No Evidence

[SSDD]

. Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. .

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. .

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres

Which ones have "essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres"?

 

[SSDD]

. Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. .

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres

Which ones have "essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres"?

You really don't know? Visit NASA's planetary profile page...try learning something...I have a gig tonight and don't have time to provide the data for you...besides, it might do you some good to actually try learning something...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'd like to know if SSDD is now claiming that the mean path length of a photon through our atmosphere is measured in fractions of a millimeter. If so, I'd like to hear on what he bases that conclusion.

Then we can talk about how that affects the transmission of thermal energy through the atmosphere.

You assume a photon is energy.. It is not. It is a particle within a wave and therefore has mass.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[

Obviously, CO2 absorbs energy from IR photons and from collisions. It loses energy to IR photons and to collisions.You contended that collisions take place more often than emission. Those collisions would pass thermal energy primarily to nitrogen, oxygen and other CO2 molecules. N2 and O2 are neither GHGs and do not radiate in the IR

Do you think it matters whether they radiate in the IR or not? If they radiate the energy they have absorbed, then they are shedding the energy that they absorbed...it doesn't matter whether it is shed as IR, or some other frequency...The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA or whether they have only been looking at IR in narrow frequencies.

The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA

Why don't you post the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate at? Idiot.

Feel free....idiot. I am not the one who claims in one sentence that everything radiates and then in the next, that the only way to radiate energy out into space is via so called greenhouse gasses. N2 and O2 radiate...and it doesn't matter whether they radiate in the IR bands or not...the fact that the energy is escaping the atmosphere is all that matters...

Or do you want to claim that O2 and N2 don't radiate as well?

Never mind...I doubt that you could find it on your own...here are the emission spectra for O2 and N2...

I have always wondered how a gas, that can not interact with LWIR, can stop anything. If the gas is incapable of interacting and is transparent to it, then it passes unabated... CO2 is incapable of stopping 99.6% of LWIR in our atmosphere as it is transparent to it. So how do they reconcile this loss? Trenbreth made this calculation mistake as well..

 

[jc456]

So, it seems we have determined (about a century after the fact) that neither nitrogen or oxygen are greenhouse gases, neither are involved, under atmospheric conditions, in the emission of energy to space. Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. That -50F Arctic air mass that just passed through would have been about -110F. Instead, within a few meters of the Earth's surface, the GHGs present (CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O) absorb a significant portion of the infrared that the surface radiates. Slowing the release of that infrared raises the equilibrium temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere. They call that the greenhouse effect.

Yup, that pretty well covers it.

And, Still no evidence of back radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. .

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres

Which ones have "essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres"?

You really don't know? Visit NASA's planetary profile page...try learning something...I have a gig tonight and don't have time to provide the data for you...besides, it might do you some good to actually try learning something...

You really don't know?

You made the claim, you can't back it up? Really?

Here are your choices, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and let's include Pluto.
Which ones have essentially no greenhouse gasses and are warmer than Earth?

I have a gig tonight and don't have time to provide the data for you..

I agree, you made a stupid claim and now you'll run away.
Pull something out of your ass and post it tomorrow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like to know if SSDD is now claiming that the mean path length of a photon through our atmosphere is measured in fractions of a millimeter. If so, I'd like to hear on what he bases that conclusion.

Then we can talk about how that affects the transmission of thermal energy through the atmosphere.

You assume a photon is energy.. It is not. It is a particle within a wave and therefore has mass.

It is a particle within a wave and therefore has mass.

Are you a moron, or just pretending to be a moron?

 

[Crick]

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Which would those be Shit?

Excerpted from Planet Profiles
Mercury: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.387 AU (57,909,175 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 452
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.12
Atmospheric components trace amounts of hydrogen and helium

Venus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.723 AU (108,208,930 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 726
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.59
Atmospheric components 96% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
0.1% water vapor

Earth: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1 AU (149,597,890 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 281 <------------------
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.39
Atmospheric components 78% nitrogen,
21% oxygen,
1% argon

Mars: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1.524 AU (227,936,640 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 230
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.15
Atmospheric components 95% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
1.6% argon

Jupiter: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 5.203 AU (778,412,020 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 120 (cloud tops)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.44
Atmospheric components 90% hydrogen,
10% helium,
.07% methane

Saturn: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 9.537 AU (1,426,725,400 km)
Mean temperature (K) 88 (1 bar level)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.46
Atmospheric components 97% hydrogen,
3% helium,
.05% methane

Uranus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 19.19 AU (2,870,972,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 59
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.56
Atmospheric components 83% hydrogen,
15% helium,
2% methane (at depth)

Neptune: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 30.07 AU (4,498,252,900 km)
Mean temperature (K) 48
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.51
Atmospheric components 74% hydrogen,
25% helium,
1% methane (at depth)

Pluto: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 39.48 AU (5,906,376,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 37
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) about 0.5
Atmospheric components perhaps methane and nitrogen

 

[IanC]

I have always wondered how a gas, that can not interact with LWIR, can stop anything. If the gas is incapable of interacting and is transparent to it, then it passes unabated... CO2 is incapable of stopping 99.6% of LWIR in our atmosphere as it is transparent to it. So how do they reconcile this loss? Trenbreth made this calculation mistake as well

What a friggin' moron. Wrong, plus he always exaggerates the precision.

Anyone who has seen a Planck curve for average surface temp, or the average surface temp plus or minus 50C, knows that the 15 micron (and wings) band that CO2 absorbs or right in the heart of the power output. I have heard it estimated at 8% of the total and that looks about right.

Where BillyBoob got his 0.4% number is a mystery. Judging from past performance he won't be explaining himself either.

 

[SSDD]

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Which would those be Shit?

Excerpted from Planet Profiles
Mercury: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.387 AU (57,909,175 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 452
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.12
Atmospheric components trace amounts of hydrogen and helium

Venus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.723 AU (108,208,930 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 726
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.59
Atmospheric components 96% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
0.1% water vapor

Earth: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1 AU (149,597,890 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 281 <------------------
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.39
Atmospheric components 78% nitrogen,
21% oxygen,
1% argon

Mars: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1.524 AU (227,936,640 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 230
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.15
Atmospheric components 95% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
1.6% argon

Jupiter: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 5.203 AU (778,412,020 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 120 (cloud tops)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.44
Atmospheric components 90% hydrogen,
10% helium,
.07% methane

Saturn: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 9.537 AU (1,426,725,400 km)
Mean temperature (K) 88 (1 bar level)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.46
Atmospheric components 97% hydrogen,
3% helium,
.05% methane

Uranus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 19.19 AU (2,870,972,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 59
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.56
Atmospheric components 83% hydrogen,
15% helium,
2% methane (at depth)

Neptune: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 30.07 AU (4,498,252,900 km)
Mean temperature (K) 48
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.51
Atmospheric components 74% hydrogen,
25% helium,
1% methane (at depth)

Pluto: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 39.48 AU (5,906,376,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 37
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) about 0.5
Atmospheric components perhaps methane and nitrogen

Try applying your greenhouse hypothesis to Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus...they have very high temperatures in their depths...but a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible on them.

 

[Crick]

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Which would those be Shit?

Excerpted from Planet Profiles
Mercury: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.387 AU (57,909,175 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 452
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.12
Atmospheric components trace amounts of hydrogen and helium

Venus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.723 AU (108,208,930 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 726
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.59
Atmospheric components 96% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
0.1% water vapor

Earth: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1 AU (149,597,890 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 281 <------------------
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.39
Atmospheric components 78% nitrogen,
21% oxygen,
1% argon

Mars: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1.524 AU (227,936,640 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 230
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.15
Atmospheric components 95% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
1.6% argon

Jupiter: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 5.203 AU (778,412,020 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 120 (cloud tops)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.44
Atmospheric components 90% hydrogen,
10% helium,
.07% methane

Saturn: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 9.537 AU (1,426,725,400 km)
Mean temperature (K) 88 (1 bar level)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.46
Atmospheric components 97% hydrogen,
3% helium,
.05% methane

Uranus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 19.19 AU (2,870,972,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 59
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.56
Atmospheric components 83% hydrogen,
15% helium,
2% methane (at depth)

Neptune: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 30.07 AU (4,498,252,900 km)
Mean temperature (K) 48
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.51
Atmospheric components 74% hydrogen,
25% helium,
1% methane (at depth)

Pluto: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 39.48 AU (5,906,376,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 37
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) about 0.5
Atmospheric components perhaps methane and nitrogen

Try applying your greenhouse hypothesis to Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus...they have very high temperatures in their depths...but a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible on them.

In their depths?!?!? What a fucking weasel.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Which would those be Shit?

Excerpted from Planet Profiles
Mercury: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.387 AU (57,909,175 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 452
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.12
Atmospheric components trace amounts of hydrogen and helium

Venus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.723 AU (108,208,930 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 726
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.59
Atmospheric components 96% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
0.1% water vapor

Earth: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1 AU (149,597,890 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 281 <------------------
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.39
Atmospheric components 78% nitrogen,
21% oxygen,
1% argon

Mars: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1.524 AU (227,936,640 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 230
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.15
Atmospheric components 95% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
1.6% argon

Jupiter: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 5.203 AU (778,412,020 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 120 (cloud tops)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.44
Atmospheric components 90% hydrogen,
10% helium,
.07% methane

Saturn: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 9.537 AU (1,426,725,400 km)
Mean temperature (K) 88 (1 bar level)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.46
Atmospheric components 97% hydrogen,
3% helium,
.05% methane

Uranus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 19.19 AU (2,870,972,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 59
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.56
Atmospheric components 83% hydrogen,
15% helium,
2% methane (at depth)

Neptune: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 30.07 AU (4,498,252,900 km)
Mean temperature (K) 48
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.51
Atmospheric components 74% hydrogen,
25% helium,
1% methane (at depth)

Pluto: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 39.48 AU (5,906,376,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 37
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) about 0.5
Atmospheric components perhaps methane and nitrogen

Try applying your greenhouse hypothesis to Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus...they have very high temperatures in their depths...but a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible on them.

have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get..

They receive that solar input "in their depths"?

 

[SSDD]

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Which would those be Shit?

Excerpted from Planet Profiles
Mercury: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.387 AU (57,909,175 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 452
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.12
Atmospheric components trace amounts of hydrogen and helium

Venus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.723 AU (108,208,930 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 726
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.59
Atmospheric components 96% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
0.1% water vapor

Earth: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1 AU (149,597,890 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 281 <------------------
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.39
Atmospheric components 78% nitrogen,
21% oxygen,
1% argon

Mars: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1.524 AU (227,936,640 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 230
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.15
Atmospheric components 95% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
1.6% argon

Jupiter: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 5.203 AU (778,412,020 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 120 (cloud tops)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.44
Atmospheric components 90% hydrogen,
10% helium,
.07% methane

Saturn: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 9.537 AU (1,426,725,400 km)
Mean temperature (K) 88 (1 bar level)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.46
Atmospheric components 97% hydrogen,
3% helium,
.05% methane

Uranus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 19.19 AU (2,870,972,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 59
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.56
Atmospheric components 83% hydrogen,
15% helium,
2% methane (at depth)

Neptune: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 30.07 AU (4,498,252,900 km)
Mean temperature (K) 48
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.51
Atmospheric components 74% hydrogen,
25% helium,
1% methane (at depth)

Pluto: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 39.48 AU (5,906,376,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 37
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) about 0.5
Atmospheric components perhaps methane and nitrogen

Try applying your greenhouse hypothesis to Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus...they have very high temperatures in their depths...but a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible on them.

In their depths?!?!? What a fucking weasel.

You just keep on not knowing...don't you?

Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...

On Saturn, 600 miles below the surface of the clouds, the temperature is about 1300F..go on down and temperatures go on past 10,000F less than half way to the planet's center....pressure

Near its core, neptune reaches temperatures of about 7000F...pressure doing what you claim it can not do

And even Uranus...arguably the coldest place in the solar system has temperatures warmer than earth at the bottom of its troposphere...pressure again, doing what you claim can not happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.

Which would those be Shit?

Excerpted from Planet Profiles
Mercury: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.387 AU (57,909,175 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 452
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.12
Atmospheric components trace amounts of hydrogen and helium

Venus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 0.723 AU (108,208,930 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 726
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.59
Atmospheric components 96% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
0.1% water vapor

Earth: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1 AU (149,597,890 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 281 <------------------
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.39
Atmospheric components 78% nitrogen,
21% oxygen,
1% argon

Mars: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 1.524 AU (227,936,640 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 230
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.15
Atmospheric components 95% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
1.6% argon

Jupiter: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 5.203 AU (778,412,020 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) 120 (cloud tops)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.44
Atmospheric components 90% hydrogen,
10% helium,
.07% methane

Saturn: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 9.537 AU (1,426,725,400 km)
Mean temperature (K) 88 (1 bar level)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.46
Atmospheric components 97% hydrogen,
3% helium,
.05% methane

Uranus: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 19.19 AU (2,870,972,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 59
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.56
Atmospheric components 83% hydrogen,
15% helium,
2% methane (at depth)

Neptune: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 30.07 AU (4,498,252,900 km)
Mean temperature (K) 48
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.51
Atmospheric components 74% hydrogen,
25% helium,
1% methane (at depth)

Pluto: Planet Profile
Average distance from Sun 39.48 AU (5,906,376,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) 37
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) about 0.5
Atmospheric components perhaps methane and nitrogen

Try applying your greenhouse hypothesis to Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus...they have very high temperatures in their depths...but a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible on them.

In their depths?!?!? What a fucking weasel.

You just keep on not knowing...don't you?

Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...

On Saturn, 600 miles below the surface of the clouds, the temperature is about 1300F..go on down and temperatures go on past 10,000F less than half way to the planet's center....pressure

Near its core, neptune reaches temperatures of about 7000F...pressure doing what you claim it can not do

And even Uranus...arguably the coldest place in the solar system has temperatures warmer than earth at the bottom of its troposphere...pressure again, doing what you claim can not happen.

Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F

You're such a dolt. The temperature deep within the planet (clouds? durr) has nothing to do with solar input.

 

[IanC]

There is a tremendous amount of energy stored in an atmosphere.

On Earth, a significant amount of daytime energy is transferred to the atmosphere. Which is then returned at night.

GHGs enhance the amount of energy transferred to the atmosphere but also allow a portion of that to escape directly without having to return to the surface.

Simply imagine what would happen to the Earth if the Sun was no longer there. The surface would cool dramatically. The atmosphere would shrink as it gave up its energy to the surface.

 

[Crick]

Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...

What the gas law tells us is that if you compress gas, it becomes hotter than when it started. It does NOT say that being in a compressed state, or being in ANY state, will cause the gase to somehow maintain that temperature. The compression provides the energy that heats the gas. Once the pressure change is complete, no new energy is added to the system. If the gas were perfectly insulated, it could remain hot for some time. If it was not - as in an atmosphere for instance - the heat of compression will radiate/convect/conduct away and will become irrelevant to its temperature in the future. If we wanted to believe you, we would have to wonder why all our scuba tanks or acetylene tanks or nitrogren tanks weren't all roasting away. You are creating energy just as in other places you believe you can destroy energy. You cannot.

 

[polarbear]

I have always wondered how a gas, that can not interact with LWIR, can stop anything. If the gas is incapable of interacting and is transparent to it, then it passes unabated... CO2 is incapable of stopping 99.6% of LWIR in our atmosphere as it is transparent to it. So how do they reconcile this loss? Trenbreth made this calculation mistake as well

What a friggin' moron. Wrong, plus he always exaggerates the precision.

Anyone who has seen a Planck curve for average surface temp, or the average surface temp plus or minus 50C, knows that the 15 micron (and wings) band that CO2 absorbs or right in the heart of the power output. I have heard it estimated at 8% of the total and that looks about right.

Where BillyBoob got his 0.4% number is a mystery. Judging from past performance he won't be explaining himself either.

Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
"The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."
To which I may add that as far as spectroscopy, remote sensing and various other detection systems is concerned, this is how I made a living in the employ of Bristol aerospace and similar companies and the US + Canadian Government . I can assure you that all of them would have designed a sensor that does not have to use cumbersome spectroscopy to determine ppm CO2 if temperature were driven by CO2 to the degree the so called "settled science" claims it does.
Instead there would be a simple sensor that would use a Wheatstone bridge thermocouple reference calibrated in ppm over a zero CO2 reference. But there is not ! Why not ? Because it can not detect the difference in temperature rise per 100 ppm or even 500 ppm as opposed to an irradiated cuvette with zero ppm CO2. You have to be in the > 10 % not the ppm range before a Wheatstone bridge thermistor could detect anything...just like in these idiotic bottle full of CO2 in the sun experiments can not if you had one with 200 and another with 400 ppm CO2. It`s nothing more than a silly a stunt to fool the naive public how CO2 heats the planet using several % and often 100% CO2 in a closed bottle baking in the sun as "scientific proof" and dress it up as back-radiation in terms of the StB equation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have always wondered how a gas, that can not interact with LWIR, can stop anything. If the gas is incapable of interacting and is transparent to it, then it passes unabated... CO2 is incapable of stopping 99.6% of LWIR in our atmosphere as it is transparent to it. So how do they reconcile this loss? Trenbreth made this calculation mistake as well

What a friggin' moron. Wrong, plus he always exaggerates the precision.

Anyone who has seen a Planck curve for average surface temp, or the average surface temp plus or minus 50C, knows that the 15 micron (and wings) band that CO2 absorbs or right in the heart of the power output. I have heard it estimated at 8% of the total and that looks about right.

Where BillyBoob got his 0.4% number is a mystery. Judging from past performance he won't be explaining himself either.

Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
"The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."
To which I may add that as far as spectroscopy, remote sensing and various other detection systems is concerned, this is how I made a living in the employ of Bristol aerospace and similar companies and the US + Canadian Government . I can assure you that all of them would have designed a sensor that does not have to use cumbersome spectroscopy to determine ppm CO2 if temperature were driven by CO2 to the degree the so called "settled science" claims it does.
Instead there would be a simple sensor that would use a Wheatstone bridge thermocouple reference calibrated in ppm over a zero CO2 reference. But there is not ! Why not ? Because it can not detect the difference in temperature rise per 100 ppm or even 500 ppm as opposed to an irradiated cuvette with zero ppm CO2. You have to be in the > 10 % not the ppm range before a Wheatstone bridge thermistor could detect anything...just like in these idiotic bottle full of CO2 in the sun experiments can not if you had one with 200 and another with 400 ppm CO2. It`s nothing more than a silly a stunt to fool the naive public how CO2 heats the planet using several % and often 100% CO2 in a closed bottle baking in the sun as "scientific proof" and dress it up as back-radiation in terms of the StB equation.

This is roughly 80 times less

Does this bother anyone else, or is it just me?

If you start with 800, for instance, 50% less is 400, 99% less is 8. 100% less is 0.

What's 8000% less, (-63,200)?

Can't people just say 1/80th?

 

[Crick]

Those two demonstrations made no attempt whatsoever at quantitative measurements. This is a strawman argument. And no one to my knowledge is using a sensor to directly measure heating from CO2. It is simply calculated from spectral measurements.