Let's see the evidence

[Crick]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I want to see evidence proving how much cooler it will be in 2080, after we waste trillions on "green energy".

 

[Mr. H.]

I want to see the Warmer's data depicting society in 2080 after having been deprived of hydrocarbons for 65 years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Come on Crick... Why dont you post up your evidence first. We've been waiting for a long time for you present just what it is that CO2 has done to our atmosphere and what can be attributed to human caused CO2.

Tell me Crick does CO2 absorb the photon and then re-emit it, as lab experiments show or does it warm the gas? Empirical evidence shows that CO2 molecules must collide with other CO2 molecules to gain and then throw off heat. Due to the sparse amount of CO2 heat rise is near zero at its current concentration in our atmosphere, that is why Mythbusters used an atmosphere at 7,000ppm (7% of atmosphere) in their experiments. Current atmospheric levels are not conducive to friction caused heat rise.

In your OP you ask the wrong question. It is not the fact that CO2 can absorb certain wave lengths, its the fact that the molecules, once excited, cannot act as you believe and that water vapor kills the process dead through molecular change and convection..

Why dont you pony up your data, methods, and math first... lead by example!

 

[IanC]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

wow!!!! that's quite the impressive rant against strawmen. are you arguing against the mainstream skeptical views or just against certain posters here?

link me up to any legitimate skeptic who states that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. your first point is a total fail.

radiative imbalance at ToA. what data set(s) are you using? what value are you claiming? over what period? it is a trivial statement to say that if more energy comes in than goes out then something must warm up. who is denying that? link me up

are you claiming that GHGs are responsible for exactly 33C warming? you take 33C, and I'll take the rest of the field and give you 10-1 odds. we dont even know what the 'average global temp' is, as an absolute number. at least for this point you should be able to link me up with some legitimate or at least quasi-legitimate skeptics who disagree with your statement.

ocean acidification. apparently there has been some pHraud there. a few million readings were chucked and now a 'model' is used instead.

while I think there is some influence on ocean pH by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, I think it is overwhelmed by other factors such as ocean currents and the buffering system.

which skeptics are denying that water expands as it warms, or that a net loss from any land ice field wont add to sea levels? link me up. skeptics are, well, skeptical that SLR jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr exactly at the same time as we started using satellites to measure ocean levels. does SLR mean something different now? perhaps it does, coastlines are far less important, arbitrary adjustments are in effect, excuses are made.

for the first 15 years of 'the pause', the warmers were screaming about how global warming was accelerating. is the globe warming at an unprecidented rate? who knows? proxy data doesnt really have the resolution to tell us.



skeptics dont have to produce anything. all we have to do is show that you guys are wrong, and you are.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about this............

The whole "man-made" crap has been laid to rest in the minds of the public, which is all that matters. At least half the folks see it in the same vain as witchcraft. Nothing to see here..........

 

[Old Rocks]

So, what I see here is that you silly asses don't have to present any evidence, and can freely ignore evidence that is presented.

Ocean acidification is hardly just a model, nor are the recession of the glaciers worldwide, nor the melting ice caps. However, as the effects continue to mount, we will see a gradual swing in public opinion, then the 'skeptics' will all be screaming that the scientists didn't tell them.

For those actually interrested in what the scientists are stating;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[skookerasbil]

Saying that CO2 is having such a profound impact on the climate is also like saying that if a single person farted in Yankee Stadium, everybody would need to pinch their nose!!!

C'mon..........




Even if you buy the whole doomsday CO2 theory, NOBODY knows how much or how little this can effect temperatures. Nobody knows shit about that so.........

 

[IanC]

I

Come on Crick... Why dont you post up your evidence first. We've been waiting for a long time for you present just what it is that CO2 has done to our atmosphere and what can be attributed to human caused CO2.

Tell me Crick does CO2 absorb the photon and then re-emit it, as lab experiments show or does it warm the gas? Empirical evidence shows that CO2 molecules must collide with other CO2 molecules to gain and then throw off heat. Due to the sparse amount of CO2 heat rise is near zero at its current concentration in our atmosphere, that is why Mythbusters used an atmosphere at 7,000ppm (7% of atmosphere) in their experiments. Current atmospheric levels are not conducive to friction caused heat rise.

In your OP you ask the wrong question. It is not the fact that CO2 can absorb certain wave lengths, its the fact that the molecules, once excited, cannot act as you believe and that water vapor kills the process dead through molecular change and convection..

Why dont you pony up your data, methods, and math first... lead by example!

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

You forgot to specify which report, which working group, which chapter, and what pages.

And BB did have one good question. Do you think the absorbed IR is re-emitted or thermalized? If both, what are the proportions?

 

[Crick]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

 

[IanC]

So, what I see here is that you silly asses don't have to present any evidence, and can freely ignore evidence that is presented.

Ocean acidification is hardly just a model, nor are the recession of the glaciers worldwide, nor the melting ice caps. However, as the effects continue to mount, we will see a gradual swing in public opinion, then the 'skeptics' will all be screaming that the scientists didn't tell them.

For those actually interrested in what the scientists are stating;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

hahahaha. that link is Old Rock's talisman. I bet he has posted it up at least two hundred times. I read it once, and was surprized because it didnt say what old fraud said it did. so I read it again and it still didnt say what Rocks claimed. I thin k Old Rocks should specify the exact quotes from that link rather than just put it up by itself. it's not as bad as Crick posting a bare link to IPCC but it is similar.

 

[Crick]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

wow!!!! that's quite the impressive rant against strawmen. are you arguing against the mainstream skeptical views or just against certain posters here?

link me up to any legitimate skeptic who states that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. your first point is a total fail.

radiative imbalance at ToA. what data set(s) are you using? what value are you claiming? over what period? it is a trivial statement to say that if more energy comes in than goes out then something must warm up. who is denying that? link me up

are you claiming that GHGs are responsible for exactly 33C warming? you take 33C, and I'll take the rest of the field and give you 10-1 odds. we dont even know what the 'average global temp' is, as an absolute number. at least for this point you should be able to link me up with some legitimate or at least quasi-legitimate skeptics who disagree with your statement.

ocean acidification. apparently there has been some pHraud there. a few million readings were chucked and now a 'model' is used instead.

while I think there is some influence on ocean pH by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, I think it is overwhelmed by other factors such as ocean currents and the buffering system.

which skeptics are denying that water expands as it warms, or that a net loss from any land ice field wont add to sea levels? link me up. skeptics are, well, skeptical that SLR jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr exactly at the same time as we started using satellites to measure ocean levels. does SLR mean something different now? perhaps it does, coastlines are far less important, arbitrary adjustments are in effect, excuses are made.

for the first 15 years of 'the pause', the warmers were screaming about how global warming was accelerating. is the globe warming at an unprecidented rate? who knows? proxy data doesnt really have the resolution to tell us.

skeptics dont have to produce anything. all we have to do is show that you guys are wrong, and you are.

Everyone has to produce evidence. If things are as you say, you should have no problem producing evidence to support your positions. And if you can't think of posters here who deny CO2 absorbs IR, you've had too many of your own folks on ignore.

 

[Crick]

And BB did have one good question. Do you think the absorbed IR is re-emitted or thermalized? If both, what are the proportions?

In neither case does the photon travel freely to space, does it.

And, tell us Ian, can a molecule absorb and emit the same photon at the same instant of time? If not, how does it avoid have it's energy level increased by the absorption?

 

[IanC]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

wow!!!! that's quite the impressive rant against strawmen. are you arguing against the mainstream skeptical views or just against certain posters here?

link me up to any legitimate skeptic who states that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. your first point is a total fail.

radiative imbalance at ToA. what data set(s) are you using? what value are you claiming? over what period? it is a trivial statement to say that if more energy comes in than goes out then something must warm up. who is denying that? link me up

are you claiming that GHGs are responsible for exactly 33C warming? you take 33C, and I'll take the rest of the field and give you 10-1 odds. we dont even know what the 'average global temp' is, as an absolute number. at least for this point you should be able to link me up with some legitimate or at least quasi-legitimate skeptics who disagree with your statement.

ocean acidification. apparently there has been some pHraud there. a few million readings were chucked and now a 'model' is used instead.

while I think there is some influence on ocean pH by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, I think it is overwhelmed by other factors such as ocean currents and the buffering system.

which skeptics are denying that water expands as it warms, or that a net loss from any land ice field wont add to sea levels? link me up. skeptics are, well, skeptical that SLR jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr exactly at the same time as we started using satellites to measure ocean levels. does SLR mean something different now? perhaps it does, coastlines are far less important, arbitrary adjustments are in effect, excuses are made.

for the first 15 years of 'the pause', the warmers were screaming about how global warming was accelerating. is the globe warming at an unprecidented rate? who knows? proxy data doesnt really have the resolution to tell us.

skeptics dont have to produce anything. all we have to do is show that you guys are wrong, and you are.

Everyone has to produce evidence. If things are as you say, you should have no problem producing evidence to support your positions. And if you can't think of posters here who deny CO2 absorbs IR, you've had too many of your own folks on ignore.

I am only responsible for my own views, which fall neatly into the predominant skeptical viewpoint. your strawman arguments are for the most part irrelevant to what I have stated in the past. I occasionally waste my time correcting some of the crazier statements of posters here who are on my 'side'. do you do the same? I certainly dont read everything you post but I cannot think of any example.

 

[Crick]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

wow!!!! that's quite the impressive rant against strawmen. are you arguing against the mainstream skeptical views or just against certain posters here?

link me up to any legitimate skeptic who states that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. your first point is a total fail.

radiative imbalance at ToA. what data set(s) are you using? what value are you claiming? over what period? it is a trivial statement to say that if more energy comes in than goes out then something must warm up. who is denying that? link me up

are you claiming that GHGs are responsible for exactly 33C warming? you take 33C, and I'll take the rest of the field and give you 10-1 odds. we dont even know what the 'average global temp' is, as an absolute number. at least for this point you should be able to link me up with some legitimate or at least quasi-legitimate skeptics who disagree with your statement.

ocean acidification. apparently there has been some pHraud there. a few million readings were chucked and now a 'model' is used instead.

while I think there is some influence on ocean pH by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, I think it is overwhelmed by other factors such as ocean currents and the buffering system.

which skeptics are denying that water expands as it warms, or that a net loss from any land ice field wont add to sea levels? link me up. skeptics are, well, skeptical that SLR jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr exactly at the same time as we started using satellites to measure ocean levels. does SLR mean something different now? perhaps it does, coastlines are far less important, arbitrary adjustments are in effect, excuses are made.

for the first 15 years of 'the pause', the warmers were screaming about how global warming was accelerating. is the globe warming at an unprecidented rate? who knows? proxy data doesnt really have the resolution to tell us.

skeptics dont have to produce anything. all we have to do is show that you guys are wrong, and you are.

Everyone has to produce evidence. If things are as you say, you should have no problem producing evidence to support your positions. And if you can't think of posters here who deny CO2 absorbs IR, you've had too many of your own folks on ignore.

I am only responsible for my own views, which fall neatly into the predominant skeptical viewpoint. your strawman arguments are for the most part irrelevant to what I have stated in the past. I occasionally waste my time correcting some of the crazier statements of posters here who are on my 'side'. do you do the same? I certainly dont read everything you post but I cannot think of any example.

Then you don't read enough and, of course, we do not read each other's PMs.

You opined Billy Boy had asked a good question. That tells me you are now responsible for answering the question I posed. How does a molecule absorb a photon without increasing its energy level?

 

[IanC]

And BB did have one good question. Do you think the absorbed IR is re-emitted or thermalized? If both, what are the proportions?

In neither case does the photon travel freely to space, does it.

And, tell us Ian, can a molecule absorb and emit the same photon at the same instant of time? If not, how does it avoid have it's energy level increased by the absorption?

why do you refuse to answer my direct question, and then expect me to answer yours?

 

[Crick]

Yes, I do correct people on my side of the argument. I have done so on multiple occasions, both in public and private. Your turn. Tell us about molecules that absorb photons without changing their energy levels.

As well, as OP, my questions precede all others.

 

[IanC]

Thermalized or re-emitted. If both then what general proportion?

 

[Crick]

What is the actual source of your pH data Ian? Is there something beyond WUWT?

 

[Crick]

Thermalized or re-emitted. If both then what general proportion?

Ian, you're not thinking about this hard enough. Are you or Billy Boy under the impression that some molecules absorb photons and never let them go again? And I'm still waiting for you to explain how a molecule absorbs a photon without increasing in energy level. You can't emit photons you haven't absorbed. Are you beginning to see the idiocy of the question? I'm surprised at you for hanging your hat on this one.