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

[IanC]

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.

Can I ask you a simple question to gauge your understanding of the basics?

Where does blackbody radiation come from? A gas is the simplest example.

Bonus points for describing why CO2 backradiation is different.

 

[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.

Can I ask you a simple question to gauge your understanding of the basics?

Where does blackbody radiation come from? A gas is the simplest example.

Bonus points for describing why CO2 backradiation is different.

Blackbody radiation comes from things that don't exist. It's a theoretical only concept from which inferences about radiation can be made for things that do exist.

Backradiation is very simple. It's the back towards earth vector of the omnidirectional radiation given off by GHG molecules returning to a stable state after absorbing a photon of long wave radiation due to, and coming from, the absolute temperature of mother earth.

GHGs have has always been part of earth's ecosystem. They are what keeps earth's average temperature above freezing. They are the reason why conditions on earth favored the development of carbon/water based life.

 

[IanC]

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.

Can I ask you a simple question to gauge your understanding of the basics?

Where does blackbody radiation come from? A gas is the simplest example.

Bonus points for describing why CO2 backradiation is different.

Blackbody radiation comes from things that don't exist. It's a theoretical only concept from which inferences about radiation can be made for things that do exist.

Backradiation is very simple. It's the back towards earth vector of the omnidirectional radiation given off by GHG molecules returning to a stable state after absorbing a photon of long wave radiation due to, and coming from, the absolute temperature of mother earth.

GHGs have has always been part of earth's ecosystem. They are what keeps earth's average temperature above freezing. They are the reason why conditions on earth favored the development of carbon/water based life.

Thank you for answering.

Did the question illustrate to you that there are significant gaps in your understanding of thermodynamics? Did you notice that one dealt with kinetic energy and the concept of temperature while the other was more focused on specific quantum absorption and emission? Were you satisfied with your understanding of the origin of BB radiation?

 

[SSDD]

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

Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis. Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory. AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis. Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.

 

[SSDD]

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.

It is obvious that you like to play the expert. You like to bring things here that you clearly don't understand and then you say things like the above "only radiant energy in and radiant energy out" that show how profoundly clueless you are.

Even most children know that statement to be the result of deep and dark ignorance.

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out? Are you fucking kidding. We are just finishing up with the perseids. How much matter do you think entered the atmosphere just from that event? Take a guess....how much space dust do you think enters the atmosphere every day? Now take another guess...how much hydrogen do you think escapes the atmosphere every day?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out rivals mamooth's claim that statistics was the basic mechanism at work in the most fundamental law of nature as the most stupid, and abjectly ignorant statement ever made on this, or any other board....EVER.

 

[SSDD]

This may come as a surprise to you, but you've never proved that anything that I've posted is incorrect.

When asked if the earth was a closed system, your idiotic answer that only radiant energy enters and only radiant energy leaves is demonstrably wrong. It is wrong on so deep a level that even school children are laughing at it. They have all at least seen a meteorite zipping across the sky and know just from that that something besides radiant energy is coming into the atmosphere from space.

 

[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.

Is the Earth a closed system?

Does that question relate in any way to my post? If so, how so?

 

[orogenicman]

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

Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis. Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory. AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis. Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.

So what you are telling us is that you know something that virtually every scientist on the planet doesn't - that the greenhouse effect is not real? Give us a break.

 

[orogenicman]

Is the Earth a closed system?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out.

It is obvious that you like to play the expert. You like to bring things here that you clearly don't understand and then you say things like the above "only radiant energy in and radiant energy out" that show how profoundly clueless you are.

Even most children know that statement to be the result of deep and dark ignorance.

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out? Are you fucking kidding. We are just finishing up with the perseids. How much matter do you think entered the atmosphere just from that event? Take a guess....how much space dust do you think enters the atmosphere every day? Now take another guess...how much hydrogen do you think escapes the atmosphere every day?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out rivals mamooth's claim that statistics was the basic mechanism at work in the most fundamental law of nature as the most stupid, and abjectly ignorant statement ever made on this, or any other board....EVER.

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's scary when you think about it.

 

[SSDD]

So what you are telling us is that you know something that virtually every scientist on the planet doesn't - that the greenhouse effect is not real? Give us a break.

Actually, it is a far cry from virtually every scientist on the planet. The fact is that most don't believe the hypothesis as described by climate science. The atmosphere doesn't work like a greenhouse and the vast majority of scientists know it.

 

[SSDD]

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out.

It is obvious that you like to play the expert. You like to bring things here that you clearly don't understand and then you say things like the above "only radiant energy in and radiant energy out" that show how profoundly clueless you are.

Even most children know that statement to be the result of deep and dark ignorance.

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out? Are you fucking kidding. We are just finishing up with the perseids. How much matter do you think entered the atmosphere just from that event? Take a guess....how much space dust do you think enters the atmosphere every day? Now take another guess...how much hydrogen do you think escapes the atmosphere every day?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out rivals mamooth's claim that statistics was the basic mechanism at work in the most fundamental law of nature as the most stupid, and abjectly ignorant statement ever made on this, or any other board....EVER.

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

 

[SSDD]

It's scary when you think about it.

Well, it is a bit scary that you guys would try to defend such a stupid statement. Guess it puts you all in the same boat. By the way Matthew, how's that great ice melt of 2013 working out for you?

 

[orogenicman]

So what you are telling us is that you know something that virtually every scientist on the planet doesn't - that the greenhouse effect is not real? Give us a break.

Actually, it is a far cry from virtually every scientist on the planet. The fact is that most don't believe the hypothesis as described by climate science. The atmosphere doesn't work like a greenhouse and the vast majority of scientists know it.

You've got the survey from which you came to that conclusion, and can post a link to it here, right? And due, when GHGs are present in the atmosphere of any planet (Mars, Venus, Earth, etc.), they act like a greenhouse, trapping heat. Decades of research have shown this to be true. The only ones who deny this are the deniers themselves, the vast majority of which are scientifically pre-literate.

 

[orogenicman]

It is obvious that you like to play the expert. You like to bring things here that you clearly don't understand and then you say things like the above "only radiant energy in and radiant energy out" that show how profoundly clueless you are.

Even most children know that statement to be the result of deep and dark ignorance.

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out? Are you fucking kidding. We are just finishing up with the perseids. How much matter do you think entered the atmosphere just from that event? Take a guess....how much space dust do you think enters the atmosphere every day? Now take another guess...how much hydrogen do you think escapes the atmosphere every day?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out rivals mamooth's claim that statistics was the basic mechanism at work in the most fundamental law of nature as the most stupid, and abjectly ignorant statement ever made on this, or any other board....EVER.

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

We are talking thermodynamics here. And from a thermodynamics perspective, the Perseid meteor shower adds nothing to the Earth's energy/heat budget, and so for all practical purposes is irrelevant.

 

[orogenicman]

It's scary when you think about it.

Well, it is a bit scary that you guys would try to defend such a stupid statement. Guess it puts you all in the same boat. By the way Matthew, how's that great ice melt of 2013 working out for you?

 

[SSDD]

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

We are talking thermodynamics here. And from a thermodynamics perspective, the Perseid meteor shower adds nothing to the Earth's energy/heat budget, and so for all practical purposes is irrelevant.

Irrelevant except for the fact that his statement proves that he doesn't have a clue

 

[SSDD]

It's scary when you think about it.

Well, it is a bit scary that you guys would try to defend such a stupid statement. Guess it puts you all in the same boat. By the way Matthew, how's that great ice melt of 2013 working out for you?

Those charts keep showing shorter and shorter periods of time. Why not show an honest chart?

 

[gslack]

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

We are talking thermodynamics here. And from a thermodynamics perspective, the Perseid meteor shower adds nothing to the Earth's energy/heat budget, and so for all practical purposes is irrelevant.

Irrelevant except for the fact that his statement proves that he doesn't have a clue

I love the oh so convenient way that ALL energy makes a difference in climate when it suits them, but not when it is an inconvenience...

 

[PMZ]

Can I ask you a simple question to gauge your understanding of the basics?

Where does blackbody radiation come from? A gas is the simplest example.

Bonus points for describing why CO2 backradiation is different.

Blackbody radiation comes from things that don't exist. It's a theoretical only concept from which inferences about radiation can be made for things that do exist.

Backradiation is very simple. It's the back towards earth vector of the omnidirectional radiation given off by GHG molecules returning to a stable state after absorbing a photon of long wave radiation due to, and coming from, the absolute temperature of mother earth.

GHGs have has always been part of earth's ecosystem. They are what keeps earth's average temperature above freezing. They are the reason why conditions on earth favored the development of carbon/water based life.

Thank you for answering.

Did the question illustrate to you that there are significant gaps in your understanding of thermodynamics? Did you notice that one dealt with kinetic energy and the concept of temperature while the other was more focused on specific quantum absorption and emission? Were you satisfied with your understanding of the origin of BB radiation?

There is always more to be learned. In the case of AGW it's in the dynamics of all earth systems in responding to the need to warm in order to rebalance incoming and outgoing radiation. I think that we're years away from long term weather forecasts.