Evidence supporting AGW

[jc456]

people know nothing of radiation hence its so easily to throw up a theory about CO2 and let the idiots argue who is right

We actually know quite a bit about radiation. Its one of the most intensely studies phenomena in all of nature.

So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

people know nothing of radiation hence its so easily to throw up a theory about CO2 and let the idiots argue who is right

We actually know quite a bit about radiation. Its one of the most intensely studies phenomena in all of nature.

So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?

You need to have FAITH in the CO2 molecule

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

people know nothing of radiation hence its so easily to throw up a theory about CO2 and let the idiots argue who is right

We actually know quite a bit about radiation. Its one of the most intensely studies phenomena in all of nature.

So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?

By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.

 

[jc456]

We actually know quite a bit about radiation. Its one of the most intensely studies phenomena in all of nature.

So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?

By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.

how does that make it hotter? If it was let's say 85 degrees, just because the heat can't leave, it can't get any hotter, it's still 85 degrees. So that doesn't fit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well in Chicago it is 84 degrees during the day and 59 at night unless there are clouds. So how is that possible?

The greenhouse effect. Without it it would be near absolute zero, especially on a moonless night. Just look at the surface of Mercury. Its like -150 centigrade at night.

Clouds actually reflect radiation back into space.

Right, see I understand that energy is stored, what I can't wrap my hands around is how something gets hotter than what it absorbed.

If you keep adding energy to a system and don't remove it, it will continue to get hotter.

 

[Kosh]

We actually know quite a bit about radiation. Its one of the most intensely studies phenomena in all of nature.

So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?

By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.

So put up a lead shield around the Earth?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?

By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.

So put up a lead shield around the Earth?

No. Just raise the altitude of the optically thick layer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?

By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.

how does that make it hotter? If it was let's say 85 degrees, just because the heat can't leave, it can't get any hotter, it's still 85 degrees. So that doesn't fit.

If you add heat to a system and don't remove it - it gets hotter.

 

[jc456]

The greenhouse effect. Without it it would be near absolute zero, especially on a moonless night. Just look at the surface of Mercury. Its like -150 centigrade at night.

Clouds actually reflect radiation back into space.

Right, see I understand that energy is stored, what I can't wrap my hands around is how something gets hotter than what it absorbed.

If you keep adding energy to a system and don't remove it, it will continue to get hotter.

However, if the higher atmosphere is thick and you all say it's getting thicker, than less energy can get in. So it would produce the opposite reaction you're implying. Because the more CO2 then the more cold is dispursed to space since there is more of it. Again it would provide the opposite reaction you claim.

One other thing, why is it hotter at 3pm than at 10am? Please your explanation is confusing me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.

So put up a lead shield around the Earth?

No. Just raise the altitude of the optically thick layer.

25 meters, right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Right, see I understand that energy is stored, what I can't wrap my hands around is how something gets hotter than what it absorbed.

If you keep adding energy to a system and don't remove it, it will continue to get hotter.

However, if the higher atmosphere is thick and you all say it's getting thicker, than less energy can get in. So it would produce the opposite reaction you're implying. Because the more CO2 then the more cold is dispursed to space since there is more of it. Again it would provide the opposite reaction you claim.

if you want to cool something you have to remove energy from it faster than its being added.

When you lower the rate at which energy is escaping a system while keeping the input energy the same - it warms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you keep adding energy to a system and don't remove it, it will continue to get hotter.

However, if the higher atmosphere is thick and you all say it's getting thicker, than less energy can get in. So it would produce the opposite reaction you're implying. Because the more CO2 then the more cold is dispursed to space since there is more of it. Again it would provide the opposite reaction you claim.

if you want to cool something you have to remove energy from it faster than its being added.

When you lower the rate at which energy is escaping a system while keeping the input energy the same - it warms.

...and that's how the deep Pacific Ocean became so warm

 

[jc456]

If you keep adding energy to a system and don't remove it, it will continue to get hotter.

However, if the higher atmosphere is thick and you all say it's getting thicker, than less energy can get in. So it would produce the opposite reaction you're implying. Because the more CO2 then the more cold is dispursed to space since there is more of it. Again it would provide the opposite reaction you claim.

if you want to cool something you have to remove energy from it faster than its being added.

When you lower the rate at which energy is escaping a system while keeping the input energy the same - it warms.

But that is assuming it gets in. That's why it is cooler in the morning than in the evening, the energy is reflected back because of the angles. I'm still waiting for the experiment that shows that CO2 Holds the heat as you claim. Isn't that a fairly simple experiment? Put 120PPM in a tank and heat the tank, take a second tank with atmospheric CO2 in it, heat it and then let them cool and see if they cool at a different rate. Seems simple eh?

 

[westwall]

The greenhouse effect. Without it it would be near absolute zero, especially on a moonless night. Just look at the surface of Mercury. Its like -150 centigrade at night.

Clouds actually reflect radiation back into space.

Right, see I understand that energy is stored, what I can't wrap my hands around is how something gets hotter than what it absorbed.

If you keep adding energy to a system and don't remove it, it will continue to get hotter.

Where is that happening? It's not in the oceans, it's not in the atmosphere. Where or where is it hiding. You still haven't explained how long wave radiation is going to warm anything when it can't penetrate deep enough to do anything....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

However, if the higher atmosphere is thick and you all say it's getting thicker, than less energy can get in. So it would produce the opposite reaction you're implying. Because the more CO2 then the more cold is dispursed to space since there is more of it. Again it would provide the opposite reaction you claim.

if you want to cool something you have to remove energy from it faster than its being added.

When you lower the rate at which energy is escaping a system while keeping the input energy the same - it warms.

...and that's how the deep Pacific Ocean became so warm

please stop trying. get some real friends. maybe have a baby.

 

[Kosh]

By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.

So put up a lead shield around the Earth?

No. Just raise the altitude of the optically thick layer.

WOW! This is a perfect example of the AGW cult mentality.

They do not even understand what our atmosphere does.

Then again this AGW drone has never heard of atmospheric compression.

 

[Kosh]

if you want to cool something you have to remove energy from it faster than its being added.

When you lower the rate at which energy is escaping a system while keeping the input energy the same - it warms.

...and that's how the deep Pacific Ocean became so warm

please stop trying. get some real friends. maybe have a baby.

Boring!

 

[MisterBeale]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k[/ame]

 

[MisterBeale]

This guy founded the weather channel.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So put up a lead shield around the Earth?

No. Just raise the altitude of the optically thick layer.

WOW! This is a perfect example of the AGW cult mentality.

They do not even understand what our atmosphere does.

Then again this AGW drone has never heard of atmospheric compression.

Wow. You know a word. Good for you. Want a cookie?