Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one: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.
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.
Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one: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.
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.
13 +0200 
39 CST6CDT 
You simply cant handle the facts.. CO2 is incapable of doing anything in our atmosphere.. We simply refined the experiment to rule out atmospheric influences. There are many sources for our experiment and its precise reasoning...Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one: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.
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.
You know, the experimental apparatus used by Dr Hug in your linked article sounds very similar to the experimental apparatus that Billy_Bob claimed to have set up and run.
"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."
This is where water vapor is the major player and Conduction and Convection have the major roll. When you consider that CO2 looses its energy at a 300,000,000/1 ratio due to kinetic transfer, LWIR has very little to do with it, absent water vapor to collide with and warm, as cooling increases with increased levels of CO2. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.According to Jack Barrett [2] the possible maximum greenhouse effect occurs within a 100 m layer near ground.
Dr Hug also explained why a spectral shift, of just 1um in the UV/IR bands, can have dire consequences.
This is where water vapor is the major player and Conduction and Convection have the major roll. When you consider that CO2 looses its energy at a 300,000,000/1 ratio due to kinetic transfer, LWIR has very little to do with it, absent water vapor to collide with and warm, as cooling increases with increased levels of CO2. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.
It is simply calculated from spectral measurements? Really ?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.
It`s perfectly okay for Dr.Heinz Hug to say 80 times less in German and he never claimed to have a PhD in English. I am certain you would have no idea how to say 1/80th in German. Nobody in Germany would say "ein actzigstel" they would all opt for 80 times less. Strange what you base credibility on, as if it should matter how good or bad Hug`s English teacher was but I am sure his English is way better than your German. While you are at it go find some more faux pas other Germans like Einstein made when writing something in English and ridicule it. It might make you look uber smart (in your opinion)Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one: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.
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?
Confirmed. But I am not on the up and up with SSDD`s version and have no desire to argue with some of what I did read concerning it. Why would I ? None of this IPCC crap is science. It`s a propaganda war and we can not afford to quarrel among ourselves while the AGW frauds in this forum watch with glee and focus in driving a wedge into a simple crack or mistake he may or may not have made. Have you not noticed that they have nothing else to brag about? Meanwhile they make some of the most ridiculous statements, far more than "intelligent photons". Especially so this "Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed....or does endless cut&paste quotes of stuff he has no real understanding of but grandstands with it to no end. He reminds me of that Aussie cartoonist fraudser who won all the arguments against a physicist he impersonated.Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one: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.
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.
Just to clear up confusion...
You are agreeing that CO2 absorbs surface produced radiation in the 15 micron band and wings. And that this energy warms the near surface atmosphere.
You are only arguing the size of the effect, and how it should be calculated. You are in total disagreement with SSDDs bizarre version of atmospheric physics.
"Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed.
Because your nut job equation makes it possible for you to need the 4th power of a negative number..
This is like talking to a fence post. By now it should have dawned on you how idiotic it is to calculate P for a negative T difference and get a negative P....which in turn can not be resolved for T.
You had to check your own calculator to see if it can?.....Hahaha anybody with just a minimal math ed would have known that it can`t.
Isn`t it funny though how this guy is deluding himself that his refusal to acknowledge the stupidity of his negative power concept is preventing anyone from seeing right through his lame attempts to grand stand as some sort of science guy. He would have no idea how to solve any real world heat exchange problem unless its been an example posted on some sort of physics for dummies web site.
People like Wuwei and hisclickers are of no consequence and leave no legacy beyond their digital chicken tracks on the internet. While I had to come up with real solutions for real (engineering) problems that better were 100% correct or else....,.to make a living these kind of people lived of my taxes which paid for the dope they use to "chill out".
Why would you ever want to take the fourth root of this equation
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
You can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = e sigma A T⁴
You get total nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation which is the power absorbed.
Pc = e sigma A Tc⁴
That is because the SB law refers to emission NOT absorption. Yes it will give you something in units of temperature, but that "temperature" is meaningless. The "Power absorbed" could be identical with a warm source up close compared to a very hot source further away.
You get even more nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation even if T > Tc.
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
The idea of the fourth root is to get the emission power from a known temperature. This equation will not give you anything that is meaningful.
If you think the fourth root of equations that include absorption means something, tell me what you think it is.
It`s perfectly okay for Dr.Heinz Hug to say 80 times less in German and he never claimed to have a PhD in English. I am certain you would have no idea how to say 1/80th in German. Nobody in Germany would say "ein actzigstel" they would all opt for 80 times less. Strange what you base credibility on, as if it should matter how good or bad Hug`s English teacher was but I am sure his English is way better than your German. While you are at it go find some more faux pas other Germans like Einstein made when writing something in English and ridicule it. It might make you look uber smart (in your opinion)Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one: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.
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?
You know, the experimental apparatus used by Dr Hug in your linked article sounds very similar to the experimental apparatus that Billy_Bob claimed to have set up and run.
You simply cant handle the facts.. CO2 is incapable of doing anything in our atmosphere.. We simply refined the experiment to rule out atmospheric influences. There are many sources for our experiment and its precise reasoning...
Have YOU read the reviews Dr Hug received?
"CO2 is incapable of doing anything in our atmosphere."
1) Do you believe the greenhouse effect is responsible for the 33C warming of our planet above its black body temperature?
2) If so, do you believe water vapor is responsible for some portion of that warming?
3) If so, what qualitative difference exists between the IR absorption of water vapor and that of CO2
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.
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.
"Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed.
It's not my equation. It is in physics text books that derive the net power. You never answered this post. It already addressed your current question.
Because your nut job equation makes it possible for you to need the 4th power of a negative number..
This is like talking to a fence post. By now it should have dawned on you how idiotic it is to calculate P for a negative T difference and get a negative P....which in turn can not be resolved for T.
You had to check your own calculator to see if it can?.....Hahaha anybody with just a minimal math ed would have known that it can`t.
Isn`t it funny though how this guy is deluding himself that his refusal to acknowledge the stupidity of his negative power concept is preventing anyone from seeing right through his lame attempts to grand stand as some sort of science guy. He would have no idea how to solve any real world heat exchange problem unless its been an example posted on some sort of physics for dummies web site.
People like Wuwei and his
Why would you ever want to take the fourth root of this equation
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
You can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = e sigma A T⁴
You get total nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation which is the power absorbed.
Pc = e sigma A Tc⁴
That is because the SB law refers to emission NOT absorption. Yes it will give you something in units of temperature, but that "temperature" is meaningless. The "Power absorbed" could be identical with a warm source up close compared to a very hot source further away.
You get even more nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation even if T > Tc.
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
The idea of the fourth root is to get the emission power from a known temperature. This equation will not give you anything that is meaningful.
If you think the fourth root of equations that include absorption means something, tell me what you think it is.
Given the power emitted from an object you can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = e sigma A T⁴
Why would you ever think the fourth root of the power in this equation has any meaning? It simply doesn't.
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
If you think it has meaning tell me what it is.
.
You certainly worry about movement in the glass tubes used in demonstrations we've all watched lately. And I assure the air in my scuba tank moves. All of it undergoes Brownian motion appropriate to its absolute temperature and the tank is often subject to uneven heating, from sun shining on parts, from immersion in cold water, exposure to hot decks and engine wells. Your contention is nonsense.
Gas does heat when it is compressed. But guess what happens when it is decompressed you fucking idiot?
You have claimed that the Earth's atmosphere has been heated by compression since it formed ~4 billion years ago. My scuba tank and a thousand other common observations clearly show your contention to be absolute nonsense. You are either a complete idiot or a dedicated troll. There are no other options.
