In Support of the A in AGW

[Toddsterpatriot]

You latch on to his conclusions while ignoring the fact that he has proven that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient within a column of air....you have denied that such could happen but the fact is that it does happen...so again, what are the implications for the greenhouse effect if there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air that is not included in the greenhouse hypothesis.

His conclusions are: Cold objects can spontaneously warm up hot objects, perpetual motion is a given. Also water gets hotter the deeper you go.

His conclusions do not alter the fact that he has proven that there is a gravitation induced temperature gradient in columns of air...What does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis?

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 14506938, member: 54364" ] I verified that Olde Europe's calculation that, according to your "repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory results", the ocean would indeed be at 100 C at a depth of 2500 meters.

I guess old europe...and you as well don't grasp that water is not air...

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 14506938, member: 54364" ]You are getting desperate, clinging to an experiment that is obviously faulty. It says a lot about your mad desire to prove modern physics is wrong.

The conclusions may be faulty...it wouldn't be the first time experimental results were misinterpreted...the fact remains that he did find that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...again..what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis...or can't you even bear to bring yourself to consider such things?

His conclusions do not alter the fact that he has proven that there is a gravitation induced temperature gradient in columns of air...

Did he use his knowledge to build his perpetual motion machine yet? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frank, here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

"Myth: Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.

Fact: Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.

"

Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!

 

[jc456]

Frank, here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

"Myth: Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.

Fact: Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.

"

Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!

venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frank, here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

"Myth: Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.

Fact: Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.

"

Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!

venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes

How'd the CO2 cool the surface?
Why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?

 

[Olde Europe]

I verified that Olde Europe's calculation that, according to your "repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory results", the ocean would indeed be at 100 C at a depth of 2500 meters.

I guess old europe...and you as well don't grasp that water is not air...

You obviously haven't read the paper you brought up, or didn't understand it. Don't care which.

So, as every other troll you should expect to be treated with the appropriate level of respect, as amply deserved.

 

[Wuwei]

His conclusions do not alter the fact that he has proven that there is a gravitation induced temperature gradient in columns of air...What does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis?

His conclusions on the temperature gradient was tied to his observation that energy from a cold reservoir can spontaneously move to a warm reservoir. You have to accept both conclusions or neither. It's your pick.

I guess old europe...and you as well don't grasp that water is not air...

I guess you didn't read your article at all. The author measured temperature differences in water too. You didn't read that? Shame on you. Why don't you read the articles you cite?

The conclusions may be faulty...it wouldn't be the first time experimental results were misinterpreted...the fact remains that he did find that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...again..what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis...or can't you even bear to bring yourself to consider such things?

You can't bring yourself to understand that it wasn't that his conclusions were faulty. His whole experiment was faulty, since it showed physically impossible results.

 

[Wuwei]

You obviously haven't read the paper you brought up, or didn't understand it. Don't care which.

So, as every other troll you should expect to be treated with the appropriate level of respect, as amply deserved.

Oops, you beat me to it. Maybe we shouldn't tell him that the author and his experiment found that solid rods also disobey the 2nd law of thermodynamics too.

 

[SSDD]

His conclusions on the temperature gradient was tied to his observation that energy from a cold reservoir can spontaneously move to a warm reservoir. You have to accept both conclusions or neither. It's your pick.

Are you really that dumb? You believe that because he perhaps drew an incorrect conclusion from the results of his experiments, that it alters the result in any way? You really think that? Ever hear of Antoine Lavoisier?...he proposed a theory of acids that held sway well into the 19th century...based on his observations, he hypothesized that oxygen was the acidifying factor in acidic substances....of course his conclusions from what he observed in his experiment were wrong, but that does not alter the fact that what he observed and measured was indeed what he observed and measured....and oddly enough, even though is conclusions and following hypothesis were mistaken, a new element was added to the periodic table...oxygen.

History is rife with examples of scientists misinterpreting what the results of their experiments mean.....this does not in the least change what those results were....in this case, the experiments demonstrate that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...no amount of misinterpretation of what that a might mean alters the fact that the temperature gradient still exists.

I would expect nothing less that complete denial from someone like you even though the gravity induced atmospheric thermal effect does, in fact, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....

 

[Crick]

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet. Your gravity induced nonsense does not.

 

[jc456]

Frank, here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

"Myth: Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.

Fact: Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.

"

Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!

venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes

How'd the CO2 cool the surface?
Why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler, it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation. Hahahaha

 

[jc456]

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet. Your gravity induced nonsense does not.

Except Venus

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frank, here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

"Myth: Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.

Fact: Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.

"

Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!

venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes

How'd the CO2 cool the surface?
Why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler, it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation. Hahahaha

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler

You said CO2 cools the Earth. At 400 PPM.

Why doesn't it cool Venus, at ~ 965,000 PPM?

Unless that claim was as moronic as all your others.......

it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation

How?

 

[Wuwei]

Are you really that dumb? You believe that because he perhaps drew an incorrect conclusion from the results of his experiments, that it alters the result in any way? You really think that? Ever hear of Antoine Lavoisier?...he proposed a theory of acids that held sway well into the 19th century...based on his observations, he hypothesized that oxygen was the acidifying factor in acidic substances....of course his conclusions from what he observed in his experiment were wrong, but that does not alter the fact that what he observed and measured was indeed what he observed and measured....and oddly enough, even though is conclusions and following hypothesis were mistaken, a new element was added to the periodic table...oxygen.

History is rife with examples of scientists misinterpreting what the results of their experiments mean.....this does not in the least change what those results were....in this case, the experiments demonstrate that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...no amount of misinterpretation of what that a might mean alters the fact that the temperature gradient still exists.

I would expect nothing less that complete denial from someone like you even though the gravity induced atmospheric thermal effect does, in fact, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....

Oh for God's sake. Your insults, bluster and irrelevant examples simply will not alter the fact that it wasn't that his conclusions were wrong. First it was his entire experiment that was wrong. Second, the bad experiment lead to bad conclusions. The bad experiment and bad conclusions are inextricably tied.

 

[Crick]

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet. Your gravity induced nonsense does not.

Except Venus

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury average = 127C

Venus average = 462C

 

[jc456]

Frank, here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

"Myth: Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.

Fact: Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.

"

Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!

venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes

How'd the CO2 cool the surface?
Why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler, it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation. Hahahaha

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler

You said CO2 cools the Earth. At 400 PPM.

Why doesn't it cool Venus, at ~ 965,000 PPM?

Unless that claim was as moronic as all your others.......

it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation

How?

You should know, but you're afraid to say it.

But one needs surface IR to back radiate and what was the percentage of sunlight that hits the surface? Hahahaha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet. Your gravity induced nonsense does not.

Except Venus

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

It must be CO2, absorbing energy, but never emitting.

 

[jc456]

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet. Your gravity induced nonsense does not.

Except Venus

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

It must be CO2, absorbing energy, but never emitting.

You never did say how CO2 emits

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!

venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes

How'd the CO2 cool the surface?
Why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler, it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation. Hahahaha

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler

You said CO2 cools the Earth. At 400 PPM.

Why doesn't it cool Venus, at ~ 965,000 PPM?

Unless that claim was as moronic as all your others.......

it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation

How?

You should know, but you're afraid to say it.

But one needs surface IR to back radiate and what was the percentage of sunlight that hits the surface? Hahahaha

You should know, but you're afraid to say it.

No, I don't know how your "theory" works and I'm not afraid to say it.

But one needs surface IR to back radiate

Is the surface of Venus above 0 K?

and what was the percentage of sunlight that hits the surface?

You tell me. And then tell me how that disproves back radiation. Hahaha.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet. Your gravity induced nonsense does not.

Except Venus

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

It must be CO2, absorbing energy, but never emitting.

You never did say how CO2 emits

You never did say how CO2 emits

When an electron drops to a lower orbit, a photon is emitted.

How much heat does CO2 carry away when it escapes Earth's atmosphere?
Is that the only way it, as you claimed, cools the Earth?

 

[jc456]

venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes

How'd the CO2 cool the surface?
Why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler, it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation. Hahahaha

Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler

You said CO2 cools the Earth. At 400 PPM.

Why doesn't it cool Venus, at ~ 965,000 PPM?

Unless that claim was as moronic as all your others.......

it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation

How?

You should know, but you're afraid to say it.

But one needs surface IR to back radiate and what was the percentage of sunlight that hits the surface? Hahahaha

You should know, but you're afraid to say it.

No, I don't know how your "theory" works and I'm not afraid to say it.

But one needs surface IR to back radiate

Is the surface of Venus above 0 K?

and what was the percentage of sunlight that hits the surface?

You tell me. And then tell me how that disproves back radiation. Hahaha.

You should read up on how much sun hits the surface