how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

And who are YOU again to call me an arrogant ass? I let the TEXTBOOKS decide and unfortuneately from your comments below -- that isn't possible for you to follow along..



Go up find where where my quote is.. Refers to a particular textbook page that I presented from Eckhardt.. If you don't see the math --- Call an optometrist IMMEDIATELY.

I CLEARLY STATED where the quote came from.. References this TEXTBOOK page I previously posted...

See the quote I referenced??


In fact --- HAD YOU READ IT or been even mildly following along you would have found that the END OF QUOTE (the part I didn't snip) went like this..

Meaning --- the math follows..

And indeed --- immediately below that Eckhardt starts to do the SAME CALCULATIONS that are layed out in the other FIVE references that got snipped..

So having demonstrated your lack of interest or ability in USING anything I've presented here.. I have NO interest at this point in addressing the REST of your mangled post.. Take that any way you want.. You wait 3 pages to pick a fight about a non-existant issue..

And you mock all the efforts to show that back-radiation in the GreenHouse theory is supported by basic laws. And you attack me. You are as said above doomed to be a "useless" skeptic.

So then when you say "following math" you meant the math that is in the pictures you posted from science of doom? Okay got it.. Might want to clarify what is going to be your work, and what's going to be someone elses...

So then we already know that.. And that is not proof of backradiation, it's proof of radiation. BAckradiation would be if the bodies continued to hotter due to radiation returned to them from the other body. OR more specifically, a hotter body would get hotter due to a colder body next to it..

But the pages you posted don't support that claim...IN fact they support mine...

Now please get a grip.. Radiation of all objects does not prove back-radiation, and it's a silly claim you are making to that effect.. By your standard all radiation is backradiation and that's completely false.. BAck-radiation as it states would be radiation coming back to it's source. Not radiation from another source, but it's source. Another example would be a source radiating to an object and that object radiating enough heat back to it's source of heat, to warm it further...

See the difference yet? WHat you are doing is claiming some very vague definition of back-radiation to argue it's merits, when in reality it is a very specific thing, and not a vague or general interpretation.

I hope it's not intentional, but to be honest It is starting to look that way because I have explained the difference several times and you keep posting the same nonsense anyway..

If you aren't sure the difference and don't trust me, ask Ian or somebody you trust. IF they tell you that your definition of back-radiation is sound, get another opinion because the rest of the world has a different view on it.

babble... warmer getting hotter due to cooler.. That's all babble..

warmer DOESN't get hotter EVER unless it's being pumped with energy like the earth. It's rate of emission decreases with other radiating surfaces present..

Considering only the blanket and NOT the sun --- it's the COOLING RATE of the earth that is changed by the presence of the "cooler" atmos.. It's a matter of degree.. The atmos is a much "warmer" choice than being bare-ass naked to space isn't it?

Got More Babble?

I ain't making it up... All right there in the textbooks.. Perhaps you want to show me a textbook on RADIATIVE transfer that says

"cooler emissive bodies cannot radiate towards warmer bodies"

OR

"if they do --- that energy doesn't count"...

I'll take anything with a textbook cover... that SPECIFICALLY discusses radiative emissions ---- not conduction or convection.. Happy hunting pal..

If you think the references I brought to the table prove YOUR point (whatever the fuck that is).. Just recircle the references.. (won't happen guarandamteed)...

LOL, it's not babble it's the concepts you are citing. You just don't understand them. You want a way out, take it, just don't lie about what I wrote...

You haven't a clue, and that's obvious... I called you arrogant because you act it on here. We see it in your posts. You can't abide me? LOL, get over yourself...

Until you can realize the difference between radiation and back-radiation you're arguments are going to remain BS...

 

[gslack]

Those cooler bodies have to be constantly on the alert for hotter bodies to shut off radiating towards. And what if there was a 1000 degree body in between a 900 degree body and a 1100 degree body? It would go nuts.

Stop trying be a kiss ass socko... One thing everybody agrees on is you are an idiot, and a sock...

 

[gslack]

Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...

If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?

In other words, if it's acceptable to believe that the same energy can be reused to do the same task again on the same source, what prevents the thing from doing the same thing a third, fourth, fifth or even an infinite number of times? After all if energy is neither created nor destroyed and only changes form, and yet in the case of back-radiation it's actually able to be re-used in the same system for the same task (warming the surface), then what stops it from doing so indefinitely?

Can that back-radiation effect be applied from the surface to the atmosphere as well? And then again from the atmosphere to the surface? Losses shouldn't be an issue because evidently the same energy can be re-used to do the same tasks on the same objects...

So where does it end? How many times can we re-use the same energy in the same system for the same task before we can say enough? One time? Two times? A hundred?

If the process actually is like it's claimed, we could have infinite energy from finite sources yet we don't see that in nature. Even stars die out eventually.. But using warmer logic we can argue that they won't ever die out. One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over... But we don't see that happening..

So why not apply this concept to other areas as well? How about electricity recycling? Why isn't "back-conduction" a serious issue in electronics? Seems Ian believes in it...LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...

If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?

The amount of backflow will establish an equilibrium point with any primary heat source, like the sun.. If the sun heating is invariant, than a small increase in the IR atmos downflow will effect a small change in surface temp that then PERSISTS (without your imaginary growing or multiplying) forever until the downflow rate is changed again.. No magic, no violation of physics. It's called heat retention.. We manage it all the time..

In other words, if it's acceptable to believe that the same energy can be reused to do the same task again on the same source, what prevents the thing from doing the same thing a third, fourth, fifth or even an infinite number of times? After all if energy is neither created nor destroyed and only changes form, and yet in the case of back-radiation it's actually able to be re-used in the same system for the same task (warming the surface), then what stops it from doing so indefinitely?

See above.. A small change in the amount of back radiation only increments the surface temp by a related small amount. Lose 5W/m2 less thru the atmos --- gain a fraction of degree STEADY STATE in the long run.. No thermal runaway..

In fact, the energy DOES recirculate, continuously.. If there's been no change in atmos temp for awhile, then there will be no change in surface temp.. But EVERYTHING RADIATES IR EM photons continuously..



Can that back-radiation effect be applied from the surface to the atmosphere as well? And then again from the atmosphere to the surface? Losses shouldn't be an issue because evidently the same energy can be re-used to do the same tasks on the same objects...

So where does it end? How many times can we re-use the same energy in the same system for the same task before we can say enough? One time? Two times? A hundred?

GawdZILLIONS of times. With no change in surface temp as long as the atmos heat remains constant (no change in GHouse character) and the Sun remains constantly doing it's thing. The sun warms by so many W/m2 and the net loss is then equal to that same W/m2 which makes it thru the atmos.

If the process actually is like it's claimed, we could have infinite energy from finite sources yet we don't see that in nature. Even stars die out eventually.. But using warmer logic we can argue that they won't ever die out. One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over... But we don't see that happening..

Crazy talk or babbly --- you choose.. Your burnt out butt of a star would have a NET heat loss to the freezing face of space. Has to. Space is the final frontier.. Cptn Kirk says so.. And it's a cold bitch.. Even if Al Gore placed a magic CO2 blanket around it --- it would still eventually cool -- once the engine is shut down. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF --- YOU ARE SO CLOSE TO GENIUS HERE..

You said "One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over..." WHERE DID THE REST GO if only SOME radiates back? No one is claiming it ALL radiates back. Or somehow MORE is created..

So why not apply this concept to other areas as well? How about electricity recycling? Why isn't "back-conduction" a serious issue in electronics? Seems Ian believes in it...LOL

That's how motors work moron.. Ever hear of Back-EMF??? Wanna deny that too?

You're insistence that re-radiating energy is somehow illegal is childish.. Why did you not give me a reference of ANY TEXT that supports your deluded thinking??? JUST ONE that says cooler objects are PROHIBITED BY LAW from radiating at warmer objects?

JUST ANYTHING DUDE.. As long as it refers SPECIFICALLY TO RADIATIVE heating and not conduction..

You're still here mocking the physics of EM heat radiation.. Let's do this carefully.. One more time..

At NIGHT --- no sun.. No heating.. The earth will ALWAYS lose heat.. That loss is somewhat counteracted by a downward "blanket" of heat flow in the form of IR from the ATMOS.. It's the ONLY THING keeping your ass from freezing from exposure to SPACE.

The NET flow VIOLATES NOTHING.. In fact --- 6 textbooks tell you to calculate the NET flow that way.

The back radiation part is the IR ENERGY COMING FROM THE SKY.. This must be SUBTRACTED from the heat flow from the surface (Big math challenge there for you dude --- can you handle it?) NOTHING get created. If you want to call that recycling fine. It's NOT illegal.. Happens when your mom tucks you in every night. The Blanky TRAPS and RE-RADIATES thermal energy. Put in some numbers.. (160W/m2 UP) - (120W/m2 DWN) = 40W/m2 lost to the heavens. Decrease the temp of that atmos --- MORE GETS lost..
Boy --- if you can't handle that.. I'm out of ideas to spoonfeed it to you unless you start linking to some proof that I'm the whacked one..

The INCREASE in surface temp comes the next morning when the sun starts kicking in the same energy it did yesterday.. If the NET UP flow was less (assuming more GHgases), the surface temp starts out higher at sun-up and there is a NEW higher equilibrium temp for the surface.

Where is this alternate theory of GreenHouse located? Is it at "the Onion"? Is it on Art Bell?
Did you get it from the Russians??

10 pages now --- WHERE IS IT?

 

[itfitzme]

It's actually about the same complexity doing the roast calculation and the AGW calculation. The roast involves mostly conduction, dead easy, with some convection. Negligible radiation.

The AGW for systems earth, only radiation. Radiation in from the sun, constant enough. Radiation out, reduced according to GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The reflected heat energy out must be compensated for by the fourth power of the earth's absolute temperature rising. Slide rule stuff.

The only thing that is nearly impossibly complicated is how long until equilibrium is achieved.

Even better if you disconnect the coolant pump, install a 100W light bulb, break the door switch so the light stays on, and put dry ice in the lower drawer.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those cooler bodies have to be constantly on the alert for hotter bodies to shut off radiating towards. And what if there was a 1000 degree body in between a 900 degree body and a 1100 degree body? It would go nuts.

Stop trying be a kiss ass socko... One thing everybody agrees on is you are an idiot, and a sock...

Actually I was checking up on old PMZ and HE GETS THIS.. I would have thanked him for that cogent example of confused bars not knowing who to radiate at.. Those bars would have to radiate ONLY Left to right -- or right to left depending on who's on first... And then you drop in a cool LADY bar at the end barstool next to Mr 1100Degrees --- and back off Stan.. The pandemonium of them radiating all over each other to get at the cool lady bar would get ugly quick....

But I put him back on ignore too soon.. Maybe ONE day...

 

[gslack]

Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...

If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?

In other words, if it's acceptable to believe that the same energy can be reused to do the same task again on the same source, what prevents the thing from doing the same thing a third, fourth, fifth or even an infinite number of times? After all if energy is neither created nor destroyed and only changes form, and yet in the case of back-radiation it's actually able to be re-used in the same system for the same task (warming the surface), then what stops it from doing so indefinitely?

Can that back-radiation effect be applied from the surface to the atmosphere as well? And then again from the atmosphere to the surface? Losses shouldn't be an issue because evidently the same energy can be re-used to do the same tasks on the same objects...

So where does it end? How many times can we re-use the same energy in the same system for the same task before we can say enough? One time? Two times? A hundred?

If the process actually is like it's claimed, we could have infinite energy from finite sources yet we don't see that in nature. Even stars die out eventually.. But using warmer logic we can argue that they won't ever die out. One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over... But we don't see that happening..

So why not apply this concept to other areas as well? How about electricity recycling? Why isn't "back-conduction" a serious issue in electronics? Seems Ian believes in it...LOL

That's how motors work moron.. Ever hear of Back-EMF??? Wanna deny that too?

You're insistence that re-radiating energy is somehow illegal is childish.. Why did you not give me a reference of ANY TEXT that supports your deluded thinking???

You're still here mocking the physics of EM heat radiation.. Let's do this carefully.. One more time..

At NIGHT --- no sun.. No heating.. The earth will ALWAYS lose heat.. That loss is somewhat counteracted by a downward "blanket" of heat flow in the form of IR from the ATMOS.. It's the ONLY THING keeping your ass from freezing from exposure to SPACE.

The NET flow VIOLATES NOTHING.. In fact --- 6 textbooks tell you to calculate the NET flow that way.

The back radiation part is the IR ENERGY COMING FROM THE SKY.. This must be SUBTRACTED from the heat flow from the surface (Big math challenge there for you dude --- can you handle it?) NOTHING get created. If you want to call that recycling fine. It's NOT illegal.. Happens when your mom tucks you in every night. The Blanky TRAPS and RE-RADIATES thermal energy. Put in some numbers.. (160W/m2 UP) - (120W/m2 DWN) = 40W/m2 lost to the heavens. Decrease the temp of that atmos --- MORE GETS lost..
Boy --- if you can't handle that.. I'm out of ideas to spoonfeed it to you unless you start linking to some proof that I'm the whacked one..

The INCREASE in surface temp comes the next morning when the sun starts kicking in the same energy it did yesterday.. If the NET UP flow was less (assuming more GHgases), the surface temp starts out higher at sun-up and there is a NEW higher equilibrium temp for the surface.

Where is this alternate theory of GreenHouse located? Is it at "the Onion"? Is it on Art Bell?
Did you get it from the Russians??

10 pages now --- WHERE IS IT?

LOL,NET flow of energy is not the same thing as individual heat transfer dumbass...

Back EMF

Counter-electromotive force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The counter-electromotive force also known as back electromotive force (abbreviated counter EMF, or CEMF)[1] is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is caused by a changing electromagnetic field. It is the effect of Lenz's Law of electromagnetism. Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position.[2] Counter EMF is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current.[1] The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage.[1][3]
In a motor using a rotating armature and, in the presence of a magnetic flux, the conductors cut the magnetic field lines as they rotate. The changing field strength produces a voltage in the coil; the motor is acting like a generator. (Faraday's law of induction.) This voltage opposes the original applied voltage; therefore, it is called "counter-electromotive force" (by Lenz's law). With a lower overall voltage across the armature, the current flowing into the motor coils is reduced.[4]
To experience the effect of counter-electromotive force one can perform this simple exercise. With a window closed, lift the switch of an electric window in a car that is running at idle, and hold it momentarily and notice the idle RPM drop. The electric motor in the door is stationary and therefore the inrush current will be very high. The alternator will try to provide for the large current which subsequently drags down the engine. As soon as the power window motor overcomes its inertia and starts spinning, back EMF will be produced, exerting less load on the alternator. Hence, the engine speed will return to normal.
In motor control and robotics, the term "Back-EMF" often refers to using the voltage generated by a spinning motor to infer the speed of the motor's rotation.[5]

Not even CLOSE to the same thing is it silly? LOL, you just pull whatever you want out of your hat don't you? Doesn't matter how valid it is in context does it?

Just like your assumptions regarding all radiation being back-radiation.. You don't have any alternative, because you really don't know what the hell it is anyway..

LOL, please don't ask me to provide a source to prove a negative. It's as dumb as your last excuse..I don't need to provide a source to prove the standard back-radiation claimed by GH theory, you already state it. The trouble is you associate all radiation as back-radiation.. ROFL..

Please show me where it is you can re-use the same energy to do the same task..

And your asinine claim that all things radiate back to there warmer source and can effect warming of that source is getting worse now.. The blanket analogy? Brilliant, the fact it slows heat loss and doesn't require any form of backradiation doesn't even enter your mind does it? LOL.. SLowed heat loss, means the heat coming from your body backs up, and bingo you get warmer. There is no need for any back-radiation,reflection and slowing of heat loss as it transfers through the blanket material does a fine job, in fact if it did do as you claim the blanket would become unbearable almost immediately.. Your body is the heat source silly. Heat coming off your body, add in that reflected by the blanket, and then add in the slowed time in escape through the blanket and you get a fine example of reality. Again no back-radiation necessary and none happening.

Please explain which is back-radiation? What us it by your logic? You seem to call everything back-radiation so I think we need clarification from you. I know what the texts you suppliedfrom Science of doom.com say about RADIATION now, so what do you call back radiation specifically..

Please clarify your definition of back-radiation...


P.S. I have asked you several times to stop writing inside quotes to me. It makes it hard for others to distinguish my words from yours. The light red thing doesn't do much to help it either. It's unnecessary and only makes things harder for others to follow. I have asked and you have refused. SO from here on out I will assume they are pointless and treat them as such. To this point nothing you have written in the quotes was worth the time anyway.

 

[gslack]

Those cooler bodies have to be constantly on the alert for hotter bodies to shut off radiating towards. And what if there was a 1000 degree body in between a 900 degree body and a 1100 degree body? It would go nuts.

Stop trying be a kiss ass socko... One thing everybody agrees on is you are an idiot, and a sock...

Actually I was checking up on old PMZ and HE GETS THIS.. I would have thanked him for that cogent example of confused bars not knowing who to radiate at.. Those bars would have to radiate ONLY Left to right -- or right to left depending on who's on first... And then you drop in a cool LADY bar at the end barstool next to Mr 1100Degrees --- and back off Stan.. The pandemonium of them radiating all over each other to get at the cool lady bar would get ugly quick....

But I put him back on ignore too soon.. Maybe ONE day...

Ian would be so proud of you..he supports known trolling liars and socks when it suits his story as well. whatever happened to those "principles" now? LOL..

LOL, so I'm not allowed in your club because I have cooties?

ROFL.... Get a life..

What are you 10? LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...

If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?

In other words, if it's acceptable to believe that the same energy can be reused to do the same task again on the same source, what prevents the thing from doing the same thing a third, fourth, fifth or even an infinite number of times? After all if energy is neither created nor destroyed and only changes form, and yet in the case of back-radiation it's actually able to be re-used in the same system for the same task (warming the surface), then what stops it from doing so indefinitely?

Can that back-radiation effect be applied from the surface to the atmosphere as well? And then again from the atmosphere to the surface? Losses shouldn't be an issue because evidently the same energy can be re-used to do the same tasks on the same objects...

So where does it end? How many times can we re-use the same energy in the same system for the same task before we can say enough? One time? Two times? A hundred?

If the process actually is like it's claimed, we could have infinite energy from finite sources yet we don't see that in nature. Even stars die out eventually.. But using warmer logic we can argue that they won't ever die out. One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over... But we don't see that happening..

So why not apply this concept to other areas as well? How about electricity recycling? Why isn't "back-conduction" a serious issue in electronics? Seems Ian believes in it...LOL

That's how motors work moron.. Ever hear of Back-EMF??? Wanna deny that too?

You're insistence that re-radiating energy is somehow illegal is childish.. Why did you not give me a reference of ANY TEXT that supports your deluded thinking???

You're still here mocking the physics of EM heat radiation.. Let's do this carefully.. One more time..

At NIGHT --- no sun.. No heating.. The earth will ALWAYS lose heat.. That loss is somewhat counteracted by a downward "blanket" of heat flow in the form of IR from the ATMOS.. It's the ONLY THING keeping your ass from freezing from exposure to SPACE.

The NET flow VIOLATES NOTHING.. In fact --- 6 textbooks tell you to calculate the NET flow that way.

The back radiation part is the IR ENERGY COMING FROM THE SKY.. This must be SUBTRACTED from the heat flow from the surface (Big math challenge there for you dude --- can you handle it?) NOTHING get created. If you want to call that recycling fine. It's NOT illegal.. Happens when your mom tucks you in every night. The Blanky TRAPS and RE-RADIATES thermal energy. Put in some numbers.. (160W/m2 UP) - (120W/m2 DWN) = 40W/m2 lost to the heavens. Decrease the temp of that atmos --- MORE GETS lost..
Boy --- if you can't handle that.. I'm out of ideas to spoonfeed it to you unless you start linking to some proof that I'm the whacked one..

The INCREASE in surface temp comes the next morning when the sun starts kicking in the same energy it did yesterday.. If the NET UP flow was less (assuming more GHgases), the surface temp starts out higher at sun-up and there is a NEW higher equilibrium temp for the surface.

Where is this alternate theory of GreenHouse located? Is it at "the Onion"? Is it on Art Bell?
Did you get it from the Russians??

10 pages now --- WHERE IS IT?

LOL,NET flow of energy is not the same thing as individual heat transfer dumbass...

Back EMF

Counter-electromotive force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The counter-electromotive force also known as back electromotive force (abbreviated counter EMF, or CEMF)[1] is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is caused by a changing electromagnetic field. It is the effect of Lenz's Law of electromagnetism. Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position.[2] Counter EMF is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current.[1] The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage.[1][3]
In a motor using a rotating armature and, in the presence of a magnetic flux, the conductors cut the magnetic field lines as they rotate. The changing field strength produces a voltage in the coil; the motor is acting like a generator. (Faraday's law of induction.) This voltage opposes the original applied voltage; therefore, it is called "counter-electromotive force" (by Lenz's law). With a lower overall voltage across the armature, the current flowing into the motor coils is reduced.[4]
To experience the effect of counter-electromotive force one can perform this simple exercise. With a window closed, lift the switch of an electric window in a car that is running at idle, and hold it momentarily and notice the idle RPM drop. The electric motor in the door is stationary and therefore the inrush current will be very high. The alternator will try to provide for the large current which subsequently drags down the engine. As soon as the power window motor overcomes its inertia and starts spinning, back EMF will be produced, exerting less load on the alternator. Hence, the engine speed will return to normal.
In motor control and robotics, the term "Back-EMF" often refers to using the voltage generated by a spinning motor to infer the speed of the motor's rotation.[5]

Not even CLOSE to the same thing is it silly? LOL, you just pull whatever you want out of your hat don't you? Doesn't matter how valid it is in context does it?

Just like your assumptions regarding all radiation being back-radiation.. You don't have any alternative, because you really don't know what the hell it is anyway..

LOL, please don't ask me to provide a source to prove a negative. It's as dumb as your last excuse..I don't need to provide a source to prove the standard back-radiation claimed by GH theory, you already state it. The trouble is you associate all radiation as back-radiation.. ROFL..

Please show me where it is you can re-use the same energy to do the same task..

And your asinine claim that all things radiate back to there warmer source and can effect warming of that source is getting worse now.. The blanket analogy? Brilliant, the fact it slows heat loss and doesn't require any form of backradiation doesn't even enter your mind does it? LOL.. SLowed heat loss, means the heat coming from your body backs up, and bingo you get warmer. There is no need for any back-radiation,reflection and slowing of heat loss as it transfers through the blanket material does a fine job, in fact if it did do as you claim the blanket would become unbearable almost immediately.. Your body is the heat source silly. Heat coming off your body, add in that reflected by the blanket, and then add in the slowed time in escape through the blanket and you get a fine example of reality. Again no back-radiation necessary and none happening.

Please explain which is back-radiation? What us it by your logic? You seem to call everything back-radiation so I think we need clarification from you. I know what the texts you suppliedfrom Science of doom.com say about RADIATION now, so what do you call back radiation specifically..

Please clarify your definition of back-radiation...

I did --- previous post --- in detail.. You're supposed to tell SPECIFICALLY what I said that was wrong.. Go back to my post at 7:47 and tell me all about what I said that was wrong with the nightime energy flow analysis and the relationship between back radiation and surface temp equalizing to a new equilibrium if the sun doesn't change.

Show me how stupid that plan is.. And STILL waiting for ANY links or support on how the GreenHouse works with GSlack Physics.. Why is that taking so long??

BTW: Did ya miss the Wiki part where

This voltage opposes the original applied voltage; therefore, it is called "counter-electromotive force" (by Lenz's law). With a lower overall voltage across the armature, the current flowing into the motor coils is reduced

You're comprehension of "re-using energy" consistently sucks.. By the very definition, it's a back-generated source of energy that gets re-used. BECAUSE it lowers the power needed to turn the motor.. Deeper and deeper man... Dig !!

LOL,NET flow of energy is not the same thing as individual heat transfer dumbass...

Can't decide which gem of wisdom is funnier.. Denying the back-EMF concept has similiar math to it.. Or the nonsensical rejection of almost everything in the quote above.. Isn't the whole purpose of being able to model and calculate "individual (whateverthefuck that means) heat transfer" to CALCULATE net flow of energy?

For your sake --- let's just let this slide... You're not playing fair anyway..

 

[gslack]

That's how motors work moron.. Ever hear of Back-EMF??? Wanna deny that too?

You're insistence that re-radiating energy is somehow illegal is childish.. Why did you not give me a reference of ANY TEXT that supports your deluded thinking???

You're still here mocking the physics of EM heat radiation.. Let's do this carefully.. One more time..

At NIGHT --- no sun.. No heating.. The earth will ALWAYS lose heat.. That loss is somewhat counteracted by a downward "blanket" of heat flow in the form of IR from the ATMOS.. It's the ONLY THING keeping your ass from freezing from exposure to SPACE.

The NET flow VIOLATES NOTHING.. In fact --- 6 textbooks tell you to calculate the NET flow that way.

The back radiation part is the IR ENERGY COMING FROM THE SKY.. This must be SUBTRACTED from the heat flow from the surface (Big math challenge there for you dude --- can you handle it?) NOTHING get created. If you want to call that recycling fine. It's NOT illegal.. Happens when your mom tucks you in every night. The Blanky TRAPS and RE-RADIATES thermal energy. Put in some numbers.. (160W/m2 UP) - (120W/m2 DWN) = 40W/m2 lost to the heavens. Decrease the temp of that atmos --- MORE GETS lost..
Boy --- if you can't handle that.. I'm out of ideas to spoonfeed it to you unless you start linking to some proof that I'm the whacked one..

The INCREASE in surface temp comes the next morning when the sun starts kicking in the same energy it did yesterday.. If the NET UP flow was less (assuming more GHgases), the surface temp starts out higher at sun-up and there is a NEW higher equilibrium temp for the surface.

Where is this alternate theory of GreenHouse located? Is it at "the Onion"? Is it on Art Bell?
Did you get it from the Russians??

10 pages now --- WHERE IS IT?

LOL,NET flow of energy is not the same thing as individual heat transfer dumbass...

Back EMF



Not even CLOSE to the same thing is it silly? LOL, you just pull whatever you want out of your hat don't you? Doesn't matter how valid it is in context does it?

Just like your assumptions regarding all radiation being back-radiation.. You don't have any alternative, because you really don't know what the hell it is anyway..

LOL, please don't ask me to provide a source to prove a negative. It's as dumb as your last excuse..I don't need to provide a source to prove the standard back-radiation claimed by GH theory, you already state it. The trouble is you associate all radiation as back-radiation.. ROFL..

Please show me where it is you can re-use the same energy to do the same task..

And your asinine claim that all things radiate back to there warmer source and can effect warming of that source is getting worse now.. The blanket analogy? Brilliant, the fact it slows heat loss and doesn't require any form of backradiation doesn't even enter your mind does it? LOL.. SLowed heat loss, means the heat coming from your body backs up, and bingo you get warmer. There is no need for any back-radiation,reflection and slowing of heat loss as it transfers through the blanket material does a fine job, in fact if it did do as you claim the blanket would become unbearable almost immediately.. Your body is the heat source silly. Heat coming off your body, add in that reflected by the blanket, and then add in the slowed time in escape through the blanket and you get a fine example of reality. Again no back-radiation necessary and none happening.

Please explain which is back-radiation? What us it by your logic? You seem to call everything back-radiation so I think we need clarification from you. I know what the texts you suppliedfrom Science of doom.com say about RADIATION now, so what do you call back radiation specifically..

Please clarify your definition of back-radiation...

I did --- previous post --- in detail.. You're supposed to tell SPECIFICALLY what I said that was wrong.. Go back to my post at 7:47 and tell me all about what I said that was wrong with the nightime energy flow analysis and the relationship between back radiation and surface temp equalizing to a new equilibrium if the sun doesn't change.

Show me how stupid that plan is.. And STILL waiting for ANY links or support on how the GreenHouse works with GSlack Physics.. Why is that taking so long??

BTW: Did ya miss the Wiki part where

This voltage opposes the original applied voltage; therefore, it is called "counter-electromotive force" (by Lenz's law). With a lower overall voltage across the armature, the current flowing into the motor coils is reduced

You're comprehension of "re-using energy" consistently sucks.. By the very definition, it's a back-generated source of energy that gets re-used. BECAUSE it lowers the power needed to turn the motor.. Deeper and deeper man... Dig !!

LOL,NET flow of energy is not the same thing as individual heat transfer dumbass...

Can't decide which gem of wisdom is funnier.. Denying the back-EMF concept has similiar math to it.. Or the nonsensical rejection of almost everything in the quote above.. Isn't the whole purpose of being able to model and calculate "individual (whateverthefuck that means) heat transfer" to CALCULATE net flow of energy?

For your sake --- let's just let this slide... You're not playing fair anyway..

LOL cherry picking statements out of context to prove your twisted idea of something is lame...

Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position.[2] Counter EMF is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current.[1] The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage.[1][3]

Want an example? They give one on there as well.. You overlooked that because it showed how ignorant your claim was...

To experience the effect of counter-electromotive force one can perform this simple exercise. With a window closed, lift the switch of an electric window in a car that is running at idle, and hold it momentarily and notice the idle RPM drop. The electric motor in the door is stationary and therefore the inrush current will be very high. The alternator will try to provide for the large current which subsequently drags down the engine. As soon as the power window motor overcomes its inertia and starts spinning, back EMF will be produced, exerting less load on the alternator. Hence, the engine speed will return to normal.
In motor control and robotics, the term "Back-EMF" often refers to using the voltage generated by a spinning motor to infer the speed of the motor's rotation.[5]

The entire concept is based on another force (in example a spinning armature, part of the motor but not necessarily part of the same electrical circuit) creates an opposing EM field.. Which of course opposes the incoming current.. More along the lines of TWO heat sources acting against one another. Like that whole equilibrium thing I got from NASA that you didn't understand either. You know, to paraphrase, two objects in equilibrium are in equilibrium with a third and they are in equilibrium with each other? They stay in equilibrium because the radiation from each one no longer effects the others temperature..In this case the opposing EM field is from another source and is not flowing in the reverse of the circuit, but rather simply opposing the oncoming electricity..If it actually flowed back down the circuit it could ruin the electronics attached or simply refuse to work or work in reverse if it managed to overcome the incoming electrical currect....Ever wonder why things are shielded? To prevent outside interference in a circuit as well as prevent any undue EM escaping... LOL

But hey you obviously know better.. Wikki means what you say it means. ROFL.

If Ian had a spine he would have corrected your ignorance by now, but we all know he lacks one....

The fact is once again you start rambling before you understand what you are rambling about... The problem is you want to prove me wrong, and don't care what the truth is. If you had read the wikki page with that intention you would have seen that and maybe understood it but maybe not...LOL

Still waiting on your definition of back-radiation.. I got work to do can we expect that some time soon?

 

[PMZ]

Unfortunately for you, with a body in space, same incoming energy, but less outgoing energy, always produces the same effect. Warming until energy balance is again achieved. No other possibilities.

 

[gslack]

Unfortunately for you, with a body in space, same incoming energy, but less outgoing energy, always produces the same effect. Warming until energy balance is again achieved. No other possibilities.

Yes and no backradiation required. Just radiation.

Socko, please.. You believe CO2 is an element, spare me..

 

[IanC]

Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...

If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?

In other words, if it's acceptable to believe that the same energy can be reused to do the same task again on the same source, what prevents the thing from doing the same thing a third, fourth, fifth or even an infinite number of times? After all if energy is neither created nor destroyed and only changes form, and yet in the case of back-radiation it's actually able to be re-used in the same system for the same task (warming the surface), then what stops it from doing so indefinitely?

Can that back-radiation effect be applied from the surface to the atmosphere as well? And then again from the atmosphere to the surface? Losses shouldn't be an issue because evidently the same energy can be re-used to do the same tasks on the same objects...

So where does it end? How many times can we re-use the same energy in the same system for the same task before we can say enough? One time? Two times? A hundred?

If the process actually is like it's claimed, we could have infinite energy from finite sources yet we don't see that in nature. Even stars die out eventually.. But using warmer logic we can argue that they won't ever die out. One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over... But we don't see that happening..

So why not apply this concept to other areas as well? How about electricity recycling? Why isn't "back-conduction" a serious issue in electronics? Seems Ian believes in it...LOL

WOW!!!! a reasonable scenario and question from gslack! keep it up!

first we have to break up the situation into areas. for now let's just imagine all energy exchange is radiation.

the surface skin radiates ~400w of blackbody radiation according to its temperature. the sun adds 160w radiation to the surface. uh-oh. the surface should be cooling at 240w. that's not happening so we must be missing something.

Trenberth says that the atmosphere from the cloud top down is (back)radiating 335w according to its effective blackbody temperature (flac and others disagree about the quantity). now the balance is +160w (sun) - 400w (surface) + 335w (atmosphere) = plus 95w. uh-oh. the surface isnt heating at 95w so we must be missing something.

Trenberth also shows that 95w are taken airbourne via evaporation and convection. now everything adds up. the input from the sun (160w) is matched by the net radiation (65w) plus evaporotranspiration and convection (95w). this budget is only to the cloudtop but it is the area between the surface and the clouds that we are concerned with. while I am not convinced that the numbers attached to various pathways in Trenberth's cartoon are perfectly accurate, I am sure that the basic functioning is representative of what is happening. would anyone be complaining if Trenberth's cartoon only showed the 65w net loss by radiation and directly showed the 95w water/convection route? personally I wonder where the 95w came from, if not from the 400w surface blackbody radiation. I also wonder how the atmosphere with considerably lower average temp, and lower flux because of lower density, can present 335w downward. unfortunately Trenberth is not here to explain. but we do know that there is an equilibrium present because the surface temp is amazingly stable over long periods of time.


on to gslack's question about reusing the same energy. he is ignoring the non radiative energy transfers. while the 400w up equals the 335 down plus 65w escaping, the 95w non- radiative energy movement comes from both, subtracted from the combined system, powered by the high energy low entropy sunlight.

as far as the lower temp atmosphere sending back energy? every iteration sees more energy leave the surface than comes back, how does that lead to lead to runaway warming? the only similar type scenario that I can think off is Willis' steel greenhouse. a subteranneanly heated planet has a metal shell built around it supportted by insulated pillars, and no atmosphere. Willis said that the surface temp would rise to two times the original temp because the shell would have to receive 2x radiation so that it could radiate at the original temp (half forward, half back). as the heat sink fills the surface is receiving half of what the shell radiated, so Postma incorrectly calculated (1.5)^n which leads to infinity forinfinite n. but the correct formula is 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +...= which converges to 2.

if gslack is specifically talking about 2xCO2 causing 4w of radiation to be choked off from escaping....some will come back to the surface and warm it, most will become thermalized into the atmospheric temp. the increase in surface temp (much less than 4w worth) will then produce BB radiation which is only 8% reactive to CO2. even if the full 4w went into heating the surface (and it doesnt), 4w + 0.125(4w) + 0.0156(4w) +..... is not going to converge on 5w, let alone runaway warming.

CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant.

 

[IanC]

Unfortunately for you, with a body in space, same incoming energy, but less outgoing energy, always produces the same effect. Warming until energy balance is again achieved. No other possibilities.

Yes and no backradiation required. Just radiation.

Socko, please.. You believe CO2 is an element, spare me..

if the term backradiation offends thee, simply pluck it out and insert the word radiation.

post the comment # where PMZ or itfitzme called CO2 an element. sounds hilarious.

 

[Abraham3]

WOW!!!! a reasonable scenario and question from gslack! keep it up!

first we have to break up the situation into areas. for now let's just imagine all energy exchange is radiation.

the surface skin radiates ~400w of blackbody radiation according to its temperature. the sun adds 160w radiation to the surface. uh-oh. the surface should be cooling at 240w. that's not happening so we must be missing something.

Trenberth says that the atmosphere from the cloud top down is (back)radiating 335w according to its effective blackbody temperature (flac and others disagree about the quantity). now the balance is +160w (sun) - 400w (surface) + 335w (atmosphere) = plus 95w. uh-oh. the surface isnt heating at 95w so we must be missing something.

Trenberth also shows that 95w are taken airbourne via evaporation and convection. now everything adds up. the input from the sun (160w) is matched by the net radiation (65w) plus evaporotranspiration and convection (95w). this budget is only to the cloudtop but it is the area between the surface and the clouds that we are concerned with. while I am not convinced that the numbers attached to various pathways in Trenberth's cartoon are perfectly accurate, I am sure that the basic functioning is representative of what is happening. would anyone be complaining if Trenberth's cartoon only showed the 65w net loss by radiation and directly showed the 95w water/convection route? personally I wonder where the 95w came from, if not from the 400w surface blackbody radiation. I also wonder how the atmosphere with considerably lower average temp, and lower flux because of lower density, can present 335w downward. unfortunately Trenberth is not here to explain. but we do know that there is an equilibrium present because the surface temp is amazingly stable over long periods of time.


on to gslack's question about reusing the same energy. he is ignoring the non radiative energy transfers. while the 400w up equals the 335 down plus 65w escaping, the 95w non- radiative energy movement comes from both, subtracted from the combined system, powered by the high energy low entropy sunlight.

as far as the lower temp atmosphere sending back energy? every iteration sees more energy leave the surface than comes back, how does that lead to lead to runaway warming? the only similar type scenario that I can think off is Willis' steel greenhouse. a subteranneanly heated planet has a metal shell built around it supportted by insulated pillars, and no atmosphere. Willis said that the surface temp would rise to two times the original temp because the shell would have to receive 2x radiation so that it could radiate at the original temp (half forward, half back). as the heat sink fills the surface is receiving half of what the shell radiated, so Postma incorrectly calculated (1.5)^n which leads to infinity forinfinite n. but the correct formula is 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +...= which converges to 2.

if gslack is specifically talking about 2xCO2 causing 4w of radiation to be choked off from escaping....some will come back to the surface and warm it, most will become thermalized into the atmospheric temp. the increase in surface temp (much less than 4w worth) will then produce BB radiation which is only 8% reactive to CO2. even if the full 4w went into heating the surface (and it doesnt), 4w + 0.125(4w) + 0.0156(4w) +..... is not going to converge on 5w, let alone runaway warming.

CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant.

So what do you believe has caused the last 150 years' warming??

 

[gslack]

Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...

If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?

In other words, if it's acceptable to believe that the same energy can be reused to do the same task again on the same source, what prevents the thing from doing the same thing a third, fourth, fifth or even an infinite number of times? After all if energy is neither created nor destroyed and only changes form, and yet in the case of back-radiation it's actually able to be re-used in the same system for the same task (warming the surface), then what stops it from doing so indefinitely?

Can that back-radiation effect be applied from the surface to the atmosphere as well? And then again from the atmosphere to the surface? Losses shouldn't be an issue because evidently the same energy can be re-used to do the same tasks on the same objects...

So where does it end? How many times can we re-use the same energy in the same system for the same task before we can say enough? One time? Two times? A hundred?

If the process actually is like it's claimed, we could have infinite energy from finite sources yet we don't see that in nature. Even stars die out eventually.. But using warmer logic we can argue that they won't ever die out. One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over... But we don't see that happening..

So why not apply this concept to other areas as well? How about electricity recycling? Why isn't "back-conduction" a serious issue in electronics? Seems Ian believes in it...LOL

WOW!!!! a reasonable scenario and question from gslack! keep it up!

first we have to break up the situation into areas. for now let's just imagine all energy exchange is radiation.

the surface skin radiates ~400w of blackbody radiation according to its temperature. the sun adds 160w radiation to the surface. uh-oh. the surface should be cooling at 240w. that's not happening so we must be missing something.

Trenberth says that the atmosphere from the cloud top down is (back)radiating 335w according to its effective blackbody temperature (flac and others disagree about the quantity). now the balance is +160w (sun) - 400w (surface) + 335w (atmosphere) = plus 95w. uh-oh. the surface isnt heating at 95w so we must be missing something.

Trenberth also shows that 95w are taken airbourne via evaporation and convection. now everything adds up. the input from the sun (160w) is matched by the net radiation (65w) plus evaporotranspiration and convection (95w). this budget is only to the cloudtop but it is the area between the surface and the clouds that we are concerned with. while I am not convinced that the numbers attached to various pathways in Trenberth's cartoon are perfectly accurate, I am sure that the basic functioning is representative of what is happening. would anyone be complaining if Trenberth's cartoon only showed the 65w net loss by radiation and directly showed the 95w water/convection route? personally I wonder where the 95w came from, if not from the 400w surface blackbody radiation. I also wonder how the atmosphere with considerably lower average temp, and lower flux because of lower density, can present 335w downward. unfortunately Trenberth is not here to explain. but we do know that there is an equilibrium present because the surface temp is amazingly stable over long periods of time.


on to gslack's question about reusing the same energy. he is ignoring the non radiative energy transfers. while the 400w up equals the 335 down plus 65w escaping, the 95w non- radiative energy movement comes from both, subtracted from the combined system, powered by the high energy low entropy sunlight.

as far as the lower temp atmosphere sending back energy? every iteration sees more energy leave the surface than comes back, how does that lead to lead to runaway warming? the only similar type scenario that I can think off is Willis' steel greenhouse. a subteranneanly heated planet has a metal shell built around it supportted by insulated pillars, and no atmosphere. Willis said that the surface temp would rise to two times the original temp because the shell would have to receive 2x radiation so that it could radiate at the original temp (half forward, half back). as the heat sink fills the surface is receiving half of what the shell radiated, so Postma incorrectly calculated (1.5)^n which leads to infinity forinfinite n. but the correct formula is 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +...= which converges to 2.

if gslack is specifically talking about 2xCO2 causing 4w of radiation to be choked off from escaping....some will come back to the surface and warm it, most will become thermalized into the atmospheric temp. the increase in surface temp (much less than 4w worth) will then produce BB radiation which is only 8% reactive to CO2. even if the full 4w went into heating the surface (and it doesnt), 4w + 0.125(4w) + 0.0156(4w) +..... is not going to converge on 5w, let alone runaway warming.

CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant.

LOL, thats funny because you have avoided the thread until you found something you could argue easily enough..

And a reasonable post by your own estimation, yet you did not respond to any part of it directly...WHy is that? Come now Ian we both know why, it's because it's your usual when you can't argue something logically, or you can't cut and pate an answer.. All you did was write a praise to Trenberth.. Yes, yes we know all about your little man-crushes on spencer and now obviously Trenberth..LOL warmer.. You are a warmer Ian plain and simple. You praise trenbetrth, and considert he theory fact, the only thing you disagree with about any of it, is the IPCC claims. You're a warmer dude, you just lack the balls to admit it.. In true Ian save-ass fashion you are going to do a spencer until the answer is undeniable, at which time you will come out in full support of it no matter which way it goes. ROFL..

Don't worry Ian I didn't expect anything else from you anyway..

Let me know when you are planning on responding to my post..

 

[itfitzme]

Unfortunately for you, with a body in space, same incoming energy, but less outgoing energy, always produces the same effect. Warming until energy balance is again achieved. No other possibilities.

Yes and no backradiation required. Just radiation.

Socko, please.. You believe CO2 is an element, spare me..

if the term backradiation offends thee, simply pluck it out and insert the word radiation.

post the comment # where PMZ or itfitzme called CO2 an element. sounds hilarious.

You post it. And have a couple of great days trying to find it, because it never happened. Lying is when you make statements that you cannot back up and are, in fact, false.

 

[itfitzme]

Unfortunately for you, with a body in space, same incoming energy, but less outgoing energy, always produces the same effect. Warming until energy balance is again achieved. No other possibilities.

Yes and no backradiation required. Just radiation.

Socko, please.. You believe CO2 is an element, spare me..

if the term backradiation offends thee, simply pluck it out and insert the word radiation.

post the comment # where PMZ or itfitzme called CO2 an element. sounds hilarious.

You and SlackSack have this inability to recall reality. *SlackSack has made the same BS comment.

You just made some crazy claim that CO2 is a base element. Gimme a break man..

Yet, Siagon notes;

Gslack -*

The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.*

No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.

All the while, repeating the same absurdity of plants not getting carbon from CO2.

Perhaps you're remembering one of your deniers who said;

"For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-dioxide-to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-25.html

LOL, dude you just made some pretty ignorant claims and now you talk about people being willfully ignorant...

You just made some crazy claim that CO2 is a base element. Gimme a break man..

Gslack -*

The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.*

No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/302499-earth-will-die-from-lack-of-co2-2.html

Okay, so now we've resorted to nitpicking common spelling errors of words which sound similar? Wow... talk about desperate to make a point? Sad!!*

For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element. On earth, it's natural state is gaseous, but it can also be found in solid form (dry ice). This is also a common error, but I will not take the opportunity to insult you over it and call you and idiot for this, because people commonly make this mistake. Instead, I will call you an idiot for claiming this is "right wingers" parroting Fox News, when there are people who would have needles stuck in their eyes before watching Fox News, who have totally rejected this nonsense.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.*

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

XXXXXXXXXX If you are going to make a claim about what another Poster said, back it up with a Link. Misinformation is a 4 Point Infraction.


Kinda goes both ways, don't it?

 

[gslack]

Yes and no backradiation required. Just radiation.

Socko, please.. You believe CO2 is an element, spare me..

if the term backradiation offends thee, simply pluck it out and insert the word radiation.

post the comment # where PMZ or itfitzme called CO2 an element. sounds hilarious.

You and SlackSack have this inability to recall reality. *SlackSack has made the same BS comment.



Yet, Siagon notes;

Gslack -*

The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.*

No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.

All the while, SlackSack repeats the same absurdity of plants not getting carbon from CO2.

So SlackSack makes up BS, and you imagine it.

Perhaps you're remembering one of your denier buddies, who said;

"For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element."

The first part.. What in the hell are you rambling about now? Ian believes in the magic backradiation nonsense, I do not... Moron..

The second part.. Please post a link to my words socko..LOL you don't know what it means when we refer to base element either I see... Here's a clue; it's when you take a compound and break it down into the elements it is made of, or their "base elements" .. You've never heard the expression? LOL probably not, considering how much you actually know... Would "basic elements" suit you better socko?

LOL moron..

 

[IanC]

if the term backradiation offends thee, simply pluck it out and insert the word radiation.

post the comment # where PMZ or itfitzme called CO2 an element. sounds hilarious.

You and SlackSack have this inability to recall reality. *SlackSack has made the same BS comment.



Yet, Siagon notes;



All the while, SlackSack repeats the same absurdity of plants not getting carbon from CO2.

So SlackSack makes up BS, and you imagine it.

Perhaps you're remembering one of your denier buddies, who said;

"For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element."

The first part.. What in the hell are you rambling about now? Ian believes in the magic backradiation nonsense, I do not... Moron..

The second part.. Please post a link to my words socko..LOL you don't know what it means when we refer to base element either I see... Here's a clue; it's when you take a compound and break it down into the elements it is made of, or their "base elements" .. You've never heard the expression? LOL probably not, considering how much you actually know... Would "basic elements" suit you better socko?

LOL moron..

Hahaha. So you got caught lying and misrepresenting another poster's words again, gslack? Par fort the course with you.