No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

I understand the experiment fine and told you precisely how to invalidate the results...a vent hole in the lid of the jar will result in the temperature of the two jars tracking the same temperature regardless of how much CO2 you put in it

That is stupid. Put in a vent hole and you invalidate the experiment. The densities of the gases in the two jars change as the contents leak out. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Doofus...CO2 is heavier than air and is not going to leak out of the top...if you are concerned....put a CO2 detector in the CO2 bottle...

Doofus...CO2 is heavier than air and is not going to leak out of the top..

CO2 is going to pool at the bottom? No mixing? LOL! Doofus indeed.

 

[jc456]

Do those GHGs then transfer some of that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere via conduction?

Most all CO2 collide with O and N molecules. No IR.

How warm do you believe those molecules get?

Most all CO2 collide with O and N molecules. No IR.

Some IR hits CO2 and is absorbed, right?

Is it IR after it is?

Once IR is absorbed, the IR is gone.
Because it was absorbed. Right?

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone. Again, I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming. just one.

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone.

Yep. It did its job and warmed the atmosphere. Because it was absorbed and didn't instantly escape into space.

I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.

You just admitted it absorbed energy. You need proof that matter is warmed by absorbing energy?

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence. anytime pal, anytime. clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most all CO2 collide with O and N molecules. No IR.

Some IR hits CO2 and is absorbed, right?

Is it IR after it is?

Once IR is absorbed, the IR is gone.
Because it was absorbed. Right?

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone. Again, I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming. just one.

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone.

Yep. It did its job and warmed the atmosphere. Because it was absorbed and didn't instantly escape into space.

I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.

You just admitted it absorbed energy. You need proof that matter is warmed by absorbing energy?

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence. anytime pal, anytime. clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.

 

[jc456]

Is it IR after it is?

Once IR is absorbed, the IR is gone.
Because it was absorbed. Right?

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone. Again, I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming. just one.

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone.

Yep. It did its job and warmed the atmosphere. Because it was absorbed and didn't instantly escape into space.

I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.

You just admitted it absorbed energy. You need proof that matter is warmed by absorbing energy?

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence. anytime pal, anytime. clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.

especially CO2. thanks for asking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once IR is absorbed, the IR is gone.
Because it was absorbed. Right?

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone. Again, I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming. just one.

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone.

Yep. It did its job and warmed the atmosphere. Because it was absorbed and didn't instantly escape into space.

I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.

You just admitted it absorbed energy. You need proof that matter is warmed by absorbing energy?

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence. anytime pal, anytime. clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.

especially CO2. thanks for asking.

Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.

 

[jc456]

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone. Again, I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming. just one.

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone.

Yep. It did its job and warmed the atmosphere. Because it was absorbed and didn't instantly escape into space.

I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.

You just admitted it absorbed energy. You need proof that matter is warmed by absorbing energy?

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence. anytime pal, anytime. clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.

especially CO2. thanks for asking.

Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.

Exactly, post that baby up pal. shit I thought you'd never provide it. great show me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone.

Yep. It did its job and warmed the atmosphere. Because it was absorbed and didn't instantly escape into space.

I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.

You just admitted it absorbed energy. You need proof that matter is warmed by absorbing energy?

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence. anytime pal, anytime. clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.

especially CO2. thanks for asking.

Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.

Exactly, post that baby up pal. shit I thought you'd never provide it. great show me.

Exactly.

 

[jc456]

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence. anytime pal, anytime. clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.

especially CO2. thanks for asking.

Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.

Exactly, post that baby up pal. shit I thought you'd never provide it. great show me.

Exactly.

finally folks, toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs. When will that be Toddsterpatriot ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.

especially CO2. thanks for asking.

Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.

Exactly, post that baby up pal. shit I thought you'd never provide it. great show me.

Exactly.

finally folks, toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs. When will that be Toddsterpatriot ?

toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs.

Does CO2 absorb energy without warming?

 

[jc456]

especially CO2. thanks for asking.

Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.

Exactly, post that baby up pal. shit I thought you'd never provide it. great show me.

Exactly.

finally folks, toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs. When will that be Toddsterpatriot ?

toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs.

Does CO2 absorb energy without warming?

I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding. I never varied from that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.

Exactly, post that baby up pal. shit I thought you'd never provide it. great show me.

Exactly.

finally folks, toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs. When will that be Toddsterpatriot ?

toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs.

Does CO2 absorb energy without warming?

I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding. I never varied from that.

I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding.

CO2 in the air, absorbing IR from the ground "absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding"?

 

[jc456]

Exactly, post that baby up pal. shit I thought you'd never provide it. great show me.

Exactly.

finally folks, toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs. When will that be Toddsterpatriot ?

toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs.

Does CO2 absorb energy without warming?

I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding. I never varied from that.

I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding.

CO2 in the air, absorbing IR from the ground "absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding"?

exactly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly.

finally folks, toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs. When will that be Toddsterpatriot ?

toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs.

Does CO2 absorb energy without warming?

I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding. I never varied from that.

I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding.

CO2 in the air, absorbing IR from the ground "absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding"?

exactly.

Can you restate your claim in a way that makes sense?

 

[Wuwei]

I understand the experiment fine and told you precisely how to invalidate the results...a vent hole in the lid of the jar will result in the temperature of the two jars tracking the same temperature regardless of how much CO2 you put in it

That is stupid. Put in a vent hole and you invalidate the experiment. The densities of the gases in the two jars change as the contents leak out. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Doofus...CO2 is heavier than air and is not going to leak out of the top...if you are concerned....put a CO2 detector in the CO2 bottle...

You really don't know what the "n" stands for in the ideal gas law. It is an expression of the amount of gas in a volume (in molar units). With a hole in a container gas will escape and there is less gas in each container depending on the temperature. Ie, the density drops. Do I have to explain everything to you? Different amounts of gas escapes for different temperatures of the two cylinders. Apples and oranges.

Foote's experiments are much more controlled and show higher temperature in the GHG cylinders. There is no heat of compression; just more pressure due to the IGL!

 

[SSDD]

I understand the experiment fine and told you precisely how to invalidate the results...a vent hole in the lid of the jar will result in the temperature of the two jars tracking the same temperature regardless of how much CO2 you put in it

That is stupid. Put in a vent hole and you invalidate the experiment. The densities of the gases in the two jars change as the contents leak out. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Doofus...CO2 is heavier than air and is not going to leak out of the top...if you are concerned....put a CO2 detector in the CO2 bottle...

You really don't know what the "n" stands for in the ideal gas law. It is an expression of the amount of gas in a volume (in molar units). With a hole in a container gas will escape and there is less gas in each container depending on the temperature. Ie, the density drops. Do I have to explain everything to you? Different amounts of gas escapes for different temperatures of the two cylinders. Apples and oranges.

Foote's experiments are much more controlled and show higher temperature in the GHG cylinders. There is no heat of compression; just more pressure due to the IGL!

If you fill your jar with CO2....even after it has been under your lights, or the sun for a couple of hours, the CO2 concentration is still going to be much higher than in the jar of common air...you really are a doofus...

And of course there is heat of compression...do the experiment....what's the matter..afraid of proving yourself wrong?

 

[Crick]

Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

 

[Crick]

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas. There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas. A mist of water is liquid water. It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen. Gaseous water is invisible. When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.

 

[Wuwei]

If you fill your jar with CO2....even after it has been under your lights, or the sun for a couple of hours, the CO2 concentration is still going to be much higher than in the jar of common air...you really are a doofus...

And of course there is heat of compression...do the experiment....what's the matter..afraid of proving yourself wrong?

Foote's experiment is the way to go. It preserves constant volume and molar mass. You still don't understand the difference between increased pressure due to heat and increased pressure due to mechanically reducing the volume with a piston. That is really sad, you know.

You can't understand where the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation goes. You only attempt to answer why the surface is hot, but don't know what happens to that radiation. That's sad too.

.

 

[SSDD]

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas. There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas. A mist of water is liquid water. It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen. Gaseous water is invisible. When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.

Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim... Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not...

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas. There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas. A mist of water is liquid water. It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen. Gaseous water is invisible. When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.

Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim... Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not... But hey...believe whatever you want...it is how you get through life, isn't it...you alter, modify, and deliberately change anything that doesn't agree with your belief in order to maintain said belief...it is also why you are so easily fooled...

 

[SSDD]

If you fill your jar with CO2....even after it has been under your lights, or the sun for a couple of hours, the CO2 concentration is still going to be much higher than in the jar of common air...you really are a doofus...

And of course there is heat of compression...do the experiment....what's the matter..afraid of proving yourself wrong?

Foote's experiment is the way to go. It preserves constant volume and molar mass. You still don't understand the difference between increased pressure due to heat and increased pressure due to mechanically reducing the volume with a piston. That is really sad, you know.

You can't understand where the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation goes. You only attempt to answer why the surface is hot, but don't know what happens to that radiation. That's sad too.

.

Vent the containers and you have no more warming in the CO2 jar than you have in the common air jar...heat of compression...

Being easily fooled is why you are a dupe...or are you a dupe because you are easily fooled?