Evidence supporting AGW

[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.

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?

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

 

[westwall]

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?

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

YOU clearly don't! How about the long wave IR problem I pointed out to you! And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. That should be quite the hoot!

 

[Kosh]

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?

See how the AGW cult has infected the world with their religion.

More proof that the far left influence in the AGW religion is more dangerous than any terrorist organization in the world.

 

[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.

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?

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

I believe you don't understand what you posted.

 

[jc456]

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?

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

Sure, you stated that it takes a long time for the CO2 to release the energy, so that would mean that once saturated with energy it starts to release the energy, so in my experiment I suggest you prove that. I thought it fairly simple for all of these edumicated scientists out there to do, fill a tank with 120PPM of CO2 and leave the other tank with just the natural air with CO2 already in it. Heat em up and let em cool down, the one with the extra 120PPM should take longer to get cool right? So let's see if that is indeed the case. See I don't believe it.

 

[mamooth]

Sure, you stated that it takes a long time for the CO2 to release the energy, so that would mean that once saturated with energy it starts to release the energy,

No. He said nothing like that.

If you have to constantly make up crazy stories about what someone supposedly said, it's clearly because you're not capable of addressing what they actually say.

 

[mamooth]

And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. That should be quite the hoot!

Poor addled Westwall, so completely ignorant of the basics of the science.

We could explain to him about his mistake, but it's much more fun to first see him flail about in a rage for a while.

Then again this AGW drone has never heard of atmospheric compression

And who even knows what poor addled Kosh is babbling about here. I hope -- nay, I pray! -- that he will make our day by spelling it out in detail.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

YOU clearly don't! How about the long wave IR problem I pointed out to you! And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. That should be quite the hoot!

When integrating from infinity you hit optical depth one sooner if the density is higher. Fucking DUH. You're a total hack.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

Sure, you stated that it takes a long time for the CO2 to release the energy, so that would mean that once saturated with energy it starts to release the energy, so in my experiment I suggest you prove that. I thought it fairly simple for all of these edumicated scientists out there to do, fill a tank with 120PPM of CO2 and leave the other tank with just the natural air with CO2 already in it. Heat em up and let em cool down, the one with the extra 120PPM should take longer to get cool right? So let's see if that is indeed the case. See I don't believe it.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

 

[westwall]

And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. That should be quite the hoot!

Poor addled Westwall, so completely ignorant of the basics of the science.

We could explain to him about his mistake, but it's much more fun to first see him flail about in a rage for a while.

Then again this AGW drone has never heard of atmospheric compression

And who even knows what poor addled Kosh is babbling about here. I hope -- nay, I pray! -- that he will make our day by spelling it out in detail.

We're waiting. How do you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. C'mon admiral. Show us how "smart" you are! You might have trouble googling it though.....I have a feeling....

 

[westwall]

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

YOU clearly don't! How about the long wave IR problem I pointed out to you! And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. That should be quite the hoot!

When integrating from infinity you hit optical depth one sooner if the density is higher. Fucking DUH. You're a total hack.

What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM for raising an element of the atmosphere? How do you make the Troposphere rise?

I love your optical depth hail mary, I really do. Last time I looked into optical depth there were some variables like opacity, density, the extinction coefficient and of course the optical path involved. Only one of which is a variable that could even POSSIBLY be affected by CO2.

Nice try but trying to baffle us with bullshit just shows how silly you are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

YOU clearly don't! How about the long wave IR problem I pointed out to you! And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere. That should be quite the hoot!

When integrating from infinity you hit optical depth one sooner if the density is higher. Fucking DUH. You're a total hack.

What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM for raising an element of the atmosphere? How do you make the Troposphere rise?

We aren't making a troposphere rise. You have no idea what the fuck is going on.

I love your optical depth hail mary, I really do. Last time I looked into optical depth

Really? The last time you looked into it? OK. lolz

there were some variables like opacity, density, the extinction coefficient and of course the optical path involved.

The extinction coefficient is a FUNCTION of opacity and density you blubbering moron.

Only one of which is a variable that could even POSSIBLY be affected by CO2.

Did you just say that? Really? OMG you're even dumber than I thought.

 

[westwall]

When integrating from infinity you hit optical depth one sooner if the density is higher. Fucking DUH. You're a total hack.

What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM for raising an element of the atmosphere? How do you make the Troposphere rise?

We aren't making a troposphere rise. You have no idea what the fuck is going on.



Really? The last time you looked into it? OK. lolz

there were some variables like opacity, density, the extinction coefficient and of course the optical path involved.

The extinction coefficient is a FUNCTION of opacity and density you blubbering moron.

Only one of which is a variable that could even POSSIBLY be affected by CO2.

Did you just say that? Really? OMG you're even dumber than I thought.

Really? Other then density what can CO2 effect? As far as the other, I always thought the extinction coefficient was the molar absorption coefficient of whatever chemical you are trying to find the concentration level of using measurements of light absorption. Was I wrong?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM for raising an element of the atmosphere? How do you make the Troposphere rise?

We aren't making a troposphere rise. You have no idea what the fuck is going on.



Really? The last time you looked into it? OK. lolz


The extinction coefficient is a FUNCTION of opacity and density you blubbering moron.

Only one of which is a variable that could even POSSIBLY be affected by CO2.

Did you just say that? Really? OMG you're even dumber than I thought.

Really? Other then density what can CO2 effect? As far as the other, I always thought the extinction coefficient was the molar absorption coefficient of whatever chemical you are trying to find the concentration level of using measurements of light absorption. Was I wrong?

You mean other than the only factor in the equation other than the constant opacity in surface area per gram? NOTHING. OK? NOTHING.




IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME YOU COULD BE THIS BIG OF A MUTTONHEAD

 

[westwall]

We aren't making a troposphere rise. You have no idea what the fuck is going on.



Really? The last time you looked into it? OK. lolz


The extinction coefficient is a FUNCTION of opacity and density you blubbering moron.




Did you just say that? Really? OMG you're even dumber than I thought.

Really? Other then density what can CO2 effect? As far as the other, I always thought the extinction coefficient was the molar absorption coefficient of whatever chemical you are trying to find the concentration level of using measurements of light absorption. Was I wrong?

You mean other than the only factor in the equation other than the constant opacity in surface area per gram? NOTHING. OK? NOTHING.




IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME YOU COULD BE THIS BIG OF A MUTTONHEAD

Funny, I have no problem believing you are this big of a mutton head. You are blabbering dude. Blabbering. Nothing you have said today makes any sense at all as it pertains to the discussion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oohpah tried to convince us that the only way to test CO2 magical warming properties was to build a container the size of the solar system -- and then he called me stupid

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look at the chart and answer the following question (Multiple Choice)

How much of an increase temperature increased is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2

A. Donuts
B. I saved 15% by switching to Geico
C. Chart does not provide the information requested

No. Admit that this is not a computer model and that it was produced in a lab. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and is responsible for almost every bit of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

Ummmm, because that is not a fact, and your whole religion is based on science fiction....kind of like scientology....

The difference is that with Scientology, Tom Cruise will act silly and jump on a couch because he's in love; the AGWCult wants to stomp the life out of the US Economy and kill tens of million in the process

 

[jc456]

You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?

Sure, you stated that it takes a long time for the CO2 to release the energy, so that would mean that once saturated with energy it starts to release the energy, so in my experiment I suggest you prove that. I thought it fairly simple for all of these edumicated scientists out there to do, fill a tank with 120PPM of CO2 and leave the other tank with just the natural air with CO2 already in it. Heat em up and let em cool down, the one with the extra 120PPM should take longer to get cool right? So let's see if that is indeed the case. See I don't believe it.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Well here is your writing:

"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."

I'm spot on. Thanks for playing and have a nice day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure, you stated that it takes a long time for the CO2 to release the energy, so that would mean that once saturated with energy it starts to release the energy, so in my experiment I suggest you prove that. I thought it fairly simple for all of these edumicated scientists out there to do, fill a tank with 120PPM of CO2 and leave the other tank with just the natural air with CO2 already in it. Heat em up and let em cool down, the one with the extra 120PPM should take longer to get cool right? So let's see if that is indeed the case. See I don't believe it.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Well here is your writing:

"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."

I'm spot on. Thanks for playing and have a nice day.

Bernie Madoff's accountant worked out the AGW Energy Budget

 

[jc456]

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Well here is your writing:

"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."

I'm spot on. Thanks for playing and have a nice day.

Bernie Madoff's accountant worked out the AGW Energy Budget

There you go!