Old Rocks
Diamond Member
That is exactly what the AIP site states.
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.
There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.
There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.
There is no doubt that pissing in the ocean will increase its alkalinity.
There IS no science indicating the magnitude or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.
And when you piss in the ocean you increase its alkalinity.There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.
There is no doubt that pissing in the ocean will increase its alkalinity.
There IS no science indicating the magnitude or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit and you know it. We are measuring the effects when we measure the decrease in outgoing IR and decrease in reflected energy in other wave lengths.
CO2 is IR active. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. That is not going to affect the amount of retained heat? Come on, Sis, you are letting politics blind you to reality.
Or do you claim the CO2 is from some other source? Is so, would you care to inform us as to that source?
I'm wondering when was Al Gore proven right.
In a Perfect World, Al Gore would be sharing a Cell Block with Bernard, Madoff, with a Life Sentence for His Carbon Credit Ponzi Scheme. Nobody is touching on the damage and cost to the poor and the quality of Life, issues this utter Bullshit will create. They seem to want us as hostages.
Fucking dumb as they come!
So you think that Al Gore should be jailed for stating what all the Scientific Societies, all that National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are stating. As far as the Carbon Credit idea goes, we used the same method to get the pollution from the dirty coal generating plants vastly reduced. Won't work that well for carbon, but would be better than what we are doing now.
But since it did not pass, and won't pass, how is it you state that it is hurting the poor, or anybody, for that matter?
And when you piss in the ocean you increase its alkalinity.There is no doubt that CO2 is IR active.
There is no doubt that pissing in the ocean will increase its alkalinity.
There IS no science indicating the magnitude or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit and you know it. We are measuring the effects when we measure the decrease in outgoing IR and decrease in reflected energy in other wave lengths.
CO2 is IR active. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. That is not going to affect the amount of retained heat? Come on, Sis, you are letting politics blind you to reality.
Or do you claim the CO2 is from some other source? Is so, would you care to inform us as to that source?
There is no science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
If you really wanted to show my statement is bullshit, show the science demonstrating the significance an magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
It's a simple thing to do, if you can.
No, you lie.Are you playing at science, kid?
You mean like the AIP, the AGU, the GSA, and all the other Scientific Societies in the world? Sis, you denigrate virtually all the other scientists in the world, then expect us to see you as anything but a pretender? LOL
I'm denigrating someone who posts blogs thinking they are science then says he has analyzed data.
Well, not really laughing at him/her, more asking them to stop soiling science by playing at it.
I'm surprised that you of all people wouldn't recognize exactly what I was saying.
Apparently so.No, you lie.You mean like the AIP, the AGU, the GSA, and all the other Scientific Societies in the world? Sis, you denigrate virtually all the other scientists in the world, then expect us to see you as anything but a pretender? LOL
I'm denigrating someone who posts blogs thinking they are science then says he has analyzed data.
Well, not really laughing at him/her, more asking them to stop soiling science by playing at it.
I'm surprised that you of all people wouldn't recognize exactly what I was saying.
To understand what you are saying requires an intellect greater than a grapefruit.
Bullshit. You know better. From the reduction in outgoing IR at the absorption bands, to the measurement of those bands in the laboratory, the science is well established and documented.
There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.
Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.
The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.
But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.
In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.
So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.
There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.
Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.
The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.
But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.
In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.
So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.
Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?
We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer
Correlation is not causation.There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.
Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.
The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.
But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.
In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.
So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.
Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?
We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer
That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!
There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.
Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.
The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.
But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.
In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.
So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.
Oh, I missed this. I suppose because gender is so important to you, that you were talking to me.There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.
Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.
The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.
But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.
In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.
So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.
Correlation is not causation.Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?
We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer
That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!
Indeed it is.Correlation is not causation.That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!
No one said it is. But, when one says that CO2 has the ability to trap IR radiation, that isn't correlation, that's a fact shown in the lab.
....
So, show the algorithm doing so..... When one says that humans are the cause of the rise in CO2, that isn't correlation, but the result of subtracting out all other sources.
....
No, it is not logical. Your second statement has no substance. You just defined correlation..... When one says that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable, that isn't correlation, but a logical conclusion derived from my first two statements.
....
Just because you are ignorant in science, logic, and reasoning does not mean you win something.... QED, you failed..., AGAIN!!!
Exactly.I just love it when they use the claim "CO2 traps heat" or "CO2 traps "IR radiation"...
CO2 DOES NOT TRAP ANYTHING!!!!! It reacts to IR.. There is no heat sponge and it being a gas it will not expand and hold in IR..
CO2 reacts to IR by molecular vibration. IR hits it causing the molecules to vibrate. This vibration is what is claimed to cause new heat... All this nonsense to make it easy for people to understand is what leads to confusion and keeps otherwise intelligent people (not konradv or oldsocks of course) from asking the obvious questions about infinite energy creation from a finite source..