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.
At this point, I believe that Dr's Nikolov and Zeller have come the closest to what actually happens to energy in the atmosphere. They swayed me because when put to the test, their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here with constant tweaking. It doesn't even bear consideration.
At this point, I believe that Dr's Nikolov and Zeller have come the closest to what actually happens to energy in the atmosphere. They swayed me because when put to the test, their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here with constant tweaking. It doesn't even bear consideration.
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...
Even most of the other deniers consider the Dragon Slayers to be pariahs, that's how crazy that bunch is. To get banned at WUWT, a denier has to be entirely off the rails, but the Slayers managed it.
This may come as a surprise to you but absorption and emission do not equal warming. I am sure that in your little mind it does, but alas, it does not. It merely proves that the gasses in question absorb and emit...a fact that I agree with wholeheartedly.
If absorption and emission were sufficient to cause warming, then experiments could be performed that would show x amount of warming for y increase in CO2 and the alleged greenhouse effect could be quantified. It doesn't and hasn't.
Of course CO2 affects surface temperatures surface temp is the equilibrium between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation cO2 disperses 15 band IR it makes a difference period I certainly don't think it makes as big of change to the equilibrium as the warmers claim but its effect is undeniable.
You say it as if it were true...even though that undeniable effect has never been either measured or quantified.
believe that pressure is the only worthwhile variable. While I consider it important as well for initial conditions, it is quite static and unable to explain ongoing changes of the order of tenths of a degree. I have begged you to clarify your position but you duck hard questions just like the warmers do.
And when I directed you to the sources that I believe have come closest to accurately describing what is happening in the atmosphere, you had no interest in reading the material.
You believe in the magic also ian, the only difference between you and the hysterical hand wavers is that you don't believe the magic is as strong as they do.
Of course CO2 affects surface temperatures surface temp is the equilibrium between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation cO2 disperses 15 band IR it makes a difference period I certainly don't think it makes as big of change to the equilibrium as the warmers claim but its effect is undeniable.
You say it as if it were true...even though that undeniable effect has never been either measured or quantified.
believe that pressure is the only worthwhile variable. While I consider it important as well for initial conditions, it is quite static and unable to explain ongoing changes of the order of tenths of a degree. I have begged you to clarify your position but you duck hard questions just like the warmers do.
And when I directed you to the sources that I believe have come closest to accurately describing what is happening in the atmosphere, you had no interest in reading the material.
You believe in the magic also ian, the only difference between you and the hysterical hand wavers is that you don't believe the magic is as strong as they do.
.......still ducking and dodging I see.
Except in your whackaloon world, an unexplained mystery force guides molecules to emit only towards cooler objects. That's one reason why everyone correctly defines you as a barking loon. Most people think "AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS!" is not good science, but it's the basis of your science.
reason you're considered a loon is that you think the earth can be simulated perfectly in a test tube.
I had forgotten SSDD's bizarre version of radiative transfer. I guess the package is complete.
Fields are defined by the direction of force they apply to affected entities
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
Fields are defined by the direction of force they apply to affected entities
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
And the precise mechanism that causes that force?
Face it...we don't know.
What we do know is that the second law says that energy can't move from a cooler object to a warmer object and we also know that such energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed. We can't explain that mechanism any more than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.
Do you have papers on the experiments that show that CO2 can cause temperature increases? Say 100PPM increase and degree increase in temperature?Fields are defined by the direction of force they apply to affected entities
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
And the precise mechanism that causes that force?
Face it...we don't know.
What we do know is that the second law says that energy can't move from a cooler object to a warmer object and we also know that such energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed. We can't explain that mechanism any more than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer
Do you have papers on the experiments that show that CO2 can cause temperature increases? Say 100PPM increase and degree increase in temperature?And the precise mechanism that causes that force?
Face it...we don't know.
What we do know is that the second law says that energy can't move from a cooler object to a warmer object and we also know that such energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed. We can't explain that mechanism any more than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer
What we know is that in regard to basic thermodynamics, you are a complete imbecile.
Fields are defined by the direction of force they apply to affected entities
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
And the precise mechanism that causes that force?
Face it...we don't know.
What we do know is that the second law says that energy can't move from a cooler object to a warmer object and we also know that such energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed. We can't explain that mechanism any more than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer
Do you have papers on the experiments that show that CO2 can cause temperature increases? Say 100PPM increase and degree increase in temperature?
you and francis.....read this
its so basic y'all deserve to donkey punch yourselves
CHAPTER 7 - STUDY GUIDE
once you have a thorough understanding of that, we can continue
And the precise mechanism that causes that force?
Face it...we don't know.
What we do know is that the second law says that energy can't move from a cooler object to a warmer object and we also know that such energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed. We can't explain that mechanism any more than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer
Of course CO2 absorbs energy which it then emits. You seem to think that absorption and emission equals warming. Can you show any actual measured observation to prove that assumption?
Do you have papers on the experiments that show that CO2 can cause temperature increases? Say 100PPM increase and degree increase in temperature?
you and francis.....read this
its so basic y'all deserve to donkey punch yourselves
CHAPTER 7 - STUDY GUIDE
once you have a thorough understanding of that, we can continue
Which part of that do you construe as actual evince that the greenhouse hypothesis is correct? We are asking for some actual evidence that an increase of X in atmospheric CO2 will translate to Y warming. Surely if it is happening, it has been observed....measured...quantified.... Lets see the evidence. Simply saying a thing is so and fabricating an ad hoc computer model that says so also hardly rises to the level of actual evidence.
