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.
More insane anti-science drivel from the denier cult retard and troll JustCrazy, who imagines that he knows more than all of the world's scientists. The Greenhouse Effect is quite real, as the world scientific community unamimously affirms, while JustCrazy's moronic twaddle has no connection to reality and just reflects his crackpot rightwingnut ideological imperatives......or, alternatively, the fact that he is a troll getting paid to spread misinformation, pseudo-science, insane conspiracy theories and lies.AS I pointed out in another thread this morning on this post of yours, what the rest says does not take away from the experiment that was performed. Also, as the article ended, the author was confused with his own understanding of the height of the CO2 in the stratosphere with no water vapor. So settled science remains unsetteled. And the real argument is over CO2 and not water vapor. So if you are finally ready to walk away from CO2 drives temperature than you have made a step in my direction. However, if you choose to ignore this find, then you are nothing but a religious follower of an outdated religion.Oh JustCrazy, you are such a lying retard.From his own link:See what I mean s0n? If our drivel were so meaningless, your head wouldnt be exploding with your responses. s0n......face it..........you're not that clever!!! Most people reading your shit see your head exploding with anger/misery with EVERY SINGLE POST!!!!s0n.....no need for us to get desperate! We have tons of fun on this forum while you do the virtual mental meltdown every single post. That creates a perception dumbass...........of real shakey confidence in ones position.
Plus.........all you and the other mental cases do is post up science stuff as if it were actually mattering. You bozo's have been doiong this for 20+ years and have yet to make your case.
Public policy makers from here to China clearly are not impressed...........obviously like our demented drivel, and thats all we care about. As long as the policy makers are not pushing renewable energy on anybody, we're happy. Nobody cares about green energy which means the AGW community remians the collective cult.
Thunder still cant connect the dots. Heres an analogy.........when you go the the track and race, most people know, you have to turn the car on, go line up and wait for the tree and then beat the guy down the 1/4 mile track. Thunder thinks you can win the race by starting the car and revving the engine. fAil S0n.........you cant move an entire world from your PC. Sorry to break it to you.........
Meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.
"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."
What a k00k, he doesn't even realize he gave me what I've been asking for, and it did prove our stance. Now sir, that is true WiNNiNg.
You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...
"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.
Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""
- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument
The experiment was based solely on an increase in CO2. Was it not? And did the experiment demonstrate that once there was a specific amount and then dropped by a 1/3,there was scarcely a change? Is that, or is that not, what I and others have been wanting you all to provide. So, the experiment proves our position, that CO2 increased will not drive temperatures. So AGW is based solely on CO2. Or are you now pulling away from that?jc, the point is that the experiment didn't reproduce the dynamics of the whole atmosphere, hence it was meaningless in the context of explaining the whole atmosphere.
Remember, you sucking hard at the basic physics does not invalidate the physics. It just shows you're a moron.
I see that again you have nothing more to say! Figures!!!!!!More insane anti-science drivel from the denier cult retard and troll JustCrazy, who imagines that he knows more than all of the world's scientists. The Greenhouse Effect is quite real, as the world scientific community unamimously affirms, while JustCrazy's moronic twaddle has no connection to reality and just reflects his crackpot rightwingnut ideological imperatives......or, alternatively, the fact that he is a troll getting paid to spread misinformation, pseudo-science, insane conspiracy theories and lies.AS I pointed out in another thread this morning on this post of yours, what the rest says does not take away from the experiment that was performed. Also, as the article ended, the author was confused with his own understanding of the height of the CO2 in the stratosphere with no water vapor. So settled science remains unsetteled. And the real argument is over CO2 and not water vapor. So if you are finally ready to walk away from CO2 drives temperature than you have made a step in my direction. However, if you choose to ignore this find, then you are nothing but a religious follower of an outdated religion.Oh JustCrazy, you are such a lying retard.From his own link:See what I mean s0n? If our drivel were so meaningless, your head wouldnt be exploding with your responses. s0n......face it..........you're not that clever!!! Most people reading your shit see your head exploding with anger/misery with EVERY SINGLE POST!!!!Meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.
"In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."
What a k00k, he doesn't even realize he gave me what I've been asking for, and it did prove our stance. Now sir, that is true WiNNiNg.
You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...
"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.
Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""
- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument
jc456 said:The experiment was based solely on an increase in CO2. Was it not?
sorry dude/duette, can't have it both ways, either you believe CO2 is a problem or it isn't. simple point. The fact is that the experiment fits the mold of your argument. You lose!!!! deal with it.jc456 said:The experiment was based solely on an increase in CO2. Was it not?
Yep, which was why it was wrong -- or, more correctly, not applicable to the atmosphere as a whole -- being it didn't talk about a longer distance of CO2-containing air.
Post #77 explained that. I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.
I think you need to accept that you're not smart enough to be in this conversation. You don't have the brains to understand the basics here. Maybe, after some years of science training, you could be better, but right now, you stink at this. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with your failure to realize it, and with your belligerent ignorance.
Now, go back to post #77, read it carefully, and try giving us a careful line-by-line response, instead of just auto-handwaving it all away again because it showed where you screwed up so badly.
Post 77 was a pile of excrement.jc456 said:The experiment was based solely on an increase in CO2. Was it not?
Yep, which was why it was wrong -- or, more correctly, not applicable to the atmosphere as a whole -- being it didn't talk about a longer distance of CO2-containing air.
Post #77 explained that. I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.
I think you need to accept that you're not smart enough to be in this conversation. You don't have the brains to understand the basics here. Maybe, after some years of science training, you could be better, but right now, you stink at this. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with your failure to realize it, and with your belligerent ignorance.
Now, go back to post #77, read it carefully, and try giving us a careful line-by-line response, instead of just auto-handwaving it all away again because it showed where you screwed up so badly.
1. CO2 in higher concentrations allows black body radiation faster escape. It does not inhibit energy flow. Only water vapor can inhibit or slow the energy flow.
2. As CO2 is NOT evenly distributed in our atmosphere and can range from 398ppm at the equator it is as low as 298ppm in polar regions. Due to its molecular weight concentrations are higher near the surface and reduced at altitude. Its amazing how the 'models' assume that a high level of CO2 is global and from top to bottom when it is infact not the case.
Its amazing how physical laws are somehow not a problem when AGW is involved.
Post 77 was a pile of excrement.jc456 said:The experiment was based solely on an increase in CO2. Was it not?
Yep, which was why it was wrong -- or, more correctly, not applicable to the atmosphere as a whole -- being it didn't talk about a longer distance of CO2-containing air.
Post #77 explained that. I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.
I think you need to accept that you're not smart enough to be in this conversation. You don't have the brains to understand the basics here. Maybe, after some years of science training, you could be better, but right now, you stink at this. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with your failure to realize it, and with your belligerent ignorance.
Now, go back to post #77, read it carefully, and try giving us a careful line-by-line response, instead of just auto-handwaving it all away again because it showed where you screwed up so badly.
1. CO2 in higher concentrations allows black body radiation faster escape. It does not inhibit energy flow. Only water vapor can inhibit or slow the energy flow.
2. As CO2 is NOT evenly distributed in our atmosphere and can range from 398ppm at the equator it is as low as 298ppm in polar regions. Due to its molecular weight concentrations are higher near the surface and reduced at altitude. Its amazing how the 'models' assume that a high level of CO2 is global and from top to bottom when it is infact not the case.
Its amazing how physical laws are somehow not a problem when AGW is involved.
1. CO2 in higher concentrations allows black body radiation faster escape. It does not inhibit energy flow. Only water vapor can inhibit or slow the energy flow.
Really? So.., where does all that data that shows CO2 absorbing infrared come from?
2. As CO2 is NOT evenly distributed in our atmosphere and can range from 398ppm at the equator it is as low as 298ppm in polar regions. Due to its molecular weight concentrations are higher near the surface and reduced at altitude. Its amazing how the 'models' assume that a high level of CO2 is global and from top to bottom when it is infact not the case.
Funny, I don't see nearly that much variation worldwide. What's YOUR source:
Global Patterns of Carbon Dioxide Image of the Day
Its amazing how physical laws are somehow not a problem when AGW is involved.
Given your habits here and the number of times you've been blatantly caught making up complete shite, this is quite a comment.
Clueless, meaningless, anti-science drivel.1. CO2 in higher concentrations allows black body radiation faster escape. It does not inhibit energy flow. Only water vapor can inhibit or slow the energy flow.
Really? So.., where does all that data that shows CO2 absorbing infrared come from?
2. As CO2 is NOT evenly distributed in our atmosphere and can range from 398ppm at the equator it is as low as 298ppm in polar regions. Due to its molecular weight concentrations are higher near the surface and reduced at altitude. Its amazing how the 'models' assume that a high level of CO2 is global and from top to bottom when it is infact not the case.
Funny, I don't see nearly that much variation worldwide. What's YOUR source:
Global Patterns of Carbon Dioxide Image of the Day
Its amazing how physical laws are somehow not a problem when AGW is involved.
Given your habits here and the number of times you've been blatantly caught making up complete shite, this is quite a comment.
Absorbing and immediately emitting is not inhibiting...nor is it warming...as CO2 has increased, so has escaping LW at the top of the atmosphere...
SSDD, I agree at the top of the atmosphere that LW is escaping. There is no water vapor in the stratosphere and as the Herr Koch experiment n 1901 proved was that as more CO2 is added that added CO2 more IR passes into space. That is where the heat is going. Not the oceans.1. CO2 in higher concentrations allows black body radiation faster escape. It does not inhibit energy flow. Only water vapor can inhibit or slow the energy flow.
Really? So.., where does all that data that shows CO2 absorbing infrared come from?
2. As CO2 is NOT evenly distributed in our atmosphere and can range from 398ppm at the equator it is as low as 298ppm in polar regions. Due to its molecular weight concentrations are higher near the surface and reduced at altitude. Its amazing how the 'models' assume that a high level of CO2 is global and from top to bottom when it is infact not the case.
Funny, I don't see nearly that much variation worldwide. What's YOUR source:
Global Patterns of Carbon Dioxide Image of the Day
Its amazing how physical laws are somehow not a problem when AGW is involved.
Given your habits here and the number of times you've been blatantly caught making up complete shite, this is quite a comment.
Absorbing and immediately emitting is not inhibiting...nor is it warming...as CO2 has increased, so has escaping LW at the top of the atmosphere...
Dude for the umpteenth time, why don't you explain how CO2 works without water vapor? Can CO2 cause temperature changes?For the umpteenth time, LW is increasing because the atmosphere is getting warmer and the net transfer (IN minus OUT) is positive. The Earth is still accumulating radiant energy. This chant that increasing LW means the Earth is getting cooler is complete nonsense. Where could you have EVER gotten the idea that you can look at flux in one direction but ignore the flux in the other?
Oh... of course, you got it from ol' One-Way SSDD.
so yu still have no answer. Just as I thought!jc, for the umpteenth time, your questions make no sense, and constantly reveal you to be a moron.
We warned you this would happen if you became a cult asslicker, but you still did it. Now you're doomed to a lifetime of being a laughingstock, bitterly weeping about how all of the science of the past century is a socialist conspiracy. How do you know this? Because your cult leaders at WUWT told you the RealTruth. You're too far gone to be salvaged, so now you're just comic relief.
no different than a severe weather event then correct?An early snowfall in one city in one state in one country that altogether only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface, gets the denier cultists' panties in a twist but they ignore the global picture like the brainwashed retards they are.
The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)
