Scientist: Do We Really Know?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lying liar says what? Derp!

i get a kick out of those who can't do what they want others to do. And the continued blah, blah, blah and no experiment of back radiation. come on shut me up, post the experiment.

I get a kick out of the claim that NASA posted proof that CO2 cools the planet.

Even if it did (it doesn't, moron), they'd never admit it because they're deep in the AGW scam.

So thanks for the laugh, liar.

and I'm still waiting.

Liar.

"Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”"

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%

OMG! Don't tell JC, but this link refutes the moronic, "CO2 absorbs but never re-radiates" claim. Derp!

 

[RollingThunder]

i get a kick out of those who can't do what they want others to do. And the continued blah, blah, blah and no experiment of back radiation. come on shut me up, post the experiment.

You've been shown the evidence many times, you lying denier cult imbecile.

Right on this thread too....post #115.

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

Of course re-radiation and backradiation are happening, retard. That is confirmed from many sources. Reality deniers are so insane!

Here's a scientist that deniers usually love to quote.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
I’m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible. More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming. These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect.

Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER. In fact, this is happening all around us, all the time. The reason why we might be confused by the apparent incongruity of the statement is that we don’t spend enough time thinking about why the temperature of something is what it is.

 

[jc456]

i get a kick out of those who can't do what they want others to do. And the continued blah, blah, blah and no experiment of back radiation. come on shut me up, post the experiment.

You've been shown the evidence many times, you lying denier cult imbecile.

Right on this thread too....post #115.

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

Of course re-radiation and backradiation are happening, retard. That is confirmed from many sources. Reality deniers are so insane!

Here's a scientist that deniers usually love to quote.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
I’m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible. More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming. These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect.

Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER. In fact, this is happening all around us, all the time. The reason why we might be confused by the apparent incongruity of the statement is that we don’t spend enough time thinking about why the temperature of something is what it is.

sorry friend, but that doesn't prove anything of the sort. Sorry. again, if you are truly into science you should look up debunk greenhouse effect on the internet. It's all I did, and there is absolutely no back radiation experiments, not even John Tyndall's. look up 'john tyndall's experiment does not prove greenhouse effect. go read.

 

[RollingThunder]

i get a kick out of those who can't do what they want others to do. And the continued blah, blah, blah and no experiment of back radiation. come on shut me up, post the experiment.

You've been shown the evidence many times, you lying denier cult imbecile.

Right on this thread too....post #115.

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

Of course re-radiation and backradiation are happening, retard. That is confirmed from many sources. Reality deniers are so insane!

Here's a scientist that deniers usually love to quote.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
I’m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible. More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming. These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect.

Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER. In fact, this is happening all around us, all the time. The reason why we might be confused by the apparent incongruity of the statement is that we don’t spend enough time thinking about why the temperature of something is what it is.

sorry friend,

Nope! WE ARE NOT FRIENDS. I have much higher standards than that.

but that doesn't prove anything of the sort.

Of course it does, imbecile. Direct evidence. Too bad you're much too retarded and brainwashed to understand that.

Sorry. again,

No shit! You are one of the sorriest dumbshits I've ever seen.

if you are truly into science you should look up 'debunk greenhouse effect' on the internet.

As we all expected, you get your info from random denier cult websites sponsored by the fossil fuel industry, after you search for fraudulent denier cult propaganda memes.

In the real world....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab News Release
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
***

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
by Ari Jokimäki
September 25, 2009
This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (September 23, 2012): Burch & Gryvnak (1966) added.
UPDATE (February 6, 2011): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)“A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].”[Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation – Burch & Gryvnak (1966) “Extensive measurements of the absorption by H2O and CO2 have been made in the region from 0·6 to 5·5 microm. Two different multiple-pass absorption cells provided path lengths from 2 to 933 m, and sample pressures were varied from a few μHg to 15 atm. Approximately thirty new CO2 bands were observed and identified, and the strengths of the important bands determined. The H2O data provide enough information for the determination of the strengths and widths of several hundred of the more important lines. The wings of CO2absorption lines were found to be sub-Lorentzian, with the shapes depending on temperature, broadening gas, and wavelength in ways which cannot be explained by present theories. The absorption by H2O and CO2 samples at temperatures up to 1800°K has been studied from 1 to 5 microm. The transmission of radiation from hot CO2 through cold CO2 and from hot H2O through cold H2O has been investigated to determine the effect of the coincidence of emission lines with absorption lines.” Darrell E. Burch, David A. Gryvnak, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240, Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al.(1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.”

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) “Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881)Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

Closely related

The HITRAN Database – The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.

 

[Crick]

There's a key phrase there jc. "all matter above 0K emits". And, of course, ALL matter is above 0K. ALL matter emits, all the time in all directions. It's really quite simple. There's no magic required.

no there are conditions that must be met, or do you deny that?

I absolutely deny that. As I stated, ALL matter emits ALL the time and the spectrum and magnitude of the emission is determined SOLELY by it's temperature and its emissivity. Period.

 

[jc456]

There's a key phrase there jc. "all matter above 0K emits". And, of course, ALL matter is above 0K. ALL matter emits, all the time in all directions. It's really quite simple. There's no magic required.

no there are conditions that must be met, or do you deny that?

I absolutely deny that. As I stated, ALL matter emits ALL the time and the spectrum and magnitude of the emission is determined SOLELY by it's temperature and its emissivity. Period.

funny

 

[Crick]

No, that is not what I was saying. I was attempting to explain "emissivity" to you. I can see now that was a mistake.

 

[Crick]

There's a key phrase there jc. "all matter above 0K emits". And, of course, ALL matter is above 0K. ALL matter emits, all the time in all directions. It's really quite simple. There's no magic required.

no there are conditions that must be met, or do you deny that?

I absolutely deny that. As I stated, ALL matter emits ALL the time and the spectrum and magnitude of the emission is determined SOLELY by it's temperature and its emissivity. Period.

funny

Stupid

 

[Old Rocks]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[ScienceRocks]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

A reality of loserterianism and the coyboy mindset of the I hate government types.

 

[jc456]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs!

 

[jc456]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

A reality of loserterianism and the coyboy mindset of the I hate government types.

Convoy?

 

[RollingThunder]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs!

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

 

[jc456]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs!

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

dude, for the umpteenth time, all that states is absorb not emit. wow, post up the temperature changes they captured during the test, when it was clean air and then after CO2 was added. Post up that excerpt from that data in 164.

Crap even John Tyndall proved that in the 1800s. I think it was 1861 if i'm not mistaken.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs!

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

dude, for the umpteenth time, all that states is absorb not emit. wow, post up the temperature changes they captured during the test, when it was clean air and then after CO2 was added. Post up that excerpt from that data in 164.

Crap even John Tyndall proved that in the 1800s. I think it was 1861 if i'm not mistaken.

all that states is absorb not emit.

Derp!

 

[jc456]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs!

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

dude, for the umpteenth time, all that states is absorb not emit. wow, post up the temperature changes they captured during the test, when it was clean air and then after CO2 was added. Post up that excerpt from that data in 164.

Crap even John Tyndall proved that in the 1800s. I think it was 1861 if i'm not mistaken.

all that states is absorb not emit.

Derp!

see, you don't have any evidence. i love it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But that is the hallmark of jc, Crusader, SSDD, LaDexter, and several others. And they are proud of being stupid. They read a word or name in the title of an article, and just randomly through it out. jc did that with Bohr, and I showed the simplest diagram of the model of the Bohr atom, and emission of photons. And he called it a cartoon because even at that level, that most of us here learned somewhere between the third and fifth grade, is beyond his understanding. Stupid is as stupid does.

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs!

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

dude, for the umpteenth time, all that states is absorb not emit. wow, post up the temperature changes they captured during the test, when it was clean air and then after CO2 was added. Post up that excerpt from that data in 164.

Crap even John Tyndall proved that in the 1800s. I think it was 1861 if i'm not mistaken.

all that states is absorb not emit.

Derp!

see, you don't have any evidence. i love it.

I have no evidence of your moronic claims.

And neither do you. Liar.

 

[jc456]

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs!

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

dude, for the umpteenth time, all that states is absorb not emit. wow, post up the temperature changes they captured during the test, when it was clean air and then after CO2 was added. Post up that excerpt from that data in 164.

Crap even John Tyndall proved that in the 1800s. I think it was 1861 if i'm not mistaken.

all that states is absorb not emit.

Derp!

see, you don't have any evidence. i love it.

I have no evidence of your moronic claims.

And neither do you. Liar.

you have nothing for your lie either.

So you failed.

 

[RollingThunder]

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs.

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

dude, for the umpteenth time, all that states is absorb not emit. wow, post up the temperature changes they captured during the test, when it was clean air and then after CO2 was added. Post up that excerpt from that data in 164.

OK, little retard....here's the first one out of the many experiments cited in post #164.

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations.
(excerpts)
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2. The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet’s energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth’s surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2. Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.

 

[jc456]

And still no experiment from the no science group of warmer goofs.

Are you blind as well as retarded, JustCrazy?

Did your denier cult blinders keep you from seeing post #164, moron???

dude, for the umpteenth time, all that states is absorb not emit. wow, post up the temperature changes they captured during the test, when it was clean air and then after CO2 was added. Post up that excerpt from that data in 164.

OK, little retard....here's the first one out of the many experiments cited in post #164.

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations.
(excerpts)
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2. The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet’s energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth’s surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2. Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.

so ask yourself this, if absorb = emission, then this statement can't be true;

"Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth’s surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface"

The earth is always emitting to space especially at nightime. If your supposed back radiation is received on earth, this statement doesn't assert that, it states incoming solar radiation, not back radiation. So what is it they actually measured? I call bullshit.