Lab Work Matters!

[RollingThunder]

wow!! Why don't you provide the experiment that shows how GHGs absorb. Because Herr Koch did the CO2 experiment back in 1901 and it proved adding CO2 did very little. So mimi, show us yours that shows otherwise!!!

Herr Koch 1901, what else you need?

LOLOLOL.....just your committment papers to the mental hospital, JustCrazy!

A while back I posted an excerpt from Dr. Spencer Weart's in depth study of the development of the modern greenhouse gas theories of modern atmospheric physics. The troll JustCrazy latched onto one paragraph describing some early experiments around the beginning of the 20th century that eventually proved to be poorly conceived, constructed and executed, leading to some false conclusions that were conclusively shown to be wrong by later experimentation. JustCrazy then ignored everything in that article that followed, detailing the subsequent advances in the scientific understanding of atmospheric physics and refuting the bogus early experiment that he now touts as the 'final word' in science. LOLOLOL. Check out paragraphs #5 & #7 in the original article that JustCrazy is misquoting.

The Discovery of Global Warming
Dr. Spencer Weart
American Institute of Physics
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Fuller discussion - simple models)

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough. (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).

Arrhenius brought up the possibility of future warming in an impressive scientific article and a widely read book. By the time the book was published, 1908, the rate of coal burning was already significantly higher than in 1896, and Arrhenius suggested warming might appear wihin a few centuries rather than millenia. Yet here as in his first article, the possibility of warming in some distant future was far from his main point. He mentioned it only in passing, during a detailed discussion of what really interested scientists of his time — the cause of the ice ages. Arrhenius had not quite discovered global warming, but only a curious theoretical concept.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.

Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision. But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (Fuller discussion - simple models

The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong and turned to other problems. Arrhenius responded with a long paper, criticizing Koch's measurement in scathing terms. He also developed complicated arguments to explain that absorption of radiation in the upper layers was important, water vapor was not important in those very dry layers, and anyway the bands of the spectrum where water vapor was absorbed did not entirely overlap the CO2 absorption bands. Other scientists seem not to have noticed or understood the paper. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

where were they proven wrong? Where is that experiment? Makin a statement is not fact. Again, show me the experiment that shows your claim? I've given you mine, you still haven't proved it wrong.

At this point, that is just demented delusional drivel. Everyone is laughing at you.

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

And still there is an enormous mount of modern scientific understanding of the Earth's climate systems, based on both experimental and theoretical physics, that supports the conclusions of (virtually all) the world's climate scientists concerning anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes.

Everyone else laughs at you, JustCrazy, because you're a pathetic little anti-science retard clinging to a host of debunked denier cult myths and lies. You laugh manically because you too stupid to realize how absurd you are.

 

[jc456]

wow!! Why don't you provide the experiment that shows how GHGs absorb. Because Herr Koch did the CO2 experiment back in 1901 and it proved adding CO2 did very little. So mimi, show us yours that shows otherwise!!!

Herr Koch 1901, what else you need?

LOLOLOL.....just your committment papers to the mental hospital, JustCrazy!

A while back I posted an excerpt from Dr. Spencer Weart's in depth study of the development of the modern greenhouse gas theories of modern atmospheric physics. The troll JustCrazy latched onto one paragraph describing some early experiments around the beginning of the 20th century that eventually proved to be poorly conceived, constructed and executed, leading to some false conclusions that were conclusively shown to be wrong by later experimentation. JustCrazy then ignored everything in that article that followed, detailing the subsequent advances in the scientific understanding of atmospheric physics and refuting the bogus early experiment that he now touts as the 'final word' in science. LOLOLOL. Check out paragraphs #5 & #7 in the original article that JustCrazy is misquoting.

The Discovery of Global Warming
Dr. Spencer Weart
American Institute of Physics
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Fuller discussion - simple models)

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough. (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).

Arrhenius brought up the possibility of future warming in an impressive scientific article and a widely read book. By the time the book was published, 1908, the rate of coal burning was already significantly higher than in 1896, and Arrhenius suggested warming might appear wihin a few centuries rather than millenia. Yet here as in his first article, the possibility of warming in some distant future was far from his main point. He mentioned it only in passing, during a detailed discussion of what really interested scientists of his time — the cause of the ice ages. Arrhenius had not quite discovered global warming, but only a curious theoretical concept.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.

Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision. But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (Fuller discussion - simple models

The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong and turned to other problems. Arrhenius responded with a long paper, criticizing Koch's measurement in scathing terms. He also developed complicated arguments to explain that absorption of radiation in the upper layers was important, water vapor was not important in those very dry layers, and anyway the bands of the spectrum where water vapor was absorbed did not entirely overlap the CO2 absorption bands. Other scientists seem not to have noticed or understood the paper. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

where were they proven wrong? Where is that experiment? Makin a statement is not fact. Again, show me the experiment that shows your claim? I've given you mine, you still haven't proved it wrong.

At this point, that is just demented delusional drivel. Everyone is laughing at you.

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

And still there is an enormous mount of modern scientific understanding of the Earth's climate systems, based on both experimental and theoretical physics, that supports the conclusions of (virtually all) the world's climate scientists concerning anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes.

Everyone else laughs at you, JustCrazy, because you're a pathetic little anti-science retard clinging to a host of debunked denier cult myths and lies. You laugh manically because you too stupid to realize how absurd you are.

I can definitely understand the reason for your inability to provide what you said you had. You just never had it. So, again, Herr Koch experiment has not been proven in error. Thanks for playing, I see posting poses a problem for you! tsk, tsk....anyway, anytime you feel the need to discuss with me again, just remember, I will be waiting on that experiment that proves Koch's wrong!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOLOLOL.....just your committment papers to the mental hospital, JustCrazy!

A while back I posted an excerpt from Dr. Spencer Weart's in depth study of the development of the modern greenhouse gas theories of modern atmospheric physics. The troll JustCrazy latched onto one paragraph describing some early experiments around the beginning of the 20th century that eventually proved to be poorly conceived, constructed and executed, leading to some false conclusions that were conclusively shown to be wrong by later experimentation. JustCrazy then ignored everything in that article that followed, detailing the subsequent advances in the scientific understanding of atmospheric physics and refuting the bogus early experiment that he now touts as the 'final word' in science. LOLOLOL. Check out paragraphs #5 & #7 in the original article that JustCrazy is misquoting.

The Discovery of Global Warming
Dr. Spencer Weart
American Institute of Physics
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Fuller discussion - simple models)

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough. (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).

Arrhenius brought up the possibility of future warming in an impressive scientific article and a widely read book. By the time the book was published, 1908, the rate of coal burning was already significantly higher than in 1896, and Arrhenius suggested warming might appear wihin a few centuries rather than millenia. Yet here as in his first article, the possibility of warming in some distant future was far from his main point. He mentioned it only in passing, during a detailed discussion of what really interested scientists of his time — the cause of the ice ages. Arrhenius had not quite discovered global warming, but only a curious theoretical concept.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.

Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision. But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (Fuller discussion - simple models

The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong and turned to other problems. Arrhenius responded with a long paper, criticizing Koch's measurement in scathing terms. He also developed complicated arguments to explain that absorption of radiation in the upper layers was important, water vapor was not important in those very dry layers, and anyway the bands of the spectrum where water vapor was absorbed did not entirely overlap the CO2 absorption bands. Other scientists seem not to have noticed or understood the paper. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

where were they proven wrong? Where is that experiment? Makin a statement is not fact. Again, show me the experiment that shows your claim? I've given you mine, you still haven't proved it wrong.

At this point, that is just demented delusional drivel. Everyone is laughing at you.

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

And still there is an enormous mount of modern scientific understanding of the Earth's climate systems, based on both experimental and theoretical physics, that supports the conclusions of (virtually all) the world's climate scientists concerning anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes.

Everyone else laughs at you, JustCrazy, because you're a pathetic little anti-science retard clinging to a host of debunked denier cult myths and lies. You laugh manically because you too stupid to realize how absurd you are.

I can definitely understand the reason for your inability to provide what you said you had. You just never had it. So, again, Herr Koch experiment has not been proven in error. Thanks for playing, I see posting poses a problem for you! tsk, tsk....anyway, anytime you feel the need to discuss with me again, just remember, I will be waiting on that experiment that proves Koch's wrong!!!!

Denier cult insanity plainly revealed for all to see.

^ Hasn't posted a single experiment having anything at all to do with his insane Cult Theory

 

[jc456]

At this point, that is just demented delusional drivel. Everyone is laughing at you.

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

And still there is an enormous mount of modern scientific understanding of the Earth's climate systems, based on both experimental and theoretical physics, that supports the conclusions of (virtually all) the world's climate scientists concerning anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes.

Everyone else laughs at you, JustCrazy, because you're a pathetic little anti-science retard clinging to a host of debunked denier cult myths and lies. You laugh manically because you too stupid to realize how absurd you are.

I can definitely understand the reason for your inability to provide what you said you had. You just never had it. So, again, Herr Koch experiment has not been proven in error. Thanks for playing, I see posting poses a problem for you! tsk, tsk....anyway, anytime you feel the need to discuss with me again, just remember, I will be waiting on that experiment that proves Koch's wrong!!!!

Denier cult insanity plainly revealed for all to see.

^ Hasn't posted a single experiment having anything at all to do with his insane Cult Theory

More denier cult insanity and demented denial from the CrazyFruitcake. See post #4 in this thread.

And again, you haven't provided an experiment. See that is the argument. Perhaps you just don't have a clue what an experiment is! ah......that's it!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At this point, that is just demented delusional drivel. Everyone is laughing at you.

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

And still there is an enormous mount of modern scientific understanding of the Earth's climate systems, based on both experimental and theoretical physics, that supports the conclusions of (virtually all) the world's climate scientists concerning anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes.

Everyone else laughs at you, JustCrazy, because you're a pathetic little anti-science retard clinging to a host of debunked denier cult myths and lies. You laugh manically because you too stupid to realize how absurd you are.

I can definitely understand the reason for your inability to provide what you said you had. You just never had it. So, again, Herr Koch experiment has not been proven in error. Thanks for playing, I see posting poses a problem for you! tsk, tsk....anyway, anytime you feel the need to discuss with me again, just remember, I will be waiting on that experiment that proves Koch's wrong!!!!

Denier cult insanity plainly revealed for all to see.

^ Hasn't posted a single experiment having anything at all to do with his insane Cult Theory

More denier cult insanity and demented denial from the CrazyFruitcake. See post #4 in this thread.

Do you know what an experiment is, you dope?

You didn't post any!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, you understand that was insane, right?

The polar regions are not exhaust pipes of heat. IR flux out of the polar regions is really damn low. We measure such things.

Billy, why are you even pretending you're not a cult nutter? You may as well have started screaming the flat earth theory, given it makes the same amount of sense.

Again you show your ignorance of the climatic system on earth.. Tell me moron, where is the earths atmosphere the thinnest and where over 70% of all heat leaves the earth..

 

[konradv]

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

The only experiment necessary is showing that CO2 can absorb IR radiation. At that point it's the deniers' place to show what happens to that energy, if not to heat the earth.

 

[jc456]

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

The only experiment necessary is showing that CO2 can absorb IR radiation. At that point it's the deniers' place to show what happens to that energy, if not to heat the earth.

ok, do you have one? You know, one that shows how much it actually absorbs? See I did supply one, one performed back in 1901 by Herr Koch.

 

[konradv]

The only experiment necessary is showing that CO2 can absorb IR radiation. At that point it's the deniers' place to show what happens to that energy, if not to heat the earth.

ok, do you have one? You know one that shows how much it actually absorbs?

It's a trivial experiment for anyone that has a spectrophotometer to show that it absorbs IR. Why else would CO2 be called a GHG? What happens to that energy if statistically 50% is re-emitted towards earth.

 

[jc456]

and still no experiment. I'm the one doing the laughing fella!!!!

The only experiment necessary is showing that CO2 can absorb IR radiation. At that point it's the deniers' place to show what happens to that energy, if not to heat the earth.

ok, do you have one? You know one that shows how much it actually absorbs?

It's a trivial experiment for anyone that has a spectrophotometer. Why else would CO2 be called a GHG?

Well perhaps you should investigate it. See it is your side's claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat to the atmosphere. I'm waiting on that confirmation experiment that actually proves that. See the experiment Herr Koch did, proves it doesn't. so, again, the onus is on your side to show that adding CO2 actually absorbs more IR waves.

 

[konradv]

Well perhaps you should investigate it. See it is your side's claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat to the atmosphere. I'm waiting on that confirmation experiment that actually proves that. See the experiment Herr Koch did, proves it doesn't. so, again, the onus is on your side to show that adding CO2 actually absorbs more IR waves.

Perhaps you could show why it's not possible. I'm not a "side" . I'm a person who knows a little science. If CO2 absorbs energy and it continues to go up, wouldn't a rise in temps be inevitable? I think you need to think about THAT and formulate an answer that proves your point with that in mind, instead of just parroting what others have said.

 

[jc456]

Well perhaps you should investigate it. See it is your side's claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat to the atmosphere. I'm waiting on that confirmation experiment that actually proves that. See the experiment Herr Koch did, proves it doesn't. so, again, the onus is on your side to show that adding CO2 actually absorbs more IR waves.

Perhaps you could show why it's not possible. I'm not a "side" . I'm a person who knows a little science. If CO2 absorbs energy and it continues to go up, wouldn't a rise in temps be inevitable? I think you need to think about THAT and formulate an answer that proves your point with that in mind, instead of just parroting what others have said.

I have thought about and researched it. I am not a scientist, I've stated that over and over on here. I am one however, who does need evidence to support a theory. In my research efforts, I find that CO2 is a gas that absorbs logarithmically and not linearly. So, the most absorption of IR waves happens on the very first 20PPM of CO2, as the trace amounts increase, the absorption decreases and at 280 PPM to 400 PPM the added heat is very minimal 0.06 C. I've found other research that does state that the doubling of CO2 would be ~3 C. However, with all of the material I've read, it makes more sense that the temperature does not go linear as CO2 doubles. For me, I back the 0.06C and not the ~3C. I have read the experiment that was done in 1901 by Koch as I explained, and as of yet nothing has been provided to debunk it!,, I'm with that. Now you want to challenge that, fine, but I will expect the experiment that disproves it.

 

[konradv]

CO2 has increased about 40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Logarithmically that's about 16% more absorption. I don't see how that can be considered trivial. You think 3 degrees is too much? I think 0.06 is ridiculously low.

 

[jc456]

CO2 has increased about 40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Logarithmically that's about 16% more absorption. I don't see how that can be considered trivial. You think 3 degrees is too much? I think 0.06 is ridiculously low.

Well, that's your right, as it is mine to believe what I do. And right now, observed data supports my scenario. And again, trying to convince me differently, you'll need an experiment that proves your numbers. Again, mine Herr Koch did in 1901.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has increased about 40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Logarithmically that's about 16% more absorption. I don't see how that can be considered trivial. You think 3 degrees is too much? I think 0.06 is ridiculously low.

Given your line of thinking, we should have fried long ago when CO2 was above 7,000ppm. However, the earths temperature never increased above 22 deg C average. WHY? If we take your position on this all living things should have perished in 300 Deg F heat.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has increased about 40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Logarithmically that's about 16% more absorption. I don't see how that can be considered trivial. You think 3 degrees is too much? I think 0.06 is ridiculously low.

Actually he is correct. Given other gases in earths atmosphere and their lower emitence levels, the trace gas of CO2 is not capable of reaching its maximum heat potential. If it were a pure CO2 and all that was around was CO2 to collide with you might get there but the particles are so sparse that heat does not transfer well. There is no 'hot' spot in the atmosphere from CO2, it doesn't exist by empirical evidence fact.

 

[mamooth]

Given your line of thinking, we should have fried long ago when CO2 was above 7,000ppm. However, the earths temperature never increased above 22 deg C average. WHY? If we take your position on this all living things should have perished in 300 Deg F heat.

It has been directly pointed out to you before that TSI was 5% lower at that time. You now ignore that fact.

Deliberately leaving out the data that contradicts your stupidity is deliberate data fudging on your part.

You're a proven proud data fudger. Unless independent evidence shows otherwise, the starting assumption is that everything you write is dishonest.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Given your line of thinking, we should have fried long ago when CO2 was above 7,000ppm. However, the earths temperature never increased above 22 deg C average. WHY? If we take your position on this all living things should have perished in 300 Deg F heat.

It has been directly pointed out to you before that TSI was 5% lower at that time. You now ignore that fact.

Deliberately leaving out the data that contradicts your stupidity is deliberate data fudging on your part.

You're a proven proud data fudger. Unless independent evidence shows otherwise, the starting assumption is that everything you write is dishonest.

Wrong again.. TSI has not changed much more than 1.5 w/m^2 in millions of years. Ask any solar physicist, I have and done the math to boot. The only one fudging facts here is you.

By the way, a 5% change in solar output would have left this planet a solid block of ice even with raised levels of CO2 and there would be no thawing, ever! ( funny we had cyclical thaw and freeze during that time span) If you took two seconds to think things through and do the math you would know that you are being lied too..

 

[Billy_Bob]

5% of 1365 = 68.25 or 1296.75 @ top of atmosphere. We would see just about 11.6% of that at earths surface or 150.6 w/m^2. We currently see173.7w/m^2. This would mean about an 13% drop in surface heat from solar radiation. When just a 2% change causes rapid glaciation what would 13% do??.. freaking moron.. The hairball is making shit up!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Given your line of thinking, we should have fried long ago when CO2 was above 7,000ppm. However, the earths temperature never increased above 22 deg C average. WHY? If we take your position on this all living things should have perished in 300 Deg F heat.

It has been directly pointed out to you before that TSI was 5% lower at that time. You now ignore that fact.

Deliberately leaving out the data that contradicts your stupidity is deliberate data fudging on your part.

You're a proven proud data fudger. Unless independent evidence shows otherwise, the starting assumption is that everything you write is dishonest.

Given your line of thinking, we should have fried long ago when CO2 was above 7,000ppm. However, the earths temperature never increased above 22 deg C average. WHY? If we take your position on this all living things should have perished in 300 Deg F heat.

It has been directly pointed out to you before that TSI was 5% lower at that time. You now ignore that fact.

Deliberately leaving out the data that contradicts your stupidity is deliberate data fudging on your part.

You're a proven proud data fudger. Unless independent evidence shows otherwise, the starting assumption is that everything you write is dishonest.

How did you arrive at TSI being 5% less than today?