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

[PMZ]

Another site dedicated to calling backradiation a proven fact, despite the fact it isn't... ANd guess what? He's a former satelite data man.. Big shock...He's pulling a spencer and covering his bets...

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

Actually it isn't. But thanks for playing....

It's explained quite clearly in part one of the scienceofdoom.com series. But only to those who:

1) read the series

And

2) understand what they read

And

3) accept what they understand.

 

[PMZ]

From the Internet.

'' History of the greenhouse effect and global warming''

''Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.''

This is how far you are behind the rest of the world.

 

[westwall]

''I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know''.

I've never heard science say this.

Look up the term "geologic time" sometime. Redwood trees live for how many thousands of years? Bristlecone pines? Do you think they live life at the same frenetic pace as a shrew for instance?

Yet another example of your one dimensional, stilted view of the planet and how it operates.

As bizarre a response as I've seen to any question.

Bizarre only because you lack the intellect to understand even the basics. You are a one trick pony ifitzmepmzpmsmsnbc....

 

[PMZ]

Look up the term "geologic time" sometime. Redwood trees live for how many thousands of years? Bristlecone pines? Do you think they live life at the same frenetic pace as a shrew for instance?

Yet another example of your one dimensional, stilted view of the planet and how it operates.

As bizarre a response as I've seen to any question.

Bizarre only because you lack the intellect to understand even the basics. You are a one trick pony ifitzmepmzpmsmsnbc....

I am. I am a specialist in truth as I've invested my time in education.

You are merely a political minion, reciting what you are told to recite. A cultist.

While your recital has been average your loyalty to your leaders has been above reproach.

I think that you are on the right path for Dittohead, First Class.

 

[SSDD]

Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.

You see silly person that's THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!

Imagine how stupid one must be in order to believe a trace gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun at 400ppm in the atmosphere when within our own bodies, the response to inhale is not triggered till the CO2 concentration reaches 16,000ppm. It is amazing that we don't all burst into flames.

 

[flacaltenn]

So why is Abraham not interested correcting the IPCC numbers he posted??

The MIT-UConn paper I posted is REAL science. Studying STRATEGIC portions of the climate and finding REASONABLE explanations for energy storage and transport with the climate system..

NOT promoting idiotic "Global" numbers for public and media consumption..

Don't want to discuss on those terms??

 

[SSDD]

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

Backradiation is proven to those stupid enough to fall for side show hustlers. That idiot experiment you provided certainly didn't show anything like backradiation. It did show the effects of irradiating high concentrations of gasses that emit IR at a slightly lower wavelength than that at which they absorb, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with fictional backradiation.

 

[SSDD]

From the Internet.

'' History of the greenhouse effect and global warming''

''Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.''

This is how far you are behind the rest of the world.

Svante Arrhenius? You are kidding, right? You want to hold up the guy who was thoroughly discredited for his claim of another magic gas called "luminiferous eather" as evidence for the crediblilty of climate science. What a bunch of goobers.

 

[gslack]

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

Says the guy who previously thought CO2 an element, who also said the science is settled and then said the science is never settled in the same thread...

Dude you are the forum joke... You have been caught so many times making crap up and calling it science, it's not even surprising anymore.. Damn dude, your rep is ZERO...

How in the hell did you manage to stay below 20 rep all this time, and then drop to zero?

Please, your a trolling moron serving no purpose other than fill forum space with garbage, stop acting like you either know anything about, or care one bit for anything regarding science..

I have no interest in your scoring system. Only science and engineering as they relate to progress. Your score there is the lowest there that I've seen since 5th grade. You have reached the top of your aspirations. Complete irrelevance. Your opinion matters to nobody in this conversation.

LOL, no score keeping for your nonsense socko. Scoring with negative numbers is tedious.. Yes, yes but you ignore me....

LOL, you cried when I wasn't here, talked about me, and pouted.. But you ignore me and I'm irrelevent..

Socko, we know you don't have any real friends, it's okay.. But your little crush on me is getting creepy...

 

[orogenicman]

Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.

You see silly person that's THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!

Imagine how stupid one must be in order to believe a trace gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun at 400ppm in the atmosphere when within our own bodies, the response to inhale is not triggered till the CO2 concentration reaches 16,000ppm. It is amazing that we don't all burst into flames.

Imagine how stupid one must be to believe that the greenhouse effect is in any way related to the physiology of human respiration.

 

[SSDD]

Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.

You see silly person that's THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!

Imagine how stupid one must be in order to believe a trace gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun at 400ppm in the atmosphere when within our own bodies, the response to inhale is not triggered till the CO2 concentration reaches 16,000ppm. It is amazing that we don't all burst into flames.

Imagine how stupid one must be to believe that the greenhouse effect is in any way related to the physiology of human respiration.

The real stupidity is believing in a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[orogenicman]

Imagine how stupid one must be in order to believe a trace gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun at 400ppm in the atmosphere when within our own bodies, the response to inhale is not triggered till the CO2 concentration reaches 16,000ppm. It is amazing that we don't all burst into flames.

Imagine how stupid one must be to believe that the greenhouse effect is in any way related to the physiology of human respiration.

The real stupidity is believing in a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

The real stupidity is believing that your response in any way addressed mine.

 

[PMZ]

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

Backradiation is proven to those stupid enough to fall for side show hustlers. That idiot experiment you provided certainly didn't show anything like backradiation. It did show the effects of irradiating high concentrations of gasses that emit IR at a slightly lower wavelength than that at which they absorb, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with fictional backradiation.

Again you are trying to deny science with politics.

There's simply zero science behind your wish that GHGs don't create backradiation. It's been proven for decades that without the additional warming that they cause, there would probably be no life on earth.

So we know what they do without question. The issue that has been resolved over the previous decade is only what the impact of a little more will be.

 

[westwall]

As bizarre a response as I've seen to any question.

Bizarre only because you lack the intellect to understand even the basics. You are a one trick pony ifitzmepmzpmsmsnbc....

I am. I am a specialist in truth as I've invested my time in education.

You are merely a political minion, reciting what you are told to recite. A cultist.

While your recital has been average your loyalty to your leaders has been above reproach.

I think that you are on the right path for Dittohead, First Class.

"The science is settled" A more political statement would be hard to find...and you spew it at every opportunity. Hello political propagandist!

 

[westwall]

Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.

You see silly person that's THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!

Imagine how stupid one must be in order to believe a trace gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun at 400ppm in the atmosphere when within our own bodies, the response to inhale is not triggered till the CO2 concentration reaches 16,000ppm. It is amazing that we don't all burst into flames.

Imagine how stupid one must be to believe that the greenhouse effect is in any way related to the physiology of human respiration.

Is the Earth a closed system?

 

[PMZ]

From the Internet.

'' History of the greenhouse effect and global warming''

''Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.''

This is how far you are behind the rest of the world.

Svante Arrhenius? You are kidding, right? You want to hold up the guy who was thoroughly discredited for his claim of another magic gas called "luminiferous eather" as evidence for the crediblilty of climate science. What a bunch of goobers.

He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?

 

[PMZ]

Imagine how stupid one must be in order to believe a trace gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun at 400ppm in the atmosphere when within our own bodies, the response to inhale is not triggered till the CO2 concentration reaches 16,000ppm. It is amazing that we don't all burst into flames.

Imagine how stupid one must be to believe that the greenhouse effect is in any way related to the physiology of human respiration.

Is the Earth a closed system?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out.

 

[PMZ]

Bizarre only because you lack the intellect to understand even the basics. You are a one trick pony ifitzmepmzpmsmsnbc....

I am. I am a specialist in truth as I've invested my time in education.

You are merely a political minion, reciting what you are told to recite. A cultist.

While your recital has been average your loyalty to your leaders has been above reproach.

I think that you are on the right path for Dittohead, First Class.

"The science is settled" A more political statement would be hard to find...and you spew it at every opportunity. Hello political propagandist!

Zero politics. 100% science.

But, as you've shown, that doesn't mean that anyone who can spell "science" is capable of understanding the science. In fact, most people can't. But most of them know that they can't. Then there are the Dunning-Krugers.

 

[IanC]

I am. I am a specialist in truth as I've invested my time in education.

You are merely a political minion, reciting what you are told to recite. A cultist.

While your recital has been average your loyalty to your leaders has been above reproach.

I think that you are on the right path for Dittohead, First Class.

"The science is settled" A more political statement would be hard to find...and you spew it at every opportunity. Hello political propagandist!

Zero politics. 100% science.

But, as you've shown, that doesn't mean that anyone who can spell "science" is capable of understanding the science. In fact, most people can't. But most of them know that they can't. Then there are the Dunning-Krugers.

How can someone so obcessed with D-K be so oblivious to the very same symptoms in his own posts?

 

[PMZ]

This may come as a surprise to you, but you've never proved that anything that I've posted is incorrect. Only that you wish it was. What you wish for is obviously more significant to you than me.

When you have some science that proves something that I don't know you'll have my full attention.