Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its re-emitted isotropically.
But only towards Earth, right?
You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?
So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.
Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.
And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
And as I think we all know, Kosh's complaint here is a lie. He has been given a large set of data files and a large set of GCM source code files. Since then, he has repeatedly continued to make this asinine and now utterly false charge.
The truth is Kosh doesn't have the faintest idea what to do with those things. If you'd care to correct me on this Kosh, please feel free to let us know what you plan to do with them. Perhaps one of your buddies will be good enough to tell you how to compile and link a program and how to run a global scale GCM on your home laptop for a 30 year run or so and how to compare the output to.... well now I'm giving it all away. I want to leave something for you to figure out on your own. Have at it Kosh.
For the fourth time:
Climate datasets
General Circulation models code
So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.
Particulates in the air.
So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.
Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.
And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.
Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.
And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.
And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.
So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing? See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures. Please explain this to us.
Particulates in the air.
And you know this how?
So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.
Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate? I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.
Its re-emitted isotropically.
How much is absorbed to re-emit? If there is 120PPM of CO2, how much absorbtion is there? and, is the absorbtion the same everywhere?
It depends more on the depth of the optically thick layer in the atmosphere. As we extend this layer, the cooling rate at the interface between thick and thin decreases, so the temperature underneath that layer increases to compensate.
There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.
Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate? I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.
1) By applying the laws of physics.
2) By observing the greenhouse effect on other planets.
3) Observation of its effect on past climate.
Particulates in the air.
And you know this how?
Man made articulates were just the pre-dominant cause (regulations would decrease the amount of man-made particulates in the air). There was also more volcanic eruption + a decrease in solar activity. We know this because its the only way the models work.
Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.
And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.
? No. Did you actually understand the words I just wrote to you or are you just pretending to?How much is absorbed to re-emit? If there is 120PPM of CO2, how much absorbtion is there? and, is the absorbtion the same everywhere?
It depends more on the depth of the optically thick layer in the atmosphere. As we extend this layer, the cooling rate at the interface between thick and thin decreases, so the temperature underneath that layer increases to compensate.
It's a crapshoot then?
Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate? I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.
1) By applying the laws of physics.
2) By observing the greenhouse effect on other planets.
3) Observation of its effect on past climate.
Then why are the models all wrong?
And you know this how?
Man made articulates were just the pre-dominant cause (regulations would decrease the amount of man-made particulates in the air). There was also more volcanic eruption + a decrease in solar activity. We know this because its the only way the models work.
So you have no evidence?
So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
So vague as to be meaningless. You'll need to describe this "lab setting", exactly defining every piece of equipment and environmental variable.
I suggest you look at the HITRAN database to get some answers. HITRAN is maintained by those well-known pinkos at the Air Force to precisely catalog the spectral absorption of all gases found in the atmosphere. They are constantly updating and refining those measurements. Dig into a bit, and you can find the papers describing the lab setups to get the numbers. If anyone wants more than that, go get it yourselves, ya big lazy lugs.
HITRAN
Now, if you'd like to tell the Air Force that they're doing it all wrong, and that CO2 really doesn't absorb infrared, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
The history of the science is interesting. The first scientists screwed it up. They send infrared radiation into a tube, and found adding more CO2 didn't change anything, because the CO2 absorption band was already saturated over that short distance. Deniers here usually make the same screwup. They miss the fact that when CO2 absorbs heat, it re-radiates more IR in all directions, meaning each little layer of the atmospher keeps absorbing and re-remitting. A tube can't simulate that 3-dimensional situation, being the tube is close to approximating a 1-dimensional setup. It wasn't until the 1950's and the first computers that scientist figured out what was going on with CO2 in the atmosphere.
Did you not understand the question?
So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
So vague as to be meaningless. You'll need to describe this "lab setting", exactly defining every piece of equipment and environmental variable.
I suggest you look at the HITRAN database to get some answers. HITRAN is maintained by those well-known pinkos at the Air Force to precisely catalog the spectral absorption of all gases found in the atmosphere. They are constantly updating and refining those measurements. Dig into a bit, and you can find the papers describing the lab setups to get the numbers. If anyone wants more than that, go get it yourselves, ya big lazy lugs.
HITRAN
Now, if you'd like to tell the Air Force that they're doing it all wrong, and that CO2 really doesn't absorb infrared, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. Give it a shot.
The history of the science is interesting. The first experimenters screwed it up. They send infrared radiation into a tube, and found adding more CO2 didn't change anything, because the CO2 absorption band was already saturated over that short distance, and thus they concluded CO2 wasn't important. Deniers here usually make the same screwup. They miss the fact that when CO2 absorbs heat, it re-radiates more IR in all directions, meaning each little layer of the atmosphere keeps absorbing and re-remitting. A tube can't simulate that 3-dimensional situation, being the tube is close to approximating a 1-dimensional setup. It wasn't until the 1950's and the first computers that scientists correctly figured out what was going on with CO2 in the atmosphere.
Did you not understand the question?
I'd ask you the same. You don't seem to know what you're babbling about; you now just reflexively autospew it without thinking about it. It's almost as if it were a religious mantra you use so you can avoid thinking. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.
