Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Billy_Bob]

Thesis my ass. You're an imbecile and a fake.

Now your simply projecting your own failures.... You people are sooooo predictable..

 

[SSDD]

Read and learn, dummy.

Climate Q&A - How do scientists know that Mauna Loa’s volcanic emissions don’t affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?

So which part of that do you think answers a single one of my questions? Feel free to cut and paste the answer here, or simply direct me to a particular paragraph...

Talk about not having a clue....I ask specific questions and you refer me to a link that doesn't even come close to answering any of them...and the sad thing is that that is probably the best you can do.

At this point, I predict that you aren't going to cut and paste anything from that site, and will in all likelihood give some weak assed excuse for not pointing out any particular paragraph....because you don't understand any of what is on that page, and can't speak to any of the questions I asked.

I await your excuse.

If I have to spoon feed it to you like a fucking baby, perhaps you should put on your bib, dipshit. It's a very short article.

Hey....nothing but an excuse...just as I predicted.. If you had a clue, and if there was any evidence there to challenge any one of my questions you would have brought it here just to shove it in my face and perhaps shut me the f'ck up....you are laughable and pathetic at the same time...

Do you really think you are giving the appearance of having any idea of what you are talking about?

Here...from your mona loa site:

Clip:
Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour.

The data they provide varies less than 3/10 parts per million from hour to hour...The OCO-2 satellite demonstrates that those numbers are flawed beyond use...the OCO-2 satellites show wild variances across the globe from season to season... Now how do you think that answers either of my questions? Which part of that even begins to explain how it's readings are evidence of man made climate change, or evidence that we are the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2? There is no mention of anything like that in the whole site....obviously you either didn't read anything there, or couldn't understand what you did read there...you, like most know nothings just provide a link and hope that I might be as ignorant as you, or may find something that might answer my question... Sorry guy, unlike you, I am not bamboozled by bullshit...

 

[SSDD]

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

View attachment 269371

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?

Sure didn't..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous... It doesn't deserve an answer.. That's the kind of stupidity I expect from alarmists..

They keep forgetting that CO2 IR absorption range is around 5% of the IR spectrum, meaning that 95% of the IR spectrum is never absorbed by CO2 at all.

This was pointed out by an Atmosphere Physicist 10 years ago:

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Excerpt:

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

==========================

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 really is as a "greenhouse" gas.

The work I did for my doctoral thesis proved, that absent water vapor, the earths atmosphere passes 99.6% of the energy it absorbs/passes without warming it. less than 0.4% OF THE ATMOSPHERE REACTS TO LWIR and reflects/re-emits it. AGW as hypothesis fails miserably.

Thesis my ass. You're an imbecile and a fake.

Funny...coming from the useful idiot. Your ignorance prevents you from knowing how badly the floor is being mopped with you...if you had any inkling of the science at all, you would be to embarrassed to even show up around here...guess it's true that ignorance is bliss...

 

[SSDD]

Thesis my ass. You're an imbecile and a fake.

Now your simply projecting your own failures.... You people are sooooo predictable..

they all work off the same template...

 

[Cosmos]

The OCO-2 satellite demonstrates that those numbers are flawed beyond use...the OCO-2 satellites show wild variances across the globe from season to season... Now how do you think that answers either of my questions?

Idiot. The Mauna Loa reading is not a global measurement. But it is the longest running modern measurement in one place that we have. That makes it a good index of CO2 change over time. It is what it is. And it's entirely consistent with satellite readings. It's not like satellites suddenly started measuring 280 ppm all over the planet. We're seeing numbers 390-410. Spot on the 405 ppm at Mauna Loa. The Mauna Loa reading is specifically chosen because it is unaffected by local industrial or natural sources. This makes it a very good reading.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.

So what. It is what it is. Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp. If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.

In the link you apparently ignored (common for people who don't seek understanding) is a section showing that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere with TRACE IR absorption range, while the DOMINANT "greenhouse" gas gets ignored completely, it is WATER VAPOR.

From the link you ignored:

"To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.

To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz Hug who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture."

bolding mine
======================================

CO2 has an insignificant effect on the heat budget, even less as CO2 level in the atmosphere increases for various reasons that will escape you.

 

[Cosmos]

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.

So what. It is what it is. Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp. If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.

In the link you apparently ignored (common for people who don't seek understanding) is a section showing that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere with TRACE IR absorption range, while the DOMINANT "greenhouse" gas gets ignored completely, it is WATER VAPOR.

From the link you ignored:

"To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.

To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz Hug who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture."

bolding mine
======================================

CO2 has an insignificant effect on the heat budget, even less as CO2 level in the atmosphere increases for various reasons that will escape you.

~400 ppm. A trace gas in the atmosphere. We know. It's been known to be a greenhouse gas for over 100 years.

So what's your point?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

View attachment 269371

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?

Sure didn't..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous... It doesn't deserve an answer.. That's the kind of stupidity I expect from alarmists..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous..

YOUR premise, "CO2 is saturated, so surface IR gets to sneak out" is indeed ludicrous. That's why I replied.

It doesn't deserve an answer..

But enough about your silly claim.

Let me know if you ever figure out the answers.......

What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Moon's surface escape into space?
What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface escape into space?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.

So what. It is what it is. Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp. If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.

In the link you apparently ignored (common for people who don't seek understanding) is a section showing that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere with TRACE IR absorption range, while the DOMINANT "greenhouse" gas gets ignored completely, it is WATER VAPOR.

From the link you ignored:

"To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.

To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz Hug who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture."

bolding mine
======================================

CO2 has an insignificant effect on the heat budget, even less as CO2 level in the atmosphere increases for various reasons that will escape you.

Now were going highly technical for an person that has no grasp of the basic concepts. CO2 stretches as a molecule and does not vibrate when it absorbs a photon. This action does not use energy or warm the molecules. At the atomic level CO2 is incapable of warming so it must pass off its energy in some manner to a molecule that can use the energy and warm. In our atmosphere that molecule is water vapor and it is primary absorption is by collisions and not radiation. But again he will not understand the importance of this technical information.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.

So what. It is what it is. Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp. If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.

In the link you apparently ignored (common for people who don't seek understanding) is a section showing that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere with TRACE IR absorption range, while the DOMINANT "greenhouse" gas gets ignored completely, it is WATER VAPOR.

From the link you ignored:

"To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.

To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz Hug who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture."

bolding mine
======================================

CO2 has an insignificant effect on the heat budget, even less as CO2 level in the atmosphere increases for various reasons that will escape you.

~400 ppm. A trace gas in the atmosphere. We know.

So what's your point?

ZOOOOOOOM right over your head, since you make clear you didn't get the numbers understood:

We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024.

and,

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

You have been shown that AS a trace gas, it has a trace IR absorption range and that around 95% of the IR wavelength zooms right by those trace CO2 molecules unmolested.

Meanwhile Water vapor with a much larger IR absorption range and far more common presence in the atmosphere, that it can store some of the energy for a time (CO2 can't store energy at all) gets ignored by ignorant clods like you who have an irrational fixation over a trace gas with a PROVEN insignificant IR absorption of just 5% of the IR spectrum.

CO2 is a trace gas with an insignificant effect on the heat budget, SSDD showed how insignificant it was by how much INCREASE of energy is leaving the planet, much greater than the postulated warming forcing effect of the hyper overrated molecule.

Here is a nice presentation made about 7 years ago showing that global warming via the CO2 effect is impossible.

EXCERPT:

A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.

Time to put 2.5 W/m2 into perspective. That is comparable to the energy flux of the Gulf Stream. That is ~500 times more than the total energy consumption of the United States in a year. That is 80 times more energy than the entire human race uses in a year. It is also 30 times more energy than what the Earth’s interior brings to the surface each year. That is a huge amount of energy. An Earth that was 3.0 °C warmer would lose more than 4x more energy than that.

and this you will ignore, but damaging to your CO2 delusions:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

EXCERPT:

Here is my take on the issue. Please feel free to provide any input you have on this topic.

The question I asked of everyone was what would the temperature of the Earth be if everything else was held constant except there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

So questions of albedo and clouds must be ignored. Another thread can discuss the legitimacy of such feedbacks, but the question I want answered by everyone is what would the Earth’s temperature be if there was no CO2.

My approach was to determine the total net energy that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.

I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.

 

[Cosmos]

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.

So what. It is what it is. Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp. If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.

In the link you apparently ignored (common for people who don't seek understanding) is a section showing that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere with TRACE IR absorption range, while the DOMINANT "greenhouse" gas gets ignored completely, it is WATER VAPOR.

From the link you ignored:

"To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.

To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz Hug who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture."

bolding mine
======================================

CO2 has an insignificant effect on the heat budget, even less as CO2 level in the atmosphere increases for various reasons that will escape you.

~400 ppm. A trace gas in the atmosphere. We know.

So what's your point?

ZOOOOOOOM right over your head, since you make clear you didn't get the numbers understood:

We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024.

and,

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

You have been shown that AS a trace gas, it has a trace IR absorption range and that around 95% of the IR wavelength zooms right by those trace CO2 molecules unmolested.

Meanwhile Water vapor with a much larger IR absorption range and far more common presence in the atmosphere, that it can store some of the energy for a time (CO2 can't store energy at all) gets ignored by ignorant clods like you who have an irrational fixation over a trace gas with a PROVEN insignificant IR absorption of just 5% of the IR spectrum.

CO2 is a trace gas with an insignificant effect on the heat budget, SSDD showed how insignificant it was by how much INCREASE of energy is leaving the planet, much greater than the postulated warming forcing effect of the hyper overrated molecule.

Here is a nice presentation made about 7 years ago showing that global warming via the CO2 effect is impossible.

EXCERPT:

A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.

Time to put 2.5 W/m2 into perspective. That is comparable to the energy flux of the Gulf Stream. That is ~500 times more than the total energy consumption of the United States in a year. That is 80 times more energy than the entire human race uses in a year. It is also 30 times more energy than what the Earth’s interior brings to the surface each year. That is a huge amount of energy. An Earth that was 3.0 °C warmer would lose more than 4x more energy than that.

and this you will ignore, but damaging to your CO2 delusions:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

EXCERPT:

Here is my take on the issue. Please feel free to provide any input you have on this topic.

The question I asked of everyone was what would the temperature of the Earth be if everything else was held constant except there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

So questions of albedo and clouds must be ignored. Another thread can discuss the legitimacy of such feedbacks, but the question I want answered by everyone is what would the Earth’s temperature be if there was no CO2.

My approach was to determine the total net energy that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.

I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.

The thing you're missing is that water vapor does not regulate the earth's temperature. Instead, the earth's temperature regulates the amount of water vapor.

So the component to the greenhouse effect we're concerned about is that attributed to CO2. And yes, it is a trace amount compared to O2 and N2. But those are not greenhouse gasses. So it is really the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is important, not the concentration in relation to non-greenhouse gasses like O2 and N2. And we're adding something like 40 gigatons a year. And even in their narrow frequency bands and even in their trace gas amounts they are contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the atmosphere and the ocean.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The thing you're missing is that water vapor does not regulate the earth's temperature. Instead, the earth's temperature regulates the amount of water vapor.

This is so wrong that being wrong is not close enough to describing it.

This is a portion of the hypothesis that fails so miserably that I am amazed that you still try to use it. Warmth causes the increase of water vapor not CO2. CO2 FOLLOWS the warm up by 80-200 years. It is a trailing factor, not a leading one.

Water vapor does indeed control earths climate and temperature. The convection cycle increase as the temperature increases and decreases as the temperature decreases.

Please provide your evidence of no control as everything I have seen and done in science disproves your hyperbole.

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

 

[otto105]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Troll farm thread.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...



Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

 

[Cosmos]

Warmth causes the increase of water vapor not CO2.

I did not say that CO2 causes increase of water vapor. You're an idiot.

 

[otto105]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Billy_Bob]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

 

[Cosmos]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

How about you just pick one.

 

[otto105]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Troll farm thread.

When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

View attachment 269468

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate... I'll wait...

Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

 

[SSDD]

The OCO-2 satellite demonstrates that those numbers are flawed beyond use...the OCO-2 satellites show wild variances across the globe from season to season... Now how do you think that answers either of my questions?

Idiot. The Mauna Loa reading is not a global measurement. But it is the longest running modern measurement in one place that we have. That makes it a good index of CO2 change over time. It is what it is. And it's entirely consistent with satellite readings. It's not like satellites suddenly started measuring 280 ppm all over the planet. We're seeing numbers 390-410. Spot on the 405 ppm at Mauna Loa. The Mauna Loa reading is specifically chosen because it is unaffected by local industrial or natural sources. This makes it a very good reading.

And of what value is it, exactly if it provides a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 concentration? And it isn't consistent with satellite measurements at all....

And do you not think that sitting on top of a volcano spewing CO2 might be why mona loa gets 405 while the satellites show an entirely different picture?

And again, got any science that says that we are responsible for the move from 280 to 400? I have plenty that finds that we aren't.

and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?