Global Warmers Stopped by Arctic Ice

[LaDexter]

We can also prove the greenhouse effect

FUDGING is not proof. The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data. The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere. Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

REALLY STUPID

 

[jc456]

So, you're a fucking idiot. Not interesting.

The primary cause of the global warming observed over the last 150 years is human emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation.

Except you can't prove it. Ain't that hilarious. You can't even prove greenhouse process! LOL , rofl

But you can't prove it's not. And you can't prove that the greenhouse effect isn't happening.

Hence what are we in? A void of not knowing 100% what is happening.

That doesn't mean we can't see what's happening to a large degree, we're at like 90% of knowledge, and yet you're pretending if it's not 100% then it's 0%.

The mere fact you can't prove greenhouse gas does what you claim is all my evidence cause you have zip. Get it? I have sun and deserts also. Why does it cool at night in the deserts?

Can't prove greenhouse gas? Well, we can prove it. We can prove there's water vapor in the air, we can prove there's CO2 in the air.

We can also prove the greenhouse effect. If you compare the Earth with other planets, you see why the Earth is inhabited and others aren't.

As I said, we don't have nothing, we have 90% knowledge, or more.

you can't prove how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is can you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

We can also prove the greenhouse effect

FUDGING is not proof. The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data. The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere. Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

REALLY STUPID

Wow, you're just using insults.

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.

 

[jc456]

We can also prove the greenhouse effect

FUDGING is not proof. The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data. The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere. Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

REALLY STUPID

Wow, you're just using insults.

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, you're a fucking idiot. Not interesting.

The primary cause of the global warming observed over the last 150 years is human emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation.

Except you can't prove it. Ain't that hilarious. You can't even prove greenhouse process! LOL , rofl

But you can't prove it's not. And you can't prove that the greenhouse effect isn't happening.

Hence what are we in? A void of not knowing 100% what is happening.

That doesn't mean we can't see what's happening to a large degree, we're at like 90% of knowledge, and yet you're pretending if it's not 100% then it's 0%.

The mere fact you can't prove greenhouse gas does what you claim is all my evidence cause you have zip. Get it? I have sun and deserts also. Why does it cool at night in the deserts?

Can't prove greenhouse gas? Well, we can prove it. We can prove there's water vapor in the air, we can prove there's CO2 in the air.

We can also prove the greenhouse effect. If you compare the Earth with other planets, you see why the Earth is inhabited and others aren't.

As I said, we don't have nothing, we have 90% knowledge, or more.

you can't prove how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is can you?

No, and I don't need to, because CO2 isn't "warm". CO2 merely blocks what is coming in. So it all depends on how much heat is coming in for the CO2 to prevent leaving the planet.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We can also prove the greenhouse effect

FUDGING is not proof. The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data. The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere. Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

REALLY STUPID

Wow, you're just using insults.

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

 

[jc456]

Except you can't prove it. Ain't that hilarious. You can't even prove greenhouse process! LOL , rofl

But you can't prove it's not. And you can't prove that the greenhouse effect isn't happening.

Hence what are we in? A void of not knowing 100% what is happening.

That doesn't mean we can't see what's happening to a large degree, we're at like 90% of knowledge, and yet you're pretending if it's not 100% then it's 0%.

The mere fact you can't prove greenhouse gas does what you claim is all my evidence cause you have zip. Get it? I have sun and deserts also. Why does it cool at night in the deserts?

Can't prove greenhouse gas? Well, we can prove it. We can prove there's water vapor in the air, we can prove there's CO2 in the air.

We can also prove the greenhouse effect. If you compare the Earth with other planets, you see why the Earth is inhabited and others aren't.

As I said, we don't have nothing, we have 90% knowledge, or more.

you can't prove how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is can you?

No, and I don't need to, because CO2 isn't "warm". CO2 merely blocks what is coming in. So it all depends on how much heat is coming in for the CO2 to prevent leaving the planet.

CO2 does absorb incoming IR, and outgoing IR just leaves the atmosphere. Cools the planet. You're correct no heat so it can't warm the planet

 

[jc456]

We can also prove the greenhouse effect

FUDGING is not proof. The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data. The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere. Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

REALLY STUPID

Wow, you're just using insults.

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

 

[flacaltenn]

We can also prove the greenhouse effect

FUDGING is not proof. The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data. The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere. Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

REALLY STUPID

Wow, you're just using insults.

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

 

[jc456]

FUDGING is not proof. The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data. The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere. Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

REALLY STUPID

Wow, you're just using insults.

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But you can't prove it's not. And you can't prove that the greenhouse effect isn't happening.

Hence what are we in? A void of not knowing 100% what is happening.

That doesn't mean we can't see what's happening to a large degree, we're at like 90% of knowledge, and yet you're pretending if it's not 100% then it's 0%.

The mere fact you can't prove greenhouse gas does what you claim is all my evidence cause you have zip. Get it? I have sun and deserts also. Why does it cool at night in the deserts?

Can't prove greenhouse gas? Well, we can prove it. We can prove there's water vapor in the air, we can prove there's CO2 in the air.

We can also prove the greenhouse effect. If you compare the Earth with other planets, you see why the Earth is inhabited and others aren't.

As I said, we don't have nothing, we have 90% knowledge, or more.

you can't prove how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is can you?

No, and I don't need to, because CO2 isn't "warm". CO2 merely blocks what is coming in. So it all depends on how much heat is coming in for the CO2 to prevent leaving the planet.

CO2 does absorb incoming IR, and outgoing IR just leaves the atmosphere. Cools the planet. You're correct no heat so it can't warm the planet

CO2 doesn't warm the planet in itself. However the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, and other greenhouse gases, does allow for the planet to be warmer.

It's the same as the whole gun thing. "Guns don't kill people, people do", well maybe, but people with guns kill people far better than people without guns, hence why the military gives its soldiers guns.

The planet gets warm from the sun. The same as other planets.

Hottest planet in the solar system? Venus. Why not Mercury which is closer to the sun?

How Hot is Venus?

"The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases.

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen."

"The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius)."

"The nights on Venus are as warm as the days."

How Hot is Mercury?

"it boasts the most widely varying temperatures in the solar system"

"The day side of the planet reaches temperatures of up to 801 F (427 degrees C). In contrast, the chilly night side can get as cold as minus 279 F (minus 173 C)."

So, the question is, why does Mercury get down to minus 279 F and Venus doesn't. You know the answer right?

"Mercury's low mass and close proximity to the sun keep it from having anything but the thinnest of atmospheres, and this is the reason it must pass on being the hottest planet. An atmosphere helps to cloak a planet, keeping heat from leaking into space and balancing it, to some degree. Without an atmosphere, Mercury loses a great deal of heat into space, rather than sharing with its night side."

The atmosphere is lacking, so the heat is lost.

So, looking at other planets we can PROVE that the greenhouse effect exists. The Greenhouse effect makes Venus, at 66 to 107 million miles from the sun WARMER than Mercury which is 29 to 46 million miles away. That's half the distance of Venus and the sun, yet isn't warmer.

The sun heats up both Mercury and Venus, the CO2 on Venus traps this heat and causes it not to escape into the atmosphere so the heat of the sun can increase, rather than leave.

 

[SSDD]

How Hot is Venus?

"The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases.

You are right and wrong....but mostly wrong. The reason venus is so much hotter than earth is that its' atmosphere is over 90 times more dense than ours....if you travel up into the atmosphere, however, and measure the temperature at a height where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth...and compensate for the difference in incoming radiation because the planet is closer to the sun than us you will find that the temperature is about the same as here on earth despite the fact that the atmosphere is almost entirely made up of so called greenhouse gasses.

If the atmosphere of venus were 90+ times more dense than the earth and comprised mostly of non so called greenhouse gasses like nitrogen and oxygen, the surface of the planet would be even hotter. It isn't rocket science. If the atmosphere of venus were composed of nearly all non radiative gasses, the planet would have to depend entirely on convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere. It is just silly to believe that radiative gasses inhibit a planet's atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How Hot is Venus?

"The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases.

You are right and wrong....but mostly wrong. The reason venus is so much hotter than earth is that its' atmosphere is over 90 times more dense than ours....if you travel up into the atmosphere, however, and measure the temperature at a height where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth...and compensate for the difference in incoming radiation because the planet is closer to the sun than us you will find that the temperature is about the same as here on earth despite the fact that the atmosphere is almost entirely made up of so called greenhouse gasses.

If the atmosphere of venus were 90+ times more dense than the earth and comprised mostly of non so called greenhouse gasses like nitrogen and oxygen, the surface of the planet would be even hotter. It isn't rocket science. If the atmosphere of venus were composed of nearly all non radiative gasses, the planet would have to depend entirely on convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere. It is just silly to believe that radiative gasses inhibit a planet's atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.

Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it?

Also the atmosphere of Mercury isn't dense, and therefore it's as hot. So.... ?

Venus, if it had exactly the same atmosphere as Earth would be hotter, simply because it's closer to the sun.

However, Venus is still hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse gases it contains. 90+time more oxygen would be 90+ times more and this also causes issue, however that doesn't mean that if Venus was 90 time more dense than Earth with the same gas make up of Earth, that Venus would be hotter than it is.

However, the person I was speaking to who has been going on about how we can't prove the greenhouse effect, hasn't replied yet, hmmm....

 

[SSDD]

Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it?

Ever hear of the ideal gas law? If you don't have a grasp of even that basic bit of science then you really aren't able to even begin to discuss the topic.

Also the atmosphere of Mercury isn't dense, and therefore it's as hot. So.... ?

The temperature of mercury is entirely a product of its proximity to the sun,

Ask yourself...if you are capable of asking yourself difficult questions that challenge what you believe.....why is the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus warmer than the bottom of the troposphere here on earth on a planet (Uranus) that is arguably the coldest place in the solar system? There are no greenhouse gasses so there is no greenhouse effect, there is no Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism at work....the amount of energy Uranus receives from the sun is minuscule compared to the earth and yet, the bottom of the troposphere there is warmer than here..why do you suppose that is?....Could it be due to the density of the atmosphere?....the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature there because of the pressure...

If you are unaware of the effect of pressure on temperature where gasses are concerned...and you are interested in actually learning something, I suggest that you do just a bit of reading on the ideal gas laws.

Here is a place to start...it explains that where gasses are concerned, if you increase the pressure, you increase the temperature.

Ideal Gas Law

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it?

Ever hear of the ideal gas law? If you don't have a grasp of even that basic bit of science then you really aren't able to even begin to discuss the topic.

Also the atmosphere of Mercury isn't dense, and therefore it's as hot. So.... ?

The temperature of mercury is entirely a product of its proximity to the sun,

Ask yourself...if you are capable of asking yourself difficult questions that challenge what you believe.....why is the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus warmer than the bottom of the troposphere here on earth on a planet (Uranus) that is arguably the coldest place in the solar system? There are no greenhouse gasses so there is no greenhouse effect, there is no Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism at work....the amount of energy Uranus receives from the sun is minuscule compared to the earth and yet, the bottom of the troposphere there is warmer than here..why do you suppose that is?....Could it be due to the density of the atmosphere?....the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature there because of the pressure...

If you are unaware of the effect of pressure on temperature where gasses are concerned...and you are interested in actually learning something, I suggest that you do just a bit of reading on the ideal gas laws.

Here is a place to start...it explains that where gasses are concerned, if you increase the pressure, you increase the temperature.

Ideal Gas Law

Are you trying to say people can't talk about stuff because of things you decide? I disagree. You don't have to talk to me about it.

As for the other stuff, you seem to be trying to impress someone, I'm not very good with people who try and impress others, I just don't get impressed. Nothing you've said contradicts anything I've said. So I think we can leave it at that, unless you actually have something to add to this debate right now.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow, you're just using insults.

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

 

[jc456]

The mere fact you can't prove greenhouse gas does what you claim is all my evidence cause you have zip. Get it? I have sun and deserts also. Why does it cool at night in the deserts?

Can't prove greenhouse gas? Well, we can prove it. We can prove there's water vapor in the air, we can prove there's CO2 in the air.

We can also prove the greenhouse effect. If you compare the Earth with other planets, you see why the Earth is inhabited and others aren't.

As I said, we don't have nothing, we have 90% knowledge, or more.

you can't prove how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is can you?

No, and I don't need to, because CO2 isn't "warm". CO2 merely blocks what is coming in. So it all depends on how much heat is coming in for the CO2 to prevent leaving the planet.

CO2 does absorb incoming IR, and outgoing IR just leaves the atmosphere. Cools the planet. You're correct no heat so it can't warm the planet

CO2 doesn't warm the planet in itself. However the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, and other greenhouse gases, does allow for the planet to be warmer.

It's the same as the whole gun thing. "Guns don't kill people, people do", well maybe, but people with guns kill people far better than people without guns, hence why the military gives its soldiers guns.

The planet gets warm from the sun. The same as other planets.

Hottest planet in the solar system? Venus. Why not Mercury which is closer to the sun?

How Hot is Venus?

"The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases.

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen."

"The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius)."

"The nights on Venus are as warm as the days."

How Hot is Mercury?

"it boasts the most widely varying temperatures in the solar system"

"The day side of the planet reaches temperatures of up to 801 F (427 degrees C). In contrast, the chilly night side can get as cold as minus 279 F (minus 173 C)."

So, the question is, why does Mercury get down to minus 279 F and Venus doesn't. You know the answer right?

"Mercury's low mass and close proximity to the sun keep it from having anything but the thinnest of atmospheres, and this is the reason it must pass on being the hottest planet. An atmosphere helps to cloak a planet, keeping heat from leaking into space and balancing it, to some degree. Without an atmosphere, Mercury loses a great deal of heat into space, rather than sharing with its night side."

The atmosphere is lacking, so the heat is lost.

So, looking at other planets we can PROVE that the greenhouse effect exists. The Greenhouse effect makes Venus, at 66 to 107 million miles from the sun WARMER than Mercury which is 29 to 46 million miles away. That's half the distance of Venus and the sun, yet isn't warmer.

The sun heats up both Mercury and Venus, the CO2 on Venus traps this heat and causes it not to escape into the atmosphere so the heat of the sun can increase, rather than leave.

look up Diurnal Bulge.

 

[jc456]

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

so you know, the 20 PPM comes from the hottest evah for 2015 and now 2016 claims. The increase was 20 PPM. so you know why I use it.

 

[jc456]

Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

So what degree F is all of that?

 

[flacaltenn]

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

so you know, the 20 PPM comes from the hottest evah for 2015 and now 2016 claims. The increase was 20 PPM. so you know why I use it.

You really think that a heat pump as big as planet RESPONDS completely within a year to a forcing of ANY type? It's just silly. And the science actually says that. People are stuck on those OLD charts showing a perfectly "correlated" CO2 rise to temperature. And inferences were made that simply not true about the 2 details tracking each other..