How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[Grumblenuts]

No matter how you count it, CO2 is still only 400 parts per million.

True, but I gather ReinyDays better understands that gas chemistry is not analogous to firing a bullet through grass. The real question boils down to just how many collisions or reaction opportunities are likely to occur? Unlike cars and planes, gas molecules are constantly banging off one another. Generally, warmer air tends to rise, but specifically, it goes up, down, sideways, cattycorner, up, sideways down,.. lucky not to bang into every damned molecule within miles along the way, not to mention every wave of light. Then some wavelengths of radiation will match better with CO2's bonding geometry than others and likely be absorbed while others pass unimpeded. More of an impedance matching issue than one of concentration, I'd bet

 

[daveman]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Technically, a survey of scientists found that not "all" scientists agree with the concept of global warming. So, you are generalizing. That doesn't negate that the "majority" of scientists do believe we are having a negative impact on the climate.
Here's the thing though. Through the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act," plus emission restrictions on our vehicles, the United States is one of the least polluters in the world. The major contributors to carbon emissions remains, China, Russia, India and Africa, with other 2nd and 3rd World nations being considerable contributors.
Newsflash......they aren't going to change their ways for years to come.

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2024

Newsflash doesn't seem actual data agrees with you.

china is number one on the list you provided. dude are you ok? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, can't make up your kind of stupid, you must work on it.

If the argument is that America is one of the least polluters in the world what is the problem of me stating they are 3rd in total emissions and second in per capita? As for stupid, maybe read first, react second.

Make China Great Again!

Biden's trying!

 

[jc456]

Generally speaking, "matter" doesn't radiate anything anywhere in particular.

Matter sure as hell does ... all Light Matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation ... you may be confusing this with the mythological substance called Dark Matter, which doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation, which is why it's dark ... all atoms can absorb photons, thus all atoms can radiate photons ... why else would the Sun shine? ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

The mean free path for IR in Earth's lower atmosphere is around 27 m ... almost 100 feet ... that's the average distance an IR photon will travel near Earth's surface ... maximum absorption for solar IR is above 99% of the atmosphere, and it's all gone by the time the solar IR passes through the top 18% of the atmosphere ... only visual light and radio waves can pass through the atmosphere unencumbered ... this is why IR telescopes have to be in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere, they'd get nothing (or fogged out by back radiation) from the Earth's surface, even atop Mt Everest ...

The main culprit here is water vapor ... carbon dioxide only reacts to IR in a few narrow bands where water doesn't, notably around 15 µm ... so, yeah, even 180 ppm is enough to keep almost all the IR photons from Earth's surface from directly reaching outer space ... which is why the Earth's surface is 30-40ºC warmer than expected without an atmosphere ...

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.

You should avoid gambling at all costs.

The odds of 180/1,000,000 trapping 100% are clearly not in your favor.
You should avoid gambling at all costs.

Apparently you don't gamble yourself ... if a $180 bet wins $1,000,000, then that's even money (on average) ... yes, I'll always toss a buck on the Fire Bet every chance I can, with every expectation of tipping the dealers more ... but most (if not all) casinos will only pay $980,000 on that $180 bet ... 2% house take ... you should avoid banking a casino at all costs ...

Your phrasing is difficult ... should be "approaches 100%" ... certainty can only be established after-the-fact ... so in the real world we'll only see 99.999999999999999999999% ... perhaps higher, but still ≠ 100% ... thus my words "almost all the IR" ... if you try to take a course in chemistry at your local community college, likely they'll also make you take an English class, something to improve your reading skills ... this might surprise you, but "almost all" ≠ "certainty" ...

Perhaps you have a different explanation for the temperature maxima at 8 mb elevation? ... one that also explains the temperature maxima as we approach 0 mb ... (see how I used the word "approach"?) ... In science, it's never enough to say some theory is wrong, one must also state which theory is correct ... I'm sorry, photons don't come with return addresses, nor do molecules have the intelligence to decide which photons to accept and which to let pass by ... SSDD lead you astray ...

No, really. Stay away from gambling and anything to do with math. You don't have the first idea.

Avoid bets where your odds are 180 out of 1,000,000.

Let's see your math ... $180 bet wins $1,000,000 ... what's my take after a 180 trillion rounds? ...

Nothing Honey Boo Boo.

Nothing

You lose

The odds are 180 out of 1,000,000

Poker Percentage Odds Chart | Percentage Odds

Outs	1 Card To Come (flop)	1 Card To Come (turn)	2 Cards To Come (flop)
1	2.1%	2.2%	4.3%

Your odds are so much worse!

2.1% would be a dream come true for you!!

What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 dollar pot? ...

How do you not get it????

How do you not get it????

Answer the question, fool ...
What kind of poker game allows a $180 buy-in to a $1,000,000 pot? ...

Gambling isn't only about odds, it's about pay-out as well ... stupid ...

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.

Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

You can freeroll into the WSOP Main Event. I think Chris Moneymaker won a $200 Satellite to get the $10K buy in.
Does EVERY $180 buy in win $1,000,000 every time as you suggest?

This is your analogy ... and it's a particularly bad one at that ...

The first fallacy is reducing the sample pool to a deck of 52 ... there's 3,300,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 in one mole of air (about 5 gallons at sea level) ... you contend there's no chance in hell any individual IR photon will strike and be absorbed by any CO2 molecules in the whole atmosphere ... I give you a mole of photons, what are the odds of every one traversing a 5-gallon bucket? ... what are the odds of 1,000 W/m^2 worth of photons traversing several miles of 5-gallon buckets? ...

So much for your deflection attack ...

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?

... approaches 100% ... that's a lot of photons, but not infinite ...

You need to stop posting, for your own good.

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

Let me know you followed that before I post anything else

You need to stop posting, for your own good.
If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.
Let me know you followed that before I post anything else

There's 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in a mole of air, or 23.6 liters at sea level ... roughly 5 gallons ... 400 ppm of that is 240,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of carbon dioxide in that 5 gallons ... 1,000,000 molecules of air is only 48 attograms ... 48 x 10^-18 grams ... do you not know what a mole is? ... it's a basic unit of measurement in the SI metric system ...

Here's a hint ... when someone uses a word you don't understand ... look it up ...

Mole (unit) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You need me to stop posting for your own good ... Oh, I forgot, Bubba didn't finish Middle School ... chemistry is taught in high school ... still, you should look up words you don't understand, instead of looking like an idiot ...

LOL!!

No matter how you count it, CO2 is still only 400 parts per million.

Next time use scientific notation...

....and CO2 will STILL be only 400 PPM

Hey frank , 400ppm = 100%

 

[ReinyDays]

No matter how you count it, CO2 is still only 400 parts per million.

True, but I gather ReinyDays better understands that gas chemistry is not analogous to firing a bullet through grass. The real question boils down to just how many collisions or reaction opportunities are likely to occur? Unlike cars and planes, gas molecules are constantly banging off one another. Generally, warmer air tends to rise, but specifically, it goes up, down, sideways, cattycorner, up, sideways down,.. lucky not to bang into every damned molecule within miles along the way, not to mention every wave of light. Then some wavelengths of radiation will match better with CO2's bonding geometry than others and likely be absorbed while others pass unimpeded. More of an impedance matching issue than one of concentration, I'd bet

We can use the kinetic diameter of carbon dioxide as 330 picometers ... then calculate the mean free path and see if it matches the published value of 30 meters ... to me that sounds about right, based on the same reasons you point out ... 400 ppm is still 2.4 X 10^20 CO2 molecules in a 5 gallon bucket of air ... the notion of a 15 µm photon making it through 5 or 7 miles of atmosphere without striking a CO2 molecule is near ridiculous ...

The point I'm trying to make is that when the CO2 molecule in the upper atmosphere absorbs a solar 15 µm photon, it will re-emit a 15 µm photon is a random direction, including back out into space ... in the exact same way as terrestrial radiation is partially re-emitted back to Earth ... "One [rule] to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" ...

I appreciate C'Frank's arguing against CO2 caused climate change ... and here I'm trying to give him a very very good reason why he's right ... yet still he argues ... just strange ...

 

[mamooth]

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

A quick way to point out how dumb Frank is being is with the ink example.

One drop of black ink in a glass of water ends up being about 400ppm of ink.

That stops all of the visible light. The water turns black.

Hence, Frank's dopey "But a mere trace can't block light!" theory is debunked simply and conclusively.

He won't care. His beliefs are based on religion and butthurt, so reality won't change them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

A quick way to point out how dumb Frank is being is with the ink example.

One drop of black ink in a glass of water ends up being about 400ppm of ink.

That stops all of the visible light. The water turns black.

Hence, Frank's dopey "But a mere trace can't block light!" theory is debunked simply and conclusively.

He won't care. His beliefs are based on religion and butthurt, so reality won't change them.

What a moron!

OMG!!!

400 PPM is not pitch black.

400PPM is on the white end of the scale.

In any event, do you believe that 400PPM of CO2 is raising temperature 1.5C? Yes or no?

Do you believe, irrespective of 450,000 year data set showing CO2 LAGGING temperature, that it now suddenly drives temperature? Yes or NO?

 

[mamooth]

400PPM is on the white end of the scale.

Poor Frank. The concept of 3-dimensions just baffles him.

Yes, Frank, a one-molecule thin layer at 400 ppm would be almost transparent.

However, a glass of water or the atmosphere is _not_ one molecule thick.

Can you figure out where this is going on your own, or do you need more help?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

400PPM is on the white end of the scale.

Poor Frank. The concept of 3-dimensions just baffles him.

Yes, Frank, a one-molecule thin layer at 400 ppm would be almost transparent.

However, a glass of water or the atmosphere is _not_ one molecule thick.

Can you figure out where this is going on your own, or do you need more help?

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong as you are right now

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you CAN perform climate change "experiments" in the lab?

 

[ReinyDays]

400PPM is on the white end of the scale.

Poor Frank. The concept of 3-dimensions just baffles him.

Yes, Frank, a one-molecule thin layer at 400 ppm would be almost transparent.

However, a glass of water or the atmosphere is _not_ one molecule thick.

Can you figure out where this is going on your own, or do you need more help?

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong as you are right now

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong

Obviously ... you don't ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

400PPM is on the white end of the scale.

Poor Frank. The concept of 3-dimensions just baffles him.

Yes, Frank, a one-molecule thin layer at 400 ppm would be almost transparent.

However, a glass of water or the atmosphere is _not_ one molecule thick.

Can you figure out where this is going on your own, or do you need more help?

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong as you are right now

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong

Obviously ... you don't ...

So you agree that we CAN perform "global warming" experiments in a lab setting, right?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So the concept of 3-dimensions just baffles you, right?

 

[ReinyDays]

400PPM is on the white end of the scale.

Poor Frank. The concept of 3-dimensions just baffles him.

Yes, Frank, a one-molecule thin layer at 400 ppm would be almost transparent.

However, a glass of water or the atmosphere is _not_ one molecule thick.

Can you figure out where this is going on your own, or do you need more help?

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong as you are right now

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong

Obviously ... you don't ...

So you agree that we CAN perform "global warming" experiments in a lab setting, right?

So you agree that we CAN perform "global warming" experiments in a lab setting, right?

Absolutely YES ... unfortunately, you don't believe in basic physics, so this research is meaningless to you ...

Seim, Olsen; "The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment"; Atmospheric and Climate Science, 10, 168-1895; 2020

"To our knowledge, no carefully performed experimental measurement of the temperature effect of CO2 absorption of IR and the resulting backscatter on the IR radiating surface has been presented in the literature." ... until this paper was published last year, which confirms what I've been saying all along: the extra carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere, but only trivially, slightly above instrumentation error ...

All finder's fees and payola go to S'Tommy for the above link ...

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 486006

Is this like the COVID thing where hundreds of millions are going to die within a few short months if we don't all wear masks and lock down forever?

Just wondering... Oh wait! Haven't those same scientists you're talking about predicted that the world would be without ice caps within a decade thirty years ago and that we were all going to die?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Boy, where do you get shit like that? The truth is that most of the climate scientists have been wrong. Their predictions were far too conservative. In 1981 Dr. James Hansen predicted that the Northwest Passage would be transited by big ships by 2100. It first was open in 2007, and a one thousand passenger cruise ship transited it in 2016. Both the Greenland and Antarctica icecaps are melting many times faster than predicted in 1990.

 

[ding]

400PPM is on the white end of the scale.

Poor Frank. The concept of 3-dimensions just baffles him.

Yes, Frank, a one-molecule thin layer at 400 ppm would be almost transparent.

However, a glass of water or the atmosphere is _not_ one molecule thick.

Can you figure out where this is going on your own, or do you need more help?

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong as you are right now

I hope I have friends who would encourage to stop posting when and if I'm ever as wrong

Obviously ... you don't ...

So you agree that we CAN perform "global warming" experiments in a lab setting, right?

So you agree that we CAN perform "global warming" experiments in a lab setting, right?

Absolutely YES ... unfortunately, you don't believe in basic physics, so this research is meaningless to you ...

Seim, Olsen; "The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment"; Atmospheric and Climate Science, 10, 168-1895; 2020

"To our knowledge, no carefully performed experimental measurement of the temperature effect of CO2 absorption of IR and the resulting backscatter on the IR radiating surface has been presented in the literature." ... until this paper was published last year, which confirms what I've been saying all along: the extra carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere, but only trivially, slightly above instrumentation error ...

All finder's fees and payola go to S'Tommy for the above link ...

Nice paper.

5. Conclusion
The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, we observed absorption of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to the backscatter from CO2. The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b). The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC. Another possibility is that our setup has unexplained heat losses that cancel the effect of the increased backscatter IR and prevent higher temperatures in the rear chamber, but after testing this and finding only slight losses, we do not see that this could be the case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 486006

Is this like the COVID thing where hundreds of millions are going to die within a few short months if we don't all wear masks and lock down forever?

Just wondering... Oh wait! Haven't those same scientists you're talking about predicted that the world would be without ice caps within a decade thirty years ago and that we were all going to die?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Boy, where do you get shit like that? The truth is that most of the climate scientists have been wrong. Their predictions were far too conservative. In 1981 Dr. James Hansen predicted that the Northwest Passage would be transited by big ships by 2100. It first was open in 2007, and a one thousand passenger cruise ship transited it in 2016. Both the Greenland and Antarctica icecaps are melting many times faster than predicted in 1990.

Guam, still upright

 

[Grumblenuts]

Analysis of this as an experiment

There are three separate issues to clarify in this experiment. First, there is the construction and calibration of the IR sensors. Second, there is the energy balance calculation which searches for, but cannot locate leaks of energy to explain the null result. Third, there are the many explicit and implicit uses of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula which are erroneous, and which cast doubt not on the Greenhouse effect but on the null result here.

The reason the experimenters appear to have no idea what they're doing is they're not climate scientists, so most likely deniers who set out to fail and delightedly did.

 

[jc456]

If CO2 is only 400PPM, that means that for every 1,000,000 molecules, CO2 is only 400.

A quick way to point out how dumb Frank is being is with the ink example.

One drop of black ink in a glass of water ends up being about 400ppm of ink.

That stops all of the visible light. The water turns black.

Hence, Frank's dopey "But a mere trace can't block light!" theory is debunked simply and conclusively.

He won't care. His beliefs are based on religion and butthurt, so reality won't change them.

Let’s see that million molecule glass the size of the globe and see!!

 

[ding]

Analysis of this as an experiment

There are three separate issues to clarify in this experiment. First, there is the construction and calibration of the IR sensors. Second, there is the energy balance calculation which searches for, but cannot locate leaks of energy to explain the null result. Third, there are the many explicit and implicit uses of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula which are erroneous, and which cast doubt not on the Greenhouse effect but on the null result here.

The reason the experimenters appear to have no idea what they're doing is they're not climate scientists, so most likely deniers who set out to fail and delightedly did.

Is that the IPCC's official response? Pay no attention to these guys because they aren't in the club?

Seriously, dude? Really? That's it?