizes on behalf of the deniers for their past behavior, I will reconsider and graciously try to educate you all again.



I missed the experiment that controlled for a 120PPM increase in CO2

Kindly repost it


----------



## Kosh (Jul 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I keep giving the references. Deniers keep ignoring them. Why should I give them again? After all, you'd all just ignore them again. It's what you do, deny, and it's what defines you.
> 
> On the one hand, I am filled with a desire to spread the light of knowledge and rationality. On the other, I'm not going to waste time on those actively hostile to learning, the ones who spit on my gifts. But if someone apologizes on behalf of the deniers for their past behavior, I will reconsider and graciously try to educate you all again.



Also missed the link with the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2014)

Here's the CO2 test


----------



## jc456 (Jul 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I keep giving the references. Deniers keep ignoring them. Why should I give them again? After all, you'd all just ignore them again. It's what you do, deny, and it's what defines you.
> 
> On the one hand, I am filled with a desire to spread the light of knowledge and rationality. On the other, I'm not going to waste time on those actively hostile to learning, the ones who spit on my gifts. But if someone apologizes on behalf of the deniers for their past behavior, I will reconsider and graciously try to educate you all again.



We've already accepted your concession.  Actually what we've asked for and never received is the evidence that 120PPM of CO2 causes a temperature change. For me, that failure means you don't have one and therefore no evidence to prove your claim. So that makes us *WINNING!!!!*


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hello Dr. Scientist, Joe Crackpot here.  Just wanted to impose my negligible scientific understanding upon your experiment...


----------



## Crick (Jul 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I keep giving the references. Deniers keep ignoring them. Why should I give them again? After all, you'd all just ignore them again. It's what you do, deny, and it's what defines you.
> ...



Here, for the FIFTH time, you incredibly stupid, lying piece of flaming dog shit:

Climate Datasets

GCM Source Code


----------



## Kosh (Jul 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



And you keep posting that lie?

Neither one proves that CO2 drives climate.

AS I have pointed out only one person controls that information and he will not release his information. It is the entire foundation of your religion.

Since I know the AGW cult can not post that information I know anything they post is a lie..


----------



## Crick (Jul 18, 2014)

One person?  My god, your stupidity reaches levels never before seen.

If you are going to assume that everything we say is a lie, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to ever speak to you again.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 18, 2014)

*CO2 Experiments posted here *

Ok ... wait ... wait ...ok, I just exhaled about a liter of CO2.


So, when is the IRS going to call me about quarterly CO2 tax filings?

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Yeah. That's exactly how it went

Are you afraid of talking to people?


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, lay it on me brother.  What do you have to say?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> A liar and a loser.  Good combo.



Find a mirror did you?


----------



## Crick (Jul 19, 2014)

Gosh, the last time I heard that one I laughed so hard I kicked a slat out of my crib.

For christ's sake grow up people.  Find us some peer reviewed studies that support your rejection of the greenhouse effect.  Without that, you just haven't got a leg to stand on.  Period.


----------



## IanC (Jul 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> Gosh, the last time I heard that one I laughed so hard I kicked a slat out of my crib.
> 
> For christ's sake grow up people.  Find us some peer reviewed studies that support your rejection of the greenhouse effect.  Without that, you just haven't got a leg to stand on.  Period.





why dont you just come out and say that there are no visual experiments that show warming from a 120ppm CO2 increase? actually I should make that an increase from 280-400 ppm because the first increases from zero CO2 make more of an impact (and further increases from 400 will cause less of course).

it is not a big deal. although it is odd that it hasnt been done. why wouldnt the warmers like to  jam it down the throats of the skeptics? why only fake experiments like Gore/Nye, or misrepresentations like the BBC one?


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 19, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Gosh, the last time I heard that one I laughed so hard I kicked a slat out of my crib.
> ...



You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles.  And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high.  Does that sound practical to ypu?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So which one of those bits of side show slight of hand do you think proves your point?
> ...





Here's an experiment you can try at home!

In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.


----------



## Crick (Jul 19, 2014)

How often, when discussing matters of science or public policy, do you find it necessary to urge your opponents to commit suicide?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles.  And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high.  Does that sound practical to ypu?



We do have the satellite measurements, which do show the outgoing longwave radiation squeezing down in the CO2 absorption band. 

We also have the surface measurements, showing downward longwave radiation increasing.

Those are smoking guns. Nothing except AGW theory explains them. Hence, the deniers here all work hard to pretend such data doesn't exist. It's why they're called deniers.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles.  And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high.  Does that sound practical to ypu?
> ...



Very true.  My point is that most deniers hang their hat on an experiment that can't be done in a lab.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 19, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Just looked him up and called him to ask a few questions and he never returned the call or email.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 19, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Uh huh.

Is that like saying the only way to replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang is with a Time Machine?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 19, 2014)

AGWCult says You can't test for a 120PPM increase in CO2 because you need a container:

a. Bigger than 25 meters
b. the size of the Earth
c. the size of the solar system
d. 25 miles high
e. Denier!!
f. All of the above


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I'm sure that if the Higgs Boson were politicized to the extent that global warming is, Fox News would claim that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 19, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...








^ real science. Can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang






^ Fake science. Can't control for a 120PPM difference in CO2 without asking for a container the size of the Solar System


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, what science can't do is make real world experiments simple enough that lay people can understand them.  They seem to accept that they'll never understand how the Higgs Boson is predicted and then detected but somehow, they expect a simple enough explanation of CO2 concentration that their science fair mentalities can wrap their minds around.


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2014)

I think the term "science fair mentality" is being way too generous


----------



## IanC (Jul 20, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





good grief! what are you guys babbling about now? if anything the size should be kept to a minimum to cut down on convection.

two quartz panes, standardized IR energy source, a recording digital thermometer, air with known amounts of CO2 and H2O. run each variation a half dozen times and plot up your results.

its not a big deal which is why I think it has already been done, with less than spectacular results. if the (400-280=) 120 ppm CO2 increase caused the theoretical logarithmic result of ~0.5C then we could all put that piece of the puzzle away as confirmed, and move on to the next things such as feedbacks and climate sensitivity.


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2014)

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers?  You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it.  We've posted videos of amateurs doing it.  And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:


----------



## IanC (Jul 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers?  You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it.  We've posted videos of amateurs doing it.  And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:





Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 20, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers?  You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it.  We've posted videos of amateurs doing it.  And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:
> ...



One of the characteristics that makes these gasses greenhouse gasses is that they re-radiate IR in all directions.  That they re-radiate half of it downward is what matters most.  Then the albedo of the ground it hits and its specific gravity are what determine the degree of the warming at any given location.

Crick is right, the experiment you describe and the characterizations you seem to think are missing were probably pretty complete by the end of the 50's.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers?  You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it.  We've posted videos of amateurs doing it.  And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:








People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.






The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.


----------



## IanC (Jul 21, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





JoeNormal-  welcome to our sandbox, dont forget to wear your goggles.

GHGs are different from the nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere because they absorb surface IR in significant amounts but all of the gasses emit IR in all directions. Co2 seldom gets the chance to re-emit the same IR photon that it absorbs because it is more likely to 'thermalize' that energy in a molecular collision due to the time(collision) being much smaller than the time(emission). 

water and land are nearly perfect IR emitters/absorbers so I dont understand your albedo remark. likewise I dont understand your specific gravity remark. are you commenting on humid or warmer air being lighter or ????.

as far as the experiment I described....spectography has been studied for a long time but there was no interest in the trivial temperature increase caused by absorbance. now there is interest in that (presumed) increase so an experiment should be run and publicized so that we see whether practical results follow theoretical assumptions. Crick is not right when he asserts that a legitimate and quantified experiment has been posted at USMB. we would have noticed. illegitimate experiments abound. non quantified experiments are also common. the public would like to see an experiment that shows what a 120 ppm CO2 increase does to temperature in the 280-400 range. it would be helpful to also see somewhat larger and smaller increases as well but it makes little sense to show a 100,000 ppm experiment. you cannot reasonably extrapolate downwards from a huge increase but that is the only kind of experiment available at the present time. repeating my style of experiment with 60, 120, 240, 480, 960 ppm CO2 should present evidence of whether it really is logarithmic doubling, the general magnitude of the warming, and inspire ways of refining the experiment. you know...science.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 21, 2014)

IanC said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



My albedo remark refers to the reflectivity of the patch of land or see in question and if what you say about IR absorption is true, I guess we could say the albedo for IR is 0.  The specific gravity remark means the temperature rise you could expect for a given amount of energy that's absorbed.

I think your experiment with such small concentrations in a lab sized container would show very little.  There's not enough CO2 within that space to absorb much of the incident radiation.  That's why I assume concentrations in the experiments were so high (otherwise you'd need the 25 mile container that I mentioned before).

I will say that you seem to know what you're talking about so perhaps I'll revisit my source of knowledge on GG mechanics.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2014)

The Mythbusters video used gas levels equivalent to actual atmospheric values and measured a 1C increase in temperature from 120 ppm added CO2.


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> The Mythbusters video used gas levels equivalent to actual atmospheric values and measured a 1C increase in temperature from 120 ppm added CO2.



they implied that by saying that it was _possible_ to measure small changes. no measurements that I saw. when did they say that the control boxes had 400ppm CO2 and the other one 520? or 280 and 400? perhaps they did have some variation of that but they did not state it and they did not show it. and no one responded to questions asked about the set up which leads me to suspect that the difference was much greater than 120 ppm. why would 120 ppm cause a full degree of warming? there are no atmospheric feedbacks in the boxes are there? more questions than answers Im afraid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> The Mythbusters video used gas levels equivalent to actual atmospheric values and measured a 1C increase in temperature from 120 ppm added CO2.


They never said how much CO2 was in the containers.

I called the scientist who conducted the experiment and he never responded.

I think we should all call the lab he works for to get to the bottom of this


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


CO2 radiates more energy than it receives????


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 22, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Where did I say that?


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers?  You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it.  We've posted videos of amateurs doing it.  And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:
> ...



Everything you need to directly calculate its effect is in that graph and a good ingredients list of the Earth's atmosphere.  Your strategy or tactic or meme of trying to pretend that atmospheric scientists don't actually know what they're talking about is - and always has been - simply foolish.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



You didn't, of course.  I believe the idea originated with SSDD in one of his psychedelic interpretations of basic thermo.  Someone a few posts back said something about AGW requiring that the Earth receive more energy reradiated by its atmosphere than directly from the sun.  That was probably somehow tied into SSDD's unique ideas about radiative heat transfer.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You are kidding right?  The surface of the earth absorbing more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun is the cornerstone of AGW...without it, there is no AGW hypothesis.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2014)

Well, that's excellent.  So do you accept that diagram as accurate?


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

SSDD only acknowledges heatsinks when it is useful for him. 

I don't believe Trenberth's cartoon is absolutely correct but it does point out that the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> Well, that's excellent.  So do you accept that diagram as accurate?



Of course not...it is pure idiocy...it is the basis of the whole AGW scam.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD only acknowledges heatsinks when it is useful for him.
> 
> I don't believe Trenberth's cartoon is absolutely correct but it does point out that the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.



You actually believe that a surface absorbing 161 wm^2 from its primary energy source is radiating 453 wm^2


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> ... the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.



Escapes to where?  The last time I checked, due to that vacuum around the planet, radiation was the only route off.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD only acknowledges heatsinks when it is useful for him.
> ...



And how much is it receiving from the atmosjere??  Heat sink. Only you thinks it would be the same temp without an atmoshere to insulate us.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ... the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.
> ...



As I have told you many times in the past, convection and the water cycle do the heavy lifting to get energy passed the bottleneck close to the surface. Once on the other side of the clouds it has a much easier egress because there is little water and a much lower density. Do you really not understand?


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yes, Ian, I most certainly do understand.  Do YOU understand that getting above the clouds is not "escape"?


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

Until a quantum of energy is on the very edge of the atmosphere, there are countless molecules it must get by to escape and every one of them roughly a 50/50 chance that it'll soon be headed back down.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



That's why I said surface energy. How much radiation gets through to the cloud tops? How much radiation not in the atmospheric window gets through?  About 25W. We are talking about 1/8th of the radiation bouncing through an already saturated portion of the atmosphere. 

This half down scenario that gets people freaked out is still in effect at 300, 200 or even 100 ppm CO2.


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

My point is that energy that's left the surface by convection or evaporation has not escaped, it's simply moved to the atmosphere from which it cannot escape without RADIATING upwards.  What do you think would be the average length of time it takes for a cc of air 1 meter off the ground to attain an altitude of 160,000 meters?  How often does a cc of air make that sort of trip over that span of time without radiating and absorbing a few photons?  Convection is not a major conduit of thermal energy between the surface and space.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> My point is that energy that's left the surface by convection or evaporation has not escaped, it's simply moved to the atmosphere from which it cannot escape without RADIATING upwards.  What do you think would be the average length of time it takes for a cc of air 1 meter off the ground to attain an altitude of 160,000 meters?  How often does a cc of air make that sort of trip over that span of time without radiating and absorbing a few photons?  Convection is not a major conduit of thermal energy between the surface and space.



I must be off my game today because I am having a hard time trying to figure out your point. Are you saying that the surface is warming predominantly because of what is happening on the other side of the clouds?

could you give me something more to work with other than the trivially true statement that the only way energy escapes earth is by radiation. or that the outer levels of the atmosphere are not driven by convection like the troposphere?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



If it didn't hit the CO2 molecule 100% would have hit the surface, so unless CO2 amplifies the energy receives, how can "re-radiate half of it downward" make a bit of difference????????


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

IanC said:


> And how much is it receiving from the atmosjere??  Heat sink. Only you thinks it would be the same temp without an atmoshere to insulate us.



Except in rare instances  of inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface....it is receiving none.

I don't think it would be the same temperature without an atmosphere...you luke warmers are as willing to lie about what your opponents say as the full blown warmer wackos like crick and rocks, and mammoth.  The greenhouse hypothesis gets the temperature of the moon wrong when it receives essentially the same amount of energy as the earth per square meter.  The greenhouse hypothesis is a crock....it was proven incorrect shortly after it was first described....and any hypothesis describing energy movement within an atmosphere which can only describe the temperature of one planet in a solar system and only do that with constant adjustment is not a hypothesis to be taken seriously.


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Most of the spectrum of sunlight is a much smaller wavelength than CO2 absorbs so it has no problem getting past it on the way down.  The Earth is a blackbody radiator in the IR range so some of what it radiates is absorbed by the CO2 and half of THAT gets re-radiated back down.

I'm going on vacation so you'll have to get your science lessons from Crick for a while.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Yo, curious, does the CO2 molecule ever saturate?

And if it saturates, how can it continue to absorb? at some point the molecule has to saturate.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Another way of stating that is that the net heat flow is always up towards space. The IR from CO2 that REDUCES the heat loss is only the "1/2" aimed at the surface. That amount subtracts from the BlackBody surface radiation in the same wavelengths that is leaving the surface.. 

Doesn't add a wit of heat.. It merely reduces the cooling rate..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2014)

When can I present my DIY CO2 at Home experiment involving 20 cans of beer, duct tape,  and a ceiling fan?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Which can't cause warming...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Of course it contributes to warming if you reduce the predominant path for heat flow AWAY from the object. It's called thermal resistance or insulation.. Changes the steady state equilibrium -- everything else kept the same.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No amount of insulation can cause warming...if you want warming...you need more energy and you can't get it from the cooler atmosphere.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So...... The pink panther is lying about R45 keeping your home warmer than R30 with the same HVAC system eh ???  Never trust a pink animal.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What is the R value of CO2?  Can you quantify the greenhouse effect?  Is the atmosphere like that pink stuff I see up in my attic?   And finally, if I put that pink stuff in my home and turn off the heat, will it provide the energy necessary to keep my home warm or will my house simply cool a bit more slowly?

And for all your belief in the power of CO2 and such, where is the warming?  Why the pause?  CO2 has increased steadily over the past 2 decades, and we know that the route of energy in the system hasn't suddenly detoured to the deep oceans...no warming, no tropospheric  hot spot...no none of the things the greenhouse hypothesis in conjunction with the AGW hypothesis predict.  Both hypotheses are failures being kept alive by all the money politics can throw at them.  Isn't it about time that science started actually investigating the climate and what really drives it...where the energy goes...etc. etc. etc.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Again, not that I'm knowledgeable about this whole thing, it was always my assumption that the R value was to keep the cool out of the house to keep from having to cycle your furnace and waste energy.  I didn't know insulation absorbed heat.  

Again, not that I'm knowledgeable, but it would seem to me that if CO2 absorbs the infrared rays eventually saturating, the more CO2 only lowers the presence of CO2 in the upper atmosphere.  And that it holds out the cold temperatures from space from coming in rather than providing heat back downwards.  Perhaps it keeps us warmer longer in a day, but it offers no actual warming toward the surface.  Once the sunny part of day is completed, the night will cool down, and only stay warmer if a cloud deck is present.  That's why, IMO. It was 90 degrees during the day the other day and after the sun set our temperatures ended up down in the 60s.  So CO2 did not add any warmth.  And because it is saturated, continued to keep the cool of space at bay and the surface heat was like you said, held in.

For what it's worth from me and where my thoughts are.


----------



## MomofOne (Jul 25, 2014)

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



I believe so, yes.  Or let's put it this way, it contributed to the increase number of hydrocarbons produced.


----------



## Crick (Jul 26, 2014)

MomofOne said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Let's see the data


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> MomofOne said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...








^ 500,000 year data set showing increase in temperature causing increase in CO2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Opsies.

Looks like its 73,480PPM


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 26, 2014)

All we know for certain is that there has never been a single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature.

All the experiments that show an increase in temperature are due from additional air pressure


----------



## Crick (Jul 27, 2014)

You know that?  You do?  Then, the records must be absolutely FILLED with attempts to show such warming that have failed.

SHOW US ONE.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> You know that?  You do?  Then, the records must be absolutely FILLED with attempts to show such warming that have failed.
> 
> SHOW US ONE.




Problem is that AGW believers go to extreme measures to hide information that doesn't support the hoax.   All of the experiments thus far posted are certainly examples of failed attempts to support the hypothesis.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Claiming that you can't provide any evidence because those with whom you disagree have hidden the evidence is about as pathetic as you can get.  We've been told on numerous occasions that the "real science" supports your position.  WHAT real science?  The work of Pielke Sr?  Spencer?  Soon & Bailunas?  If, as you contend, there is no scientific evidence available supporting your claim, *ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR OPINION?*


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> You know that?  You do?  Then, the records must be absolutely FILLED with attempts to show such warming that have failed.
> 
> SHOW US ONE.








Every youtube "experiment" you post is a failed AGW experiment silly boy.  BTW, why did you remove your siggie?  You know .....the one where you want to murder all of the "deniers".....  Seems to be a pattern with you fraudsters.  You can't present scientific evidence to support your opinions so you murder anyone who is against you...  Now where else have we seen that done

Just wondering.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> You know that?  You do?  Then, the records must be absolutely FILLED with attempts to show such warming that have failed.
> 
> SHOW US ONE.





westwall said:


> Every youtube "experiment" you post is a failed AGW experiment silly boy.



Hardly.  



westwall said:


> BTW, why did you remove your siggie?  You know .....the one where you want to murder all of the "deniers"



My siggie?  That's SSDD's and as of this writing he's still sporting it.  A good indication of the outright hypocrisy demonstrated at Deniers demonstrate their hypocrisy#post9523747



westwall said:


> Seems to be a pattern with you fraudsters.  You can't present scientific evidence to support your opinions so you murder anyone who is against you...



I have posted links to many times the number of peer reviewed studies as have you.  So has mamooth.



westwall said:


> Now where else have we seen that done
> 
> Just wondering.



You've seen it done by a significant number of your denier buddies right here, as noted at Click this link to see Westwall demonstrate his own hypocrisy#post9523747


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You know that?  You do?  Then, the records must be absolutely FILLED with attempts to show such warming that have failed.
> ...









  What exactly does that show other than you want to murder people and we don't?  You're not helping yourself jackass, you're just digging your hole deeper.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

BTW: is this the result of a failed experiment:


----------



## mamooth (Jul 28, 2014)

From the grave, Stalin smiles at his star pupil Westwall. Stalin especially appreciates the way the Westwall wants scientists imprisoned if they go against TheParty. Not just scientists, of course, as Westwall desires gulags filled with liberals and other EnemiesOfTheState, all so sorely in need of forced re-education.

Westwall also craves a huge body count. Primarily brown people, but that goes along with the sick racism that has historically defined Westwall's type of authoritarianism. Let's give a few examples.

Try DDT. Westwall is furious at Rachel Carlson for saving millions of lives from malaria by way of DDT restrictions. The world correctly praises her, but Westwall rages that Carson shouldn't have saved them, since it deprived his death-cult of the blood sacrifice it constantly demands.

His more current strategy to increase the body count would be to maximize the amount of global warming. The body count he'll get that way will start slow, but it will eventually ramp up to match that of his DearLeaderStalin.

Remember, don't just laugh at deniers; look at history and understand the danger to humanity that some of them represent.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Deniers demonstrate their hypocrisy#post9523747



westwall said:


> What exactly does that show other than you want to murder people and we don't?  You're not helping yourself jackass, you're just digging your hole deeper.




You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.  Short term memory loss perhaps.  The quotes at that link are ALL from deniers suggesting the deaths of people concerned about AGW including two quotes from YOU.  What I've demonstrated -no, let me correct that - what *YOU* have demonstrated, is that it is the DENIER side of this argument that would rather murder its opponents than take them on in honest debate and that you are as hypocritical on the point as any of them.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> From the grave, Stalin smiles at his star pupil Westwall. Stalin especially appreciates the way the Westwall wants scientists imprisoned if they go against TheParty. Not just scientists, of course, as Westwall desires gulags filled with liberals and other EnemiesOfTheState, all so sorely in need of forced re-education.
> 
> Westwall also craves a huge body count. Primarily brown people, but that goes along with the sick racism that has historically defined Westwall's type of authoritarianism. Let's give a few examples.
> 
> ...










Stalin is actually patting you on the head there admiral....funny you claim that Carlson has saved all those people and yet DDT would have saved at least 60 million from dying of malaria.  Your propaganda needs work silly boy.  

You're failing at your job for your masters.  They are very displeased with you.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Deniers demonstrate their hypocrisy#post9523747
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Now you're simply lying.  I have never called for the death of anyone.  Legally tried and if found guilty sent to prison, but never incarcerated for no reason and certainly not murdering anyone.  That is you clowns.  

You had best go back and check your source material there cricky, you seem to be altering quotations and that is a violation of Board rules.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

It's Carson gentlemen.

The ban on DDT saved the lives of innumerable instar of species at the top of their respective food chains (like humans).

Found this looking for Carson info:

_     Robert White-Stevens, the American Cyanamid scientist who had already been speaking on Silent Spring around the country, also appeared on camera during the &#8220;CBS Reports&#8221; show.  He was interviewed in a laboratory setting, in white lab coat surrounded by beakers and other lab equipment.  &#8220;When pesticides, registered pesticides, are used in accordance with label instructions and recommendations, then there is no danger to either man or to animals and wildlife,&#8221; he stated at one point.  Of Carson and her book he said: &#8220;The major claims in Miss Rachel Carson&#8217;s book, Silent Spring, are gross distortions of the actual facts, completely unsupported by scientific experimental evidence and general practical experience in the field.  If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the Earth.&#8221;  In the telecast, with Carson and White-Stevens cast as the primary focal points, Carson came across as the more rational messenger, and certainly not the &#8220;hysterical woman&#8221; she was portrayed to be by some of her critics.  The show was seen by 10-to-15 million TV viewers, and was especially important for those who had not read the book or had little knowledge of the pesticide issue._

Sound familiar?


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Very thorough link about Rachel Carson, her work and her books at The Pop History Dig » DDT 1950s


----------



## mamooth (Jul 28, 2014)

westwall said:


> Stalin is actually patting you on the head there admiral....funny you claim that Carlson has saved all those people and yet DDT would have saved at least 60 million from dying of malaria.  Your propaganda needs work silly boy.
> 
> You're failing at your job for your masters.  They are very displeased with you.



Predictably, you choose to fabricate some insane numbers. 

If you're not just regurgitating idiot propaganda, show us your calculations, how you got your crazy 60 million figure. But everyone here already knows know you won't. You're going into evade mode now, like you do every time I catch you parroting your cult's nonsense dogma. On the bright side, at least you've got consistency going for you.

And there is an easy way you can show you're not a Stalinist. Simply announce that Republicans were morally wrong to demand a prosecution of Dr. Mann. If you won't do so, it will be a clear confirmation of your heir-of-Stalin status, as sending scientists to kangaroo courts is textbook Stalinism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> BTW: is this the result of a failed experiment:


....and the experiment that shows the temperature increase from a 120ppm increase in CO2...where do we find that???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> From the grave, Stalin smiles at his star pupil Westwall. Stalin especially appreciates the way the Westwall wants scientists imprisoned if they go against TheParty. Not just scientists, of course, as Westwall desires gulags filled with liberals and other EnemiesOfTheState, all so sorely in need of forced re-education.
> 
> Westwall also craves a huge body count. Primarily brown people, but that goes along with the sick racism that has historically defined Westwall's type of authoritarianism. Let's give a few examples.
> 
> ...


There's something seriously wrong with you. You're totally fucked in the head.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> BTW: is this the result of a failed experiment:



Definitely failed.  CO2 absorbs at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers..look at where CO2 is shown on your chart.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Claiming that you can't provide any evidence because those with whom you disagree have hidden the evidence is about as pathetic as you can get.  We've been told on numerous occasions that the "real science" supports your position.  WHAT real science?  The work of Pielke Sr?  Spencer?  Soon & Bailunas?  If, as you contend, there is no scientific evidence available supporting your claim, *ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR OPINION?*



What's pathetic is spending millions of public dollars in the effort to keep the information hidden.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> From the grave, Stalin smiles at his star pupil Westwall. Stalin especially appreciates the way the Westwall wants scientists imprisoned if they go against TheParty. Not just scientists, of course, as Westwall desires gulags filled with liberals and other EnemiesOfTheState, all so sorely in need of forced re-education.
> 
> Westwall also craves a huge body count. Primarily brown people, but that goes along with the sick racism that has historically defined Westwall's type of authoritarianism. Let's give a few examples.
> 
> ...



Project much?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> It's Carson gentlemen.
> 
> The ban on DDT saved the lives of innumerable instar of species at the top of their respective food chains (like humans).
> 
> ...



You guys will believe anything, won't you.  You are the perfect dupes.


Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921  25 years before widespread use of DDT. [Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs. [Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues.


Data from Krantz, WC. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 4(3):136-140.
State	Thickness (mm)	DDE residue (ppm)
Florida	0.50	About 10
Maine	0.53	About 22
Wisconsin	0.55	About 4


U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970). [U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs. [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Wildlife authorities attributed bald eagle population reductions to a widespread loss of suitable habitat, but noted that illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles. [Anon.. 1978. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Tech Bull 3:8-9]

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]
Don't give me the crap that you care anything about the animals or environment, you 'Conservatives' have too many times said the hell with both in order for a rich man to make even more money.[/QUOTE]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists linked high intake of mercury from contaminated fish with eagle reproductive problems. [Spann, JW, RG Heath, JF Kreitzer, LN Locke. 1972. (Lethal and reproductive effects of mercury on birds) Science 175:328- 331]

The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years. [Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre-DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

Peregrine falcons were deemed undesirable in the early 20th century. Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred to them as birds that deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account. [Hornaday, WT. 1913. Our Vanishing Wild Life. New York Zoological Society, p. 226]

he 1950&#8242;s and 1960&#8242;s saw continuing harassment trapping brooding birds in their nests, removing fat samples for analysis and operating time-lapse cameras beside the nests for extended periods of time), predation and habitat destruction. [Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Statement before Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, March 16, 1972; Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada). Condor 70:149-153; Enderson, JH.. 1972. (Time lapse photography in peregrine nests) Living Bird 11: 113- 128; Risebrough, RW. 1970. (Organochlorines in peregrines and merlins migrating through Wisconsin). Canadian Field-Naturalist 84:247-253]

During the 1960&#8242;s, peregrines in northern Canada were reproducing normally, even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals. [Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada) Condor 70:170-178]

There was no decline in peregrine falcon pairs in Canada and Alaska between 1950 and 1967 despite the presence of DDT and DDE. [Fyfe, RW. 1959. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 101-114; and Fyfe, RW. 1968. Auk 85: 383-384]

The peregrine with the very highest DDT residue (2,435 parts per million) was found feeding three healthy young. [Enderson, JH. 1968. (Pesticide residues in Alaska and Yukon Territory) Auk 85: 683]

The decline in British peregrine falcons ended by 1966, though DDT was as abundant as ever. The Federal Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded There is no close correlation between the declines in populations of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT. [Wilson report. 1969. Review of Organochlorine pesticides in Britain. Report by the Advisory Committee on toxic chemicals. Department of Education and Science]

Peregrine falcon and sparrow hawk egg shells thinned in Britain prior to the use of DDT. [Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210; Redcliff, DH. 1970 J Applied Biology 7:67; and Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210]

In congressional testimony, Charles Wurster, a biologist for the Environmental Defense Fund, noted the abundance of birds during the DDT years, referring to increasing numbers of pheasants, quail, doves, turkeys and other game species. [Wurster, C.F. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969]

The Audubon Societys annual bird census in 1960 reported that at least 26 kinds of birds became more numerous during 1941  1960. [See Anon. 1942. The 42nd annual Christmas bird census." Audubon Magazine 44;1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942), and Cruicjshank, AD (editor) 1961. The 61st annual Christmas bird census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2); 84-300]

Great increases inmost kinds of hawks during the DDT years were reported by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association (Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania). [Taylor, JW. Summaries of Hawk Mountain migrations of raptors, 1934 to 1970. In Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Newsletters]

National forest studies from Wisconsin and Michigan reported an increase in nesting osprey productivity from 11 young in 1965 to 74 young in 1970. [U.S. Forest Service, Milwaukee. 1970. Annual report on osprey status in national forests in Wisconsin and Michigan]

A study of fish-eaters at Funk Island (on the North Atlantic coast) reported that, despite diets contaminated with DDT, gannet and murres pairs increased by 1,500 percent and 10,000 percent from 1945 to the early 1970s. [Bruemmer, F. 1971. Animals Magazine, p.555, April]

Gas chromatography detected DDT in samples of wildlife and soil collected before DDT was even produced. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 ("Many reports relating reproductive declines of wild birds (and body stores in those birds) to DDT and DDE were based on analytical procedures that did not distinguish between DDT and PCBs."); Sherman, RW. 1973. Artifacts and mimics of DDT and other insecticides. J New York Entomol Soc 81:152-163 (Robin collected in 1938); Coon, FB. 1966. Electron capture gas chromatograph analyses of selected samples of authentic pre-DDT origin. Presented at the Conference of American Chemical Society in New York (Gibbon collected in 1935); Frazier, BE et al. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring J 4:67-70, 1970 (Soil collected in 1911); Bowman, MC et al. 1965. J Econ Entomology 58: 896-902 (Soil collected in 1940); Hom, W. 1974. Science 184:1197-1199 (1930-vintage Santa Barbara basin sediment)]

DDT was mistaken for other organochlorines. [Glotfelty, DE.. 1970. Anal Chem 42:82-84 (Misidentifications of DDT resulted from interference by "pigment-related natural products in photosynthesic tissues."); Hylin, JW. 1969. Residue Reviews 26:127 ("Organochlorine compounds in plants can cause interference in residue analyses "); Sims, JJ. 1977. Press release, June 15, 1977 (Certain marine algae produce halogen compounds that are detected by gas chromatography and may be misidentified as DDT metabolites);George JL and DEH Frear. 1966. Pesticides in the Antarctic. J Appld Ecology 3 (suppl): 155-167 (Antarctic samples of fish and birds widely touted as containing DDT residues likely contained PCBs instead that leached from the plastic containers they were stored in for 6 months prior to analysis)]

And I could go on and on and on....as usual, the facts, and observation don't match your story.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > From the grave, Stalin smiles at his star pupil Westwall. Stalin especially appreciates the way the Westwall wants scientists imprisoned if they go against TheParty. Not just scientists, of course, as Westwall desires gulags filled with liberals and other EnemiesOfTheState, all so sorely in need of forced re-education.
> ...



We already knew that.  The claim of being ex military is an attempt to gain some self respect by associating herself with a respectable organization.  She doesn't understand that the association only degrades the military....if she actually was in the military, she is a disgrace to an honorable organization.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 29, 2014)

SSDD, you're plagiarizing by not giving your source. You're lying by pretending you read those studies, being you haven't looked at a single one. You don't even know if they exist. You just did a cut-and-paste of a load of crap from a blog. If we looked it all up, we'd find much of it is misrepresented by your liars' cult, and the rest is a big ol' cherrypicking fallacy. The world thinks your science is cult nonsense, because it is cult nonsense. And in response ... you'll tell us IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

Turn your brain on, and lose your patronizing racist assumption that tropical nations are just stupid brown people who are being duped by white liberals. Brown people do science too, they know that your science is crap and would kill millions of their citizens, so they reject it.

That's why I have to oppose you. Your crank opinions are not harmless. They would kill millions, ravage the economy, ravage the ecology. Any decent human being is morally obligated to point out your depravity and oppose the genocide you'd initiate. With the best of intentions, of course, but that doesn't make your victims any less dead.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD, you're plagiarizing by not giving your source.



The sources are the studies themselves...Which one do you think doesn't exist? You get crazier all the time fur ball...defending crick when he suggests killing off deniers...asking for sources to papers themselves...how much nuttier can you get?


----------



## Crick (Jul 29, 2014)

Embryonic exposure to o,p&#8242;-DDT causes eggshell thinning and altered shell gland carbonic anhydrase expression in the domestic hen

DDT-Induced Inhibition of Avian Shell Gland Carbonic Anhydrase: A Mechanism for Thin Eggshells

DDE Induced Eggshell Thinning in the American Kestrel: A Comparison of the Field Situation and Laboratory Reslts

DDE-induced eggshell thinning in birds: Effects of p,p&#8242;-DDE on the calcium and prostaglandin metabolism of the eggshell gland

Eggshell thinning as influenced by method of DDT exposure

p,p'-DDT: Effect on Calcium Metabolism and Concentration of Estradiol in the Blood


And there's a great deal more where these came from:


Google: Scholarly articles on DDT and Eggshell Thinning


And none that I saw gave your contentions the slightest support.


----------



## Crick (Jul 29, 2014)

I bet the scientists involved in all of these studies made up these data and lied because they knew there was a great deal of grant money out there on any topic that would denigrate and discredit the chemical industry, the former captains of American capitalism.  Right?


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD, you're plagiarizing by not giving your source. You're lying by pretending you read those studies, being you haven't looked at a single one. You don't even know if they exist. You just did a cut-and-paste of a load of crap from a blog. If we looked it all up, we'd find much of it is misrepresented by your liars' cult, and the rest is a big ol' cherrypicking fallacy. The world thinks your science is cult nonsense, because it is cult nonsense. And in response ... you'll tell us IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
> 
> Turn your brain on, and lose your patronizing racist assumption that tropical nations are just stupid brown people who are being duped by white liberals. Brown people do science too, they know that your science is crap and would kill millions of their citizens, so they reject it.
> 
> That's why I have to oppose you. Your crank opinions are not harmless. They would kill millions, ravage the economy, ravage the ecology. Any decent human being is morally obligated to point out your depravity and oppose the genocide you'd initiate. With the best of intentions, of course, but that doesn't make your victims any less dead.








He gave the source moron.  "Nucular (sic) Watch Officer"....what a joke...


----------



## Kosh (Jul 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Embryonic exposure to o,p&#8242;-DDT causes eggshell thinning and altered shell gland carbonic anhydrase expression in the domestic hen
> 
> DDT-Induced Inhibition of Avian Shell Gland Carbonic Anhydrase: A Mechanism for Thin Eggshells
> 
> ...



Google is definitely not your friend.

Do you even read the links you post or just read titles that fit certain keywords that fits your AGW cult narrative?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Embryonic exposure to o,p&#8242;-DDT causes eggshell thinning and altered shell gland carbonic anhydrase expression in the domestic hen
> 
> DDT-Induced Inhibition of Avian Shell Gland Carbonic Anhydrase: A Mechanism for Thin Eggshells
> 
> ...



 Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate. [Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning.")]


Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild. [Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]


Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its
metabolites)]

 Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)]


Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]


Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]


Oil has been associated with egg shell thinning. [Anon. National Wildlife Federation, Conservation News, pp. 6-10, October 15 1979. (Embryonic mortality from oil on feathers of adults birds) ; Hartung, R. 1965. J Wildlife Management 29:872-874 (Oil on eggs reduces hatch ability by 68 percent); Libby, EE. 1978. Fish, wildlife and oil. Ecolibrium 2(4):7-10; King,
KA et al. 1979 Bull Environ Contam Tox 23:800-805 (Oil a probably cause of pelican mortality for six weeks after spill);Albers, PH. 1977. Fate and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine Ecosystems, Pergamon Press, N.Y. (Chapters 15 & 16; Dieter, MP. 1977. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program Report, pp. 35-42 (5 microliters of oil on fertile egg kills 76 to 98 percent of embryos within; birds ingesting oil produce 70 percent to 100 percent less eggs than normal; offspring failed to develop normal flight feathers); Szaro, RC. 1977. Proc 42nd N Amer Wildlife Nat Resources Conference, pp. 375-376]

 Lead has been associated with egg shell thinning. [Bellrose, RC. 1959. Ill Nat Hist Survey Bull 27:235-288 (Lead poisoning in wildlife)]


Mercury has been associated with egg shell thinning. [D'Itri, FM & PB Trost. 1970. International Conference on Mercury Contamination, Ann Arbor, September 30, 1070; Scott, JL et al. 1975. Effects of PCBs, DDT and mercury upon egg production, hatch ability and shell quality. Poultry Sci 54:3350-368; Stoewssand, GS et al.. 1971. Shell- thinning in quail fed mercuric
chloride. Science 173:1030-1031; Tucker, RK. 1971. Utah Science June 1971:47-49 (Effects of many chemicals on shell thickness).; Tucker, RK & HA Haegle. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5:191-194]

Stress from noise, fear or excitement and disease are associated with egg shell thinning. [Scott, HM et al.. 1944. (Physiological stress thins shells) Poultry Science 23:446-453; Draper, MH & PE Lake. 1967. Effects of stress and defensive responses. In Environmental Control in Poultry Production, Oliver and Boyd, London; Reid, BL. 1971. (Effects of stress on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971; Sykes, AH. 1955 (Adrenaline excess inhibits shell formation) Poultry Science 34: 622-628]

Older birds produce thinner shells. [Sunde, ML. 1971 (Older birds produce thinner shells) Farm Technology, Fall 1971]

Normal egg shells become 5 percent thinner as developing embryos withdraw calcium for bone development. [Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1967. Biochemistry of the Avian Embryo, Wiley & Sons, N.Y.; Simkiss, K. 1967. (Shells thinned by embryo development within) In Calcium in Reproductive Physiology, Reinhold, NY, pp 198-213]

Larger birds tend to produce thicker-shelled eggs. [Asmundson, VS et al. 1943. (Relations between the parts of birds' eggs) Auk 60:34-44]

Dehydration is associated with thinner egg shells. [Tucker, RK and HA Haegle. 1970. (30 percent thinner shells formed after quail were kept from water for 36 hours) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 5(3): 191-194]

Temperature extremes are associated with thinner egg shells. [Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff, 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons]

Decreased illumination is associated with thinner egg shells. [Peakall, DB. 1970. (Shells not thinned even after illumination was abruptly reduced from 16 hours daily to 8 hours daily and high DDT dosage begun simultaneously) Science 168:592-594; Day, EJ. 1971. (Importance of even illumination on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971;Houser, EJ. 1962. Pacific
Poultryman, August 1962; Morris, TR et al. 1964. (The most critical area of light duration is that between 16 hours and 8 hours daily) British Poultry Science 5: 133-147; Ward, P. 1972 (Physiological importance of photo period in bird experiments) Ibis 114: 275]

Human and predator intrusion is associated with thinner egg shells. [Beatty, RG. 1973. The DDT Myth, John Day Co., N.Y. 201 pages; Anon. 1971. Hawk Chalk 10(3):47-57; Cade, TJ. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. Univ Calif Publ Zool 63(3): 151-290]

*Simple restraint interferes with the transport of calcium throughout the body of birds, preventing adequate calcium from reaching the shell gland and forming
good shells. [Sykes, AH. 1955. Poultry Science 34:622-628]*

hosphorus deficiency is associated with thinner shells. [Crowley, TA et al. 1963. Poultry Science 54: 350-368]

 Calcium deficiency is associated with thinner shells.[Greely, F.. 196 (Effects of calcium deficiency) J Wildlife Management 70:149-153; Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons; Scott, ML. 1975. Poultry Science 54:350-368; Taylor, TG. 1970. How and eggshell is formed. Scientific American 222:89-95; Tucker, RK and HA Tucker. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5(3):1191-194]

Egg shell deficiencies were attributed to DDT and DDE by U.S. Fish and Wildlife researchers even though the birds had been placed on low-calcium diets. [Bitman, J et al. 1969. Nature 224: 44-46; Bitman, J et al. 1970. Science 594-595.]

Cutting illumination from 16 hours daily to 8 hours daily at the same time as DDT feeding began had no significant adverse effect on shell quality. Shell quality was only adversely impacted after large amounts of DDE were injected into birds. [Peakall, DB. 1970. Science 168:592-594]

 DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet. [Porter, RD and SN Wiemeyer. 1969. Science 165: 199-200]

No significant correlation between DDE and egg shell thinning in Canadian terns even though the eggs contained as much as 100 parts per million of DDE. [Switzer, BG et al. 1971. Can J Zool 49:69-73]


----------



## mamooth (Jul 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The sources are the studies themselves.



In that case, let me present some of my references.

The Audobon Society in 1978 reported that SSDD likes to bite the heads off birds and cackle as he drinks the blood.

The Spartacus Youth League in 1997 gave SSDD an award for being most promising Stalinist protege of the year.

Heckyl and Jeckyl 2011 reported that that SSDD was stockpiling nefarious substances in preparation for a mass genocide attack. 

No, I don't need to back up any of those references. SSDD and Westwall have set a new standard. If you write something, everyone must accept it as a valid source.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> I bet the scientists involved in all of these studies made up these data and lied because they knew there was a great deal of grant money out there on any topic that would denigrate and discredit the chemical industry, the former captains of American capitalism.  Right?


Correct. The environmental movement is pure Marxism


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2014)

Roger wilco


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Solar in 30 years will make up at least 20% of the worlds energy needs.



at several times the labor intensity


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2014)

Please explain


----------



## Kosh (Jul 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Please explain



Yes Mathew explain how you came up with your numbers..


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2014)

You really ought to stay out of conversations to which you don't belong.  The odds of you having anything of value to add are slim to none.

The query was to Jon Berserk to explain why he thought solar power required additional labor over other energy technologies.  And, of course, he has made no attempt in several days to provide an answer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> You really ought to stay out of conversations to which you don't belong.  The odds of you having anything of value to add are slim to none.
> 
> The query was to Jon Berserk to explain why he thought solar power required additional labor over other energy technologies.  And, of course, he has made no attempt in several days to provide an answer.



How much do we have to reduce CO2 in order to drop temperature .5 degrees?


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2014)

0.5 degrees from where?

The obvious target is to get it back to 280 ppm.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> 0.5 degrees from where?
> 
> The obvious target is to get it back to 280 ppm.



To achieve what goal?


----------



## Crick (Aug 4, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 0.5 degrees from where?
> ...



To eliminate all the warming caused by human emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  And when I asked "0.5 degrees from where?" I meant, 0.5 degrees less than what temperature at what point in time?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



What warming caused by humans?  Where is that experiment that shows we do anything to the temperatures?  Been asking you for some time now.  Yet here you are still making the comments again without any evidence.  Maybe you should go back and read that response from the other post about a holes and changing.  You're funny though, but lack any qualification to make such statements, so that makes you a liar.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> You really ought to stay out of conversations to which you don't belong.  The odds of you having anything of value to add are slim to none.
> 
> The query was to Jon Berserk to explain why he thought solar power required additional labor over other energy technologies.  And, of course, he has made no attempt in several days to provide an answer.



Don't like it, then you are free to go to another board or not post here at all.

Not your board!

And you have ever offered anything other than lies based on a religion.

Got that link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drive climate?


----------



## Kosh (Aug 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



So you have nothing to offer other than your inability to answer a question using the AGW religious dogma.

Got any real science you would like to share?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



This is simply hilarious right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2014)

So, 120 PPM causes a .5 degree increase and/or decrease?

Based on what...Peer reviewed Consensus of Mann's tree rings?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> The pair of you could easily have been cast for Dumb and Dumberer To.  WTF do you THINK the goal of reduced GHG emissions would be besides reduced GHG levels in our atmosphere?  And since you fail to answer my request for clarification, I will conclude as I suspected when you asked that you never actually had any desire to know anything.



So technically and simply put, you have no answer right?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2014)

*JC456 and KOSH*

*How are these data measured?*






*What do these data tell you will happen to sunshine entering the Earth's atmosphere?*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> *JC456 and KOSH*
> 
> *How are these data measured?*
> 
> ...



I'll tell you what, you answer my question first, then let's address your graph. 

What is the temperature at 120 PPM of CO2 and 280 PPM?  What if you increase it by 10 PPM or 40 PPM what is that increase?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Your question is meaningless and you lack the intellect or the training to understand the explanation.  It has something to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics.  The simple version is that you're an ignorant jackass and every time I've tried to actually explain to you what goes on in the world, I get exactly the same results were I to refuse to give you the sweat off my ass.



I didn't ask you to explain jack to me.  I asked you to supply the expirement that shows 120PPM of CO2 actually increases temperature.  You failed.  That's on you sir.

BTW, I don't think me asking you a question deserves the potty mouth replies.  You show you have issues, and that means your inability to provide factual information is finally bothering you.........*Winning*


----------



## Kosh (Aug 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> *JC456 and KOSH*
> 
> *How are these data measured?*
> 
> ...



A bunk chart that proves what?

That you and your religion are wrong?

Do you even understand what you posted?


----------



## Kosh (Aug 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Your question is meaningless and you lack the intellect or the training to understand the explanation.  It has something to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics.  The simple version is that you're an ignorant jackass and every time I've tried to actually explain to you what goes on in the world, I get exactly the same results were I to refuse to give you the sweat off my ass.



Once again the AGW religious scriptures trump real science.

Another loss for those that hate real science. More proof that the AGW religion hates real science and will do all they can to squash it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your question is meaningless and you lack the intellect or the training to understand the explanation.  It has something to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics.  The simple version is that you're an ignorant jackass and every time I've tried to actually explain to you what goes on in the world, I get exactly the same results were I to refuse to give you the sweat off my ass.
> ...



And cry about not having the proof.


----------



## IanC (Aug 11, 2014)

WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me. 

It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2014)

IanC said:


> WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.
> 
> It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.



According to the paper, Nyes experiment

demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> *JC456 and KOSH*
> 
> *How are these data measured?*
> 
> ...



Um, it's sunny?

Focus, McFly, Focus!  Where's the experiment at varying 10PPM increments of CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 11, 2014)

[MENTION=48966]Crick[/MENTION]

Find the pattern

180, 220, 260, 300, 340, 380, 420

(I think it's a linear pattern too....)


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2014)

IanC said:


> WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.
> 
> It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.




Not only gore/nye but all of that "green house in a jar sort of experiment"...They are demonstrating an entirely different sett of physics than the hypothetical greenhouse effect....as a control, the scientists used argon (roughly same density as CO2 but invisible to IR) and the argon heated up more than the CO2.

The experiments are bogus....including the myth busters experiment.

As an interesting sidebar...the IR lamps that people typically use in these experiments have an output of about 1000K and radiate at a wavelength of about 3 microns....  So you have an IR source radiating at 10,000 times the radiance of earth and thousands of times more CO2 in the containers than found in the atmosphere and the best they can do is manage a 1.5 to 2 degree temperature increase...  If the experiment were meant to approximate the conditions found in the atmosphere, they would have to have a thermal radiator radiating at about 288K which would be the equivalent of putting a bottle of water at about 58 degrees which would radiate about 390 watts per square meter of 10.1 micron radiation.  How much warming do you think they would get from that setup?....for that matter, how much warming do you think happens out in the real world if under rigged conditions they can only manage 2 degrees with a radiator putting out ten thousand times more radiation than the earth radiating thousands of times more CO2 than is found in the atmosphere.  Do you really think that a doubling of CO2 will result in 1 degree?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> That's your response?  If you'd really like to convince the readership here that you have the FAINTEST idea what you're talking about when you reject the greenhouse effect, reject relativity, reject quantum mechanics, reject fundamental thermodynamics... you'll need to try one fuck of a lot harder than that.



Actually I don't but as you have proven before, you are willing to lie and make up arguments to rail against....

I don't accept unproven hypothesis as fact which you do and get very angry with anyone who doesn't.

At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?


----------



## konradv (Aug 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?



It's further evidence your silliness that you imply that the earth would necessarily radiate at a single temperature and wavelength.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2014)

konradv said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?
> ...


Climate science says that the earth radiates at a certain wattage per square meter and at a certain wavelength....that implies a certain temperature...or didn't you know that?


----------



## konradv (Aug 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That's "average" NOT "certain".   Your contention is ludicrous on the face of it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2014)

konradv said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



And yet, the whole AGW scam is based on an average temperature....either averages can be taken at face value or they can't...you can't pick the ones you like and reject the ones you don't.  Which is it?


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...









But, but, but that's how they pull the wool over the eyes of the feeble minded.  If they can't pick and choose the data points that most reinforce their fiction they would be lost.  Every THINKING person knows that!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2014)

westwall said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



To bad only skeptics think.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If you actually did any thinking, you would have understood the fundamental error you're making here.  Here - among other data, are the range of wavelengths (PLURAL, ~5-50 microns) at which the Earth radiates.







You are SO stupid!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> You are SO stupid!



Does your graph say that earth thermal radiation going out is around 255K?  Tell me, what does 255K convert to in degrees F?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You are SO stupid!
> ...



That's it exactly!!!ding, ding, ding..............


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You are SO stupid!
> ...



Chilly.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2014)

You like this better?


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2014)

I hope you're not under the impression that 255K is the average temperature of the Earth.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



So according to your graph, earth outgoing thermal radiation is "chilly"  care to explain how that translates to warming?  Or is your graph not worth the effort it took to produce?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> I hope you're not under the impression that 255K is the average temperature of the Earth.




Not at all...just observing the quality of your information.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> You like this better?




OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Where is the claimed warming coming from...Is CO2 converting this chilly radiation into heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You like this better?
> ...



*OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.*

Unless I'm within......how close do I have to be to make the water bottle stop radiating? 
I looked all over the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Stefan Boltzman Law and didn't see where distance fits in or where distance causes something to stop radiating.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.
> ...


^ number 1 reason the AGWCult has absolutely no, none, zero, zip, Nada lab work


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2014)

How about a link, Ian?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Reference the inverse square law...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> You like this better?




Question......That graph says that the thermal radiation from the surface to space is about 70 watts per square meter or roughly equivalent to 255K...  Trenberth's cartoon, the basis for the AGW scam says that the thermal radiation from the earth is about 120 watts per square meter...(still damned chilly) and then with back radiation manages to radiate about 396 watts per square meter or roughly the same per square meter as a bottle of water at about 58 degrees...

First, there is a significant difference between the graph above and the claims trenberth made which support the AGW hoax...second, which do you believe....and third, considering the temperature and wavelength of the radiation we are talking about...where does the warming come from?


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2014)

I thought you didn't understand and it seems I was correct.  Why don't you look up Effective Radiated Temperature (ERT)?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> I thought you didn't understand and it seems I was correct.  Why don't you look up Effective Radiated Temperature (ERT)?



Average...I get it.  I just posted a new thread discussing averages.  Take a look.


You stil didn't answer the question...the averages in your graph and the averages in trenberth's cartoon which is the basis for the hoax aren't the same...which is accurate, relatively speaking. (as if an average is accurate) and if one is more accurate than the other why did you chose the one not used to support the hoax?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That doesn't say anything about smart photons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.*

You never explained why a one-way flow of energy would go faster or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings. Do the photons (or waves, for those who don't believe) go faster, or slower, or is the difference in speed due to the number of photons (or waves) that are emitted? And how does the warmer object know how fast to emit?

Please explain how your theory makes sense, in relation to the Stefan Boltzman Law.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy?  If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.


----------



## konradv (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy?  If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.



On the average, yes, but the question was about individual photons.  That flow ISN'T one-way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy? *

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a net flow of energy? 

*one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.*

If energy only flows one way, why does the temperature of the cooler have any impact on the speed of that flow? My understanding of physics can explain that easily. 

*The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelengths. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature . *

And my understanding of physics fits with the  Stefan-Boltzmann constant, your understanding needs an amendment, to explain why a black body sometimes stops emitting, if another, warmer object approaches.

*Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 *

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, *if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings*, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. 

This Science article agrees with my understanding of physics, net flow, not one way.
If your understanding was correct, one way flow only, how could they have made such a huge error?
This was 1963, you can't blame the warmers.


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2014)

Good work Todd.

Your Science article agrees with EVERYONE'S understanding of radiative heat transfer.  NOTHING agrees with SSDD's.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Ok. So let's see an observed measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm one at ambient temperature with no work having been done to make it happen.  If everyone believes it someone must have seen and measured it.....let's see it


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You've already had it.  Toddster's textbook quote explaining that a human should radiate (lose) 1000W but that being surrounded by ~72F surroundings, his NET LOSS is only about 100W.


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2014)

When are you going to give this up?  Surely you can't believe YOU'VE got it right and every one else on Earth: the engineers and scientists and teachers...THEY'VE all got it wrong.  It's time to say "oops, I misunderstood".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. 

This guy measured it. 

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says nothing about one way or smart waves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> When are you going to give this up?  Surely you can't believe YOU'VE got it right and every one else on Earth: the engineers and scientists and teachers...THEY'VE all got it wrong.  It's time to say "oops, I misunderstood".



Everyone on his side of the AGW issue agrees he is wrong about this.


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2014)

Everyone everywhere agrees he is wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD is Frankie boys peer, just uses more words for nonsense.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD is Frankie boys peer, just uses more words for nonsense.


And I keep wondering why you guys have only faked experiments as "evidence"


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2014)

Go back to your hollow moon, Frankie boy.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is Frankie boys peer, just uses more words for nonsense.
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Go back to your hollow moon, Frankie boy.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Science 24 May 1963:
> Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
> DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870
> 
> ...



And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.

Look at the equation.....


  See the P...that is the net radiated power....The magnitude of that number is entirely dependent upon the difference between the radiator and its surroundings....the f'ing equation answers your question regarding different heat loss at different temperatures.

Again...look at the equation  

.   P is net radiated power of the radiator...A is the radiating area....sigma is Stefan's constant....e is the emissivity.....T is the temperature of the radiator....and Tc is the temperature of the surroundings....increase the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you increase P....decrease the difference between the radiator and its surroundings and you decrease P.  The people in the room aren't getting energy from the walls...they are still losing energy...they are simply radiating less because the difference between their own temperature and the walls has decreased and thus P has decreased....there is no back radiation...they aren't gaining even the slightest trace of energy from the walls.

This equation 

describes a one way gross flow of energy

This is what the equation must look ike if you want to show a two way net flow of energy...


  Interestingly enough, this version of the SB equation is used by climate science, but not hard physics...Hard science grasps that the SB law is stated in a particular manner because it describes a particular thing...that is, one way, gross energy flow....the soft science of climate science has no hesitation at altering a stated physical law to make it show what they wish it to show whether it is true or not.

There is no such thing as back radiation....energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to accomplish the task.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.
> 
> Look at the equation.....
> 
> ...


 
*Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.*
Ummmm...how is the cooling slowed if not from radiation emitted from the cooler room?
Who said they were gaining energy? Losing less.....NET.

*The magnitude of that number is entirely dependent upon the difference between the radiator and its surroundings..*

Again, why does something radiate faster, or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings?
It's because those surroundings are radiating right back. A lot simpler explanation than your one-way radiation or smart waves.

*The people in the room aren't getting energy from the walls...they are still losing energy*

They aren't getting any net radiation. They are still losing energy.

*....there is no back radiation*

The guys in 1963 disagree with your claim.

*energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object without some work having been done to accomplish the task*

What is energy in this context? Temperature. True, the warmer body does not rise in temperature....because it loses net energy. It loses more net energy, when the surroundings are colder (than when they are less cold) because those surroundings radiate less energy back the colder those surroundings are. Simple. No need for smart waves, smart photons or the sudden switching on or switching off of radiation, because the *Stefan–Boltzmann law explains that the total* *energy** radiated per unit **surface area** of a **black body**  is directly **proportional** to the fourth power of the black body's **thermodynamic temperature*. 

*P is net radiated power of the radiator*

I can agree with your above statement, for once. Net.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.*
> Ummmm...how is the cooling slowed if not from radiation emitted from the cooler room?
> Who said they were gaining energy? Losing less.....NET.
> 
> ...


And still the equation describes a 1 way gross energy flow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And still the equation describes a 1 way gross energy flow


 
*And still the Stefan–Boltzmann law explains that the total* *energy* *radiated per unit* *surface area* *of a **black body** is directly **proportional** to the fourth power of the black body's **thermodynamic temperature**.*
Because all objects radiate. Even if they're next to a warmer object.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And still the Stefan–Boltzmann law explains that the total* *energy* *radiated per unit* *surface area* *of a **black body** is directly **proportional** to the fourth power of the black body's **thermodynamic temperature**.*
> Because all objects radiate. Even if they're next to a warmer object.



When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....

I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.
> 
> Look at the equation.....



I'm looking, and I'm seeing a deliberate deception on your part. That equation represents






just as Todd said, but you're pretending it represents Pemit instead of Pnet.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I'm looking, and I'm seeing a deliberate deception on your part. That equation represents
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, but that isn't at all what you are seeing...I believe you think it is what you are seeing, but it isn't...you are seeing an equation that describes a one way gross energy flow...I provided an equation that describes a two way flow with the net being towards warm...but that equation is not used in hard physics....it is only used by climate science in an effort to support the hoax.  It is not valid and it is not how the SB law is written.

Your version of the equation would be written as follows:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

That equation describes a two way energy flow but that equation is not the SB equation...it is mathematical modeling used to achieve a slight of hand....it doesn't describe an actual physical process as the actual SB equation does.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2014)

.

I lined the equations up to make it easy to see how the terms correspond. Pemit only depends on T. It has nothing to do with Tc.



SSDD said:


> That equation describes a two way energy flow but that equation is not the SB equation...it is mathematical modeling used to achieve a slight of hand....it doesn't describe an actual physical process as the actual SB equation does.



You've got it backwards and wrong. Your claims do not correspond to the actual physical processes going on. The radiation of the radiator is not affected in any way by the background temperature. Pemit only contains a T^4 term, and does not contain a Tc^4 term.


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD used the term NET repeatedly until it was pointed out to him.  Then suddenly the term GROSS appears.  Mamooth's rewrite of the equation is correct.  All surfaces radiate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....
> 
> I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.


 


SSDD said:


> When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....
> 
> I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.


 






SSDD said:


> When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....
> 
> I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.


 
You still haven't explained why the temperature of the cooler object has any influence on speed of energy flow out of the warmer. It makes no sense, using your smart wave theory, it makes perfect sense in the reality of all objects radiating even when near a warmer object.






  Just look at that beautiful formula. No off switch there. No footnote about warmer objects making P=0, instantly. 

Try again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And again, you demonstrate that you simply don't understand....Slowed cooling is not warming...the people in the room are not gaining any energy at all from the cooler walls.
> 
> Look at the equation.....
> 
> ...


 
*

** See the P...that is the net radiated power....*

Absolutely! LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know...till then you are just telling me what you believe, and I am telling you what the physical laws say...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object and the SB law describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow....
> 
> I believe you believe...but you don't have the first shred of actual evidence while I have every observation ever made backing me up.


 
*When you get an actual measurement of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object...let me know*

It's easy, plug in the variables of the cooler object into the SB formula, that will tell you how much energy it is emitting.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2014)

I was going to suggest we have an "Experiments Proving AGW" Subforum, but what's the point? It would be empty


----------



## Kosh (Aug 19, 2014)

And yet still not one post of actual science to prove the AGW cult scriptures.

CO2 does not control climate.

The magnetic field has more to do in controlling climate than CO2.


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2014)

When I told you the planet's magnetic field had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, you went out and googled up a paper.  Unfortunately, the paper had NOTHING to say about any relationship between planetary magnetic fields and the greenhouse effect.  You've provided nothing else since, including any explanation of YOUR understanding of what relationship exists between the two.  As has been the case with you and several of your denier brethren, you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.  Your science education ended in the second grade.

The CO2 emitted by human since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced since then.  That assertion is accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists and by EVERY major science organization ON THE FUCKING PLANET.  The five assessment reports of the IPCC, constituting many thousands of pages of evidence, almost entirely referenced to published, peer reviewed studies, fully support that contention.  Your position, on the other hand, hasn't got shit.  Them's the facts, Jack.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> When I told you the planet's magnetic field had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, you went out and googled up a paper.  Unfortunately, the paper had NOTHING to say about any relationship between planetary magnetic fields and the greenhouse effect.  You've provided nothing else since, including any explanation of YOUR understanding of what relationship exists between the two.  As has been the case with you and several of your denier brethren, you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.  Your science education ended in the second grade.
> 
> The CO2 emitted by human since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced since then.  That assertion is accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists and by EVERY major science organization ON THE FUCKING PLANET.  The five assessment reports of the IPCC, constituting many thousands of pages of evidence, almost entirely referenced to published, peer reviewed studies, fully support that contention.  Your position, on the other hand, hasn't got shit.  Them's the facts, Jack.


 hahahahahahaahahahahaahahahaha.......................truly a hilarious post.  I think you're better with the pots and pans................. can you say LoSiNg?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> .
> 
> I lined the equations up to make it easy to see how the terms correspond. Pemit only depends on T. It has nothing to do with Tc.
> 
> ...


 
Idiot...T is the radiator...Tc is the cooler surroundings.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still haven't explained why the temperature of the cooler object has any influence on speed of energy flow out of the warmer. It makes no sense, using your smart wave theory, it makes perfect sense in the reality of all objects radiating even when near a warmer object.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens?  P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens?  P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.


 
*I have no idea why...*

Obviously.

*I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.*

I know how and it doesn't conflict at all with what the law says. 
And it doesn't require smart waves, smart photons or radiation that switches on and off at a moments notice.
It doesn't require warm objects to only radiate from one side or any of the other ridiculous scenarios that 
your silly misunderstanding would require.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens?  P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.


 





And why are you ignoring the above formula?
It says objects radiate according to their temperature.
So why are you right and this formula is wrong?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 20, 2014)

So far the only 2 experiment are the Al Gore/Bill Nye faked experiment and the Mythbusters 7.3% CO2 experiment


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2014)

Try reading Section 8.1.2 of *"Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
 Concentration or Emission Changes"* at page 668 of AR5

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf


----------



## IanC (Aug 20, 2014)

SSDD likes to bring up gravity. His famous rock knows which way to fall but we don't understand the mechanism. But the earth is also pulled towards the rock. 

In much the same fashion as cooler objects radiate towards warmer ones, gravity also has a net force that always affects the less powerful object more. The moon orbits the earth but you can still see the moon's effect by observing the tides. Even the sun has a wobble due to the planets. 

Photons, gravitons and the virtual photons that carry electrical/magnetic force can all go in any direction with only the net effect being apparent.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2014)

You miss some major flaws in your analogy.  Gravitation is a fixed value for any given mass.  A ton of hydrogen has the same gravitational field as a ton of neutronium.  Temperature can cover several dozen orders of magnitude and thermal radiation is affected by surface emissivity - by the optical characteristics of its surface.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> You miss some major flaws in your analogy.  Gravitation is a fixed value for any given mass.  A ton of hydrogen has the same gravitational field as a ton of neutronium.  Temperature can cover several dozen orders of magnitude and thermal radiation is affected by surface emissivity - by the optical characteristics of its surface.



And P is entirely dependent upon the difference between T and Tc.  The fact that we know what gravity does....and how gravity acts does not mean that we know how gravity works...you expect me to know the precise mechanism by which energy does not transmit from cool to warm and yet you can't describe the precise mechanism which causes a dropped rock to fall down.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens?  P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.
> ...



Is that the SB law?


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2014)

It's a version of it.  The problem isn't with Stefan Boltzman.  It's with your idea that matter somehow modifies its Stefan-Boltzman behavior based on its surroundings.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Try reading Section 8.1.2 of *"Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
> Concentration or Emission Changes"* at page 668 of AR5
> 
> http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf



^ Not an experiment


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2014)

I never said it was.  But it discusses dozens of peer reviewed studies.  You obviously didn't read it.  No surprise.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> I never said it was.  But it discusses dozens of peer reviewed studies.  You obviously didn't read it.  No surprise.


 I'll bite, studies of what?


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2014)

Studies relating to *Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes.  *I would have thought that was obvious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
Yes. You may have noticed it fails to mention the temperature of the surroundings.

_The *Stefan–Boltzmann law*, also known as *Stefan's law*, states that the total __energy__ radiated per unit surface __area__ of a __black body__ per unit __time__ (known variously as the black-body *irradiance*, *energy flux density*, *radiant flux*, or the *emissive power*), j*, is directly __proportional__ to the fourth power of the black body's __thermodynamic temperature__ T (also called *absolute temperature*):

A more general case is of a __grey body__, the one that doesn't absorb or emit the full amount of radiative flux. Instead, it radiates a portion of it, characterized by its __emissivity__, ε:

The irradiance j* has dimensions of energy flux (energy per time per area), and the __SI__ units of measure are __joules__ per second per square metre, or equivalently, __watts__ per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the __kelvin__. ε is the __emissivity__ of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, ε = 1. Still in more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, ε = ε(λ)._

Stefan–Boltzmann law


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And according to your equation...what is the temperature of the radiator's surroundings...  Does it have surroundings?  Must not because the SB law says that P is dependent upon the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings.


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2014)

Is it that you are intellectually incapable of understanding the concept of NET heat transfer or that your extreme bias and unwillingness to consider the possibility that you might be the stupidest fuck in town prevents you from actually taking in what people are telling you?

You need to separate two things: 
1) All objects radiate thermal energy in all directions based solely on THEIR temperature
2) The NET heat transfer taking place for any given object is simply the algebraic sum of heat radiated away by an object and heat received from its surroundings.

You are conflating radiation and effective (or net) heat transfer.

You are doing that because you're the stupidest fuck in town.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Studies relating to *Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
> Concentration or Emission Changes.  *I would have thought that was obvious.


 But yet never measured!!! that constitutes no proof or evidence, and as such is merely a hypothesis.  You have no theory!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> I never said it was.  But it discusses dozens of peer reviewed studies.  You obviously didn't read it.  No surprise.



Where's the lab work? The Evidence?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*And according to your equation*

My equation? I think you mean the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

*what is the temperature of the radiator's surroundings*

Why do you ask? The Stefan–Boltzmann law doesn't say, "except", at least where I looked.
Are you saying that sometimes the Stefan–Boltzmann law is wrong?
You should submit a paper, you might win a Nobel!!


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2014)

SSDD?  Got an answer?


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

Anyone who has read the history of the study of thermodynamics knows that reality does not fit nicely into the equations. The discrepancies actually led Planck to invent a fudge factor that initiated quantum theory


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Try reading Section 8.1.2 of *"Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
> ...


Frank,  ths isn't an experiment, but I think I can live with the conclusions.  What say you?

Click for link
go to page 5 for the graph.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



"Hence, those who estimate climate sensitivity from recent data claim the paleological approach is
faulty, while those who use the paleological approach claim the approach based on
recent data is faulty. It seems that none of these estimates can be trusted..."

Love how the "Consensus" is off the charts when all the other data points are 2 orders of magnitude below


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Odd that you still haven't posted even one experiment


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2014)

Odd that anyone can be as stupid as you've shown yourself to be over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> Odd that anyone can be as stupid as you've shown yourself to be over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.



Plenty of bitterness and insult...no experiment.  How predictable is that?


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2014)

That I should find you stupid?  Extremely predictable.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> Odd that anyone can be as stupid as you've shown yourself to be over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.



^ Not an Experiment.

Check the thread, I dare you to repost the "experiment"


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2014)

Read AR5.  You obviously haven't touched it yet.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

No answer to the points I made regarding AR5?  Typical.  Nothing but insult and ad hominem...and dogma from you.  Like I said, you become more like rolling thunder every day....when might you start posting in big red letters thinking that makes your statements more credible?


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2014)

Read AR5, then someone might actually pay some attention to your comments.  

Might...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Read AR5, then someone might actually pay some attention to your comments.
> 
> Might...




The number of questions hanging out there that you are unable to answer is growing crick...My points were specifically regarding AR5 and you aren't answering...what's the matter?  Got yourself painted into a corner and see no exit?


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2014)

I have not seen you make any meaningful points about AR5 (or its four predecessors).  I have yet to see any evidence that you've read one word of it or that - were you to do so - you'd understand a word of it as your science misconceptions are simply too comprehensive and too profound to allow you to make any real progress on any science topic.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> I have not seen you make any meaningful points about AR5 (or its four predecessors).  I have yet to see any evidence that you've read one word of it or that - were you to do so - you'd understand a word of it as your science misconceptions are simply too comprehensive and too profound to allow you to make any real progress on any science topic.



Sorry you can't read....


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2014)

I think you've gotten that turned around.  You're the one failing to do the required reading.  If you want to tell us what you find wrong with AR5, you're going to have to read it first.

And vague generalities aren't going anywhere.  If you want to take AR5 down, we're going to need specifics.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> I think you've gotten that turned around.  You're the one failing to do the required reading.  If you want to tell us what you find wrong with AR5, you're going to have to read it first.
> 
> And vague generalities aren't going anywhere.  If you want to take AR5 down, we're going to need specifics.


 And yet still no experiment.  AR5 has no experiment, there were no measurements taken.  Why don't you read it?  You may just learn something about the IPCC's errors.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> I think you've gotten that turned around.  You're the one failing to do the required reading.  If you want to tell us what you find wrong with AR5, you're going to have to read it first.
> 
> And vague generalities aren't going anywhere.  If you want to take AR5 down, we're going to need specifics.



Here are just a few things wrong with it...to go into depth would require shredding the entire worthless steaming pile of crap...You can start with these....


AR4 (2007): “_Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is*very likely *_(_>90% confidence_)_due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases._” (SPM AR4)

AR5 (2013) SPM: “_It *is extremely likely*_(>_95% confidence_)_that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century ._” (SPM AR5)
All that increased confidence even though: 1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing....2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2....3) evidence that sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 is of the same magnitude as between 1993 and 2012....4) increasing antarctic sea ice....5) low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to AGW.....6) failure of arctic sea ice to continue to decrease...

Consider the fact that the IPCC can't even begin to convincingly explain why the warming stopped and any thinking person has more than enough reason to take anything from the IPCC with a very large grain of salt.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2014)

The difference between you and the IPCC is that they actually explain why the come to the conclusions they do.  Have you read them?  This is no better than your prior comments.  You pull these quotes out of context and then toss a handful of denier soundbytes at them.  

How about some links to research supporting the positions your pushing here?



			
				FCT said:
			
		

> 1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing
> 2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
> 3) evidence that sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 is of the same magnitude as between 1993 and 2012
> 4) increasing antarctic sea ice
> ...



 "1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing"
















Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections Nature Climate Change Nature Publishing Group



> _Estimates of impacts from anthropogenic climate change rely on projections from climate models. Uncertainties in those have often been a limiting factor, in particular on local scales. A new generation of more complex models running scenarios for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) is widely, and perhaps naively, expected to provide more detailed and more certain projections. Here we show that projected global temperature change from the new models is remarkably similar to that from those used in IPCC AR4 after accounting for the different underlying scenarios. The spatial patterns of temperature and precipitation change are also very consistent. Interestingly, the local model spread has not changed much despite substantial model development and a massive increase in computational capacity. Part of this model spread is irreducible owing to internal variability in the climate system, yet there is also uncertainty from model differences that can potentially be eliminated. We argue that defining progress in climate modelling in terms of narrowing uncertainties is too limited. Models improve, representing more processes in greater detail. This implies greater confidence in their projections, but convergence may remain slow. The uncertainties should not stop decisions being made._



This indicates progress has been restricted to increased confidence in projections; these models, despite increased complexity and large increases in computational effort, still suffer shortfalls in regional accuracy.  Part of that cannot be reduced as it results from internal variability (chaotic, indeterminate processes).  So, while models have not grown significantly more accurate, they have not - as you claimed - gotten worse.

"2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2"

The upper end of the range of estimates was lower in AR5 than in AR4.  Given the size of the range in 4 (and to a great extent still in 5) it is obvious that the value is the sum of a number of complex processes, some not well understood.  The primary factor behind the spread of values arrived at by different GCMs is cloud responses (see 8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models Climate Sensitivity Estimates - AR4 WGI Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation.  The lower end of the range has not dropped and there isn't the slightest suggestion, as you have contended, that all those non-RF "magic multipliers" might fail to show up.

I've had enough for tonight.  I'll get back sometime later.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2014)

I think I'll carry on in brief here.

4) The IPCC has never attempted to hide or belittle the increase in Antarctic sea ice.  It is clearly reported and thoroughly discussed.  And, of course, you ignore the now irreversible destabilization of the entire WAIS.

5) The IPCC has never expressed high confidence relating extreme weather events to global warming.  They have repeatedly stated that increasing temperatures will cause an increase in the severity of weather events.  If you disagree with that point, I'd like to hear your justification.

6) Arctic sea ice has continued to decrease.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2014)

As usual, everything you write is a lie....the IPCC predicted rapidly decreasing ant_arctic ice...your temperature graphs are a joke because they represent nothing more than the degree to which climate science is willing to tamper with data for grant money...arctic ice is on the increase...and the IPCC did predict increased extreme weather due to climate change...._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 

*And according to your equation*

My equation? I think you mean the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

*what is the temperature of the radiator's surroundings
*
Why do you ask? The Stefan–Boltzmann law doesn't say, "except", at least where I looked.
Are you saying that sometimes the Stefan–Boltzmann law is wrong?
You should submit a paper, you might win a Nobel!!

Still working on your smart wave theory?
How does the hotter object know to emit faster to a 50K object than a 100K object?
We're waiting.


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2014)

Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether. 

Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter. 
It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2014)

IanC said:


> Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.
> 
> Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
> It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.



Ian, if the day ever comes when we actually know what is going on at the atomic level...really...what do you think the chances are that we find that what is happening is just like what you described?  Look at history... best guesses which is, in reality, what QM is, rarely if ever bear much resemblance to reality.  I am sure that some day the initial guesses resulting from QM will be looked back on as quaint, but naive baby steps on the path to knowledge...but certainly nothing worth putting the sort of personal investment you have placed in your beliefs.

You act as if you actually believe what you say to be true and have divorced yourself entirely from the glaring fact that we just don't know....my bet is that the reality will be far closer to what we can observe and what we observe, every time is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.
> ...


 
*energy doesn't move from cool to warm*

Then why does a hot object radiate faster to a 50K nearby object than to a 100K nearby object?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You keep asking the same stupid question....if you wonder look at the SB equation...the amount of radiation an object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...The greater the difference between the radiator and its surroundings the larger P will be.  The larger P is, the more energy the object is radiating.    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   If you don't get that...sorry.  Maybe some night courses would help.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*You keep asking the same stupid question*

And you can't answer. Because your feeling about energy doesn't match reality.

*if you wonder look at the SB equation...the amount of radiation an object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...*

I know the equation, I'm looking for your smart wave explanation.
My explanation matches the equation, yours, not so much.

If you don't get that...sorry. Maybe some night courses would help.


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Obviously the hot object radiates exactly the same amount towardss both the 50K and 100K objects. Bcause it is getting less back radiation from the cooler one, the net energy transfer is greater. If all the objects were the same temp the radiation would still be the same but there would be no net flow.


----------

