Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[SSDD]

Which paper? The only study you linked to is clearly dated May 18, 2013. So you got some 'splainin to do. A helpful hint, if you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't always end up forgetting which particular lie you told.

My my but you are a bitter old biddy aren't you admiral hairball. Had you actually looked at the study, you would have seen that the one you posted referenced older work. The original work was harries, et al published in nature 2001 which was then referenced by griggs and harries published in the journal of climate volume 20 and then referenced again by chen, harries, blindly and ringer in a paper published by the euuropean organization for meteorological satellites, and then by chapman, nguyen, and hale in the paper at the SPIE digital library which you linked to yourself.

Clearly admiral hairball, it is you who has not done the research. And you, admiral hairball who is the liar here

This is the first graph. Which you won't tell us the source of. Just a big mystery, it is.

That graph is from none of the papers above. It is just one of many that show OLR increasing. I am not sure who produced the graph...the data, however is from NOAA. Here is another that shows the increase in OLR more clearly if you wish. Are you going to claim that NOAA does not understand satellite drift as well?

You are pathetic.

NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer

your second graph.

The source of that graph is Harries 2001. The abstract notably says the opposite of what you claim.

Yes, that graph is from harries 2001. And it is interesting in that the graph itself says exactly the opposite of what they say. Can you show me a decrease in OLR in the CO2 absorption bands on that graph? The model certainly shows a difference, but there is no difference in observation. Another example of climate science taking the word of a computer over direct measured observation.

First, while the black IMG line is 1970, the grey IRIS line is 1996, not 1977. Again, you don't know the basics.

Actually, the IMG line is from 1997, not 1996 as you claim and the IRIS line is from 1970.

You think you scored some victory because you found a mistype on my part? Congratulations. Maybe you can find some spelling or punctuation errors as well.

The previous page shows graphs of brightness temperature as a function of wavenumber measured from instruments on satellites in 1970 (IRIS – Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer) and 1997 (IMG – Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases).

,

it shows the opposite of what you claim. This is more obvious if you take the second graph from Harries 2001 that plots the difference. You know, the graph that was right below the graph you posted and which would be impossible to miss, if someone had actually looked at the paper.

Actually, it shows just what I claim...the model output and the heavily massaged data show what the authors claim.

The third and forth graphs are from chen, harries, brindly and ringer and again, they show that there is no difference in OLR in the CO2 bands. Here is the original source:
https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?

IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v&allowInterrupt=1&noSaveAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

I guess if I lost as many discussions as you, I would get excited over finding a typo just like you. Unfortunately, you have lost again since it is clear that you had no idea of the history of the data....and are apparently unable to look at a graph and see that it doesn't say what the authors claim it says. Feel free to show any actual difference in those graphs of OLR in the CO2 bands.

 

[Darkwind]

Which paper? The only study you linked to is clearly dated May 18, 2013. So you got some 'splainin to do. A helpful hint, if you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't always end up forgetting which particular lie you told.

My my but you are a bitter old biddy aren't you admiral hairball. Had you actually looked at the study, you would have seen that the one you posted referenced older work. The original work was harries, et al published in nature 2001 which was then referenced by griggs and harries published in the journal of climate volume 20 and then referenced again by chen, harries, blindly and ringer in a paper published by the euuropean organization for meteorological satellites, and then by chapman, nguyen, and hale in the paper at the SPIE digital library which you linked to yourself.

Clearly admiral hairball, it is you who has not done the research. And you, admiral hairball who is the liar here

This is the first graph. Which you won't tell us the source of. Just a big mystery, it is.

That graph is from none of the papers above. It is just one of many that show OLR increasing. I am not sure who produced the graph...the data, however is from NOAA. Here is another that shows the increase in OLR more clearly if you wish. Are you going to claim that NOAA does not understand satellite drift as well?

You are pathetic.

NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer



Yes, that graph is from harries 2001. And it is interesting in that the graph itself says exactly the opposite of what they say. Can you show me a decrease in OLR in the CO2 absorption bands on that graph? The model certainly shows a difference, but there is no difference in observation. Another example of climate science taking the word of a computer over direct measured observation.



Actually, the IMG line is from 1997, not 1996 as you claim and the IRIS line is from 1970.

You think you scored some victory because you found a mistype on my part? Congratulations. Maybe you can find some spelling or punctuation errors as well.



,

it shows the opposite of what you claim. This is more obvious if you take the second graph from Harries 2001 that plots the difference. You know, the graph that was right below the graph you posted and which would be impossible to miss, if someone had actually looked at the paper.

Actually, it shows just what I claim...the model output and the heavily massaged data show what the authors claim.

The third and forth graphs are from chen, harries, brindly and ringer and again, they show that there is no difference in OLR in the CO2 bands. Here is the original source:
https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?

IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v&allowInterrupt=1&noSaveAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

I guess if I lost as many discussions as you, I would get excited over finding a typo just like you. Unfortunately, you have lost again since it is clear that you had no idea of the history of the data....and are apparently unable to look at a graph and see that it doesn't say what the authors claim it says. Feel free to show any actual difference in those graphs of OLR in the CO2 bands.

Its too bad we don't have the measurements of the output before the last ice age began. I would be curious to see if a level of 1000 ppm or higher of CO2 would correspond to the output at the top of that atmosphere.

This could possibly be a balancing mechanism for the planet. But who knows.

 

[SSDD]

Its too bad we don't have the measurements of the output before the last ice age began. I would be curious to see if a level of 1000 ppm or higher of CO2 would correspond to the output at the top of that atmosphere.

This could possibly be a balancing mechanism for the planet. But who knows.

Radiative gasses allow the atmosphere to radiatively cool itself. It would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses as convection and conduction would be the only way to move heat to the top of the atmosphere. It is just silly to think that more of a radiative gas reduces the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey, frank, Look at 21 minutes in this video to see a confirmation for co2 holding heat!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gE6zipFWmo]BBC Documentary Climate Wars Episode 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Crick]

It would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses as convection and conduction would be the only way to move heat to the top of the atmosphere. It is just silly to think that more of a radiative gas reduces the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself

So you think the greenhouse effect is "just silly"? Well. that's one way to demonstrate your level of scientific expertise. By the way, things that radiate well also absorb well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which paper? The only study you linked to is clearly dated May 18, 2013. So you got some 'splainin to do. A helpful hint, if you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't always end up forgetting which particular lie you told.

My my but you are a bitter old biddy aren't you admiral hairball. Had you actually looked at the study, you would have seen that the one you posted referenced older work. The original work was harries, et al published in nature 2001 which was then referenced by griggs and harries published in the journal of climate volume 20 and then referenced again by chen, harries, blindly and ringer in a paper published by the euuropean organization for meteorological satellites, and then by chapman, nguyen, and hale in the paper at the SPIE digital library which you linked to yourself.

Clearly admiral hairball, it is you who has not done the research. And you, admiral hairball who is the liar here



That graph is from none of the papers above. It is just one of many that show OLR increasing. I am not sure who produced the graph...the data, however is from NOAA. Here is another that shows the increase in OLR more clearly if you wish. Are you going to claim that NOAA does not understand satellite drift as well?

You are pathetic.

NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer



Yes, that graph is from harries 2001. And it is interesting in that the graph itself says exactly the opposite of what they say. Can you show me a decrease in OLR in the CO2 absorption bands on that graph? The model certainly shows a difference, but there is no difference in observation. Another example of climate science taking the word of a computer over direct measured observation.



Actually, the IMG line is from 1997, not 1996 as you claim and the IRIS line is from 1970.

You think you scored some victory because you found a mistype on my part? Congratulations. Maybe you can find some spelling or punctuation errors as well.



,

Actually, it shows just what I claim...the model output and the heavily massaged data show what the authors claim.

The third and forth graphs are from chen, harries, brindly and ringer and again, they show that there is no difference in OLR in the CO2 bands. Here is the original source:
https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?

IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v&allowInterrupt=1&noSaveAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

I guess if I lost as many discussions as you, I would get excited over finding a typo just like you. Unfortunately, you have lost again since it is clear that you had no idea of the history of the data....and are apparently unable to look at a graph and see that it doesn't say what the authors claim it says. Feel free to show any actual difference in those graphs of OLR in the CO2 bands.

Its too bad we don't have the measurements of the output before the last ice age began. I would be curious to see if a level of 1000 ppm or higher of CO2 would correspond to the output at the top of that atmosphere.

This could possibly be a balancing mechanism for the planet. But who knows.

Just what the hell are you talking about? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere just before the last ice age began was not 1000 ppm.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

The ice ages began about 2 million years ago.

 

[SSDD]

It would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses as convection and conduction would be the only way to move heat to the top of the atmosphere. It is just silly to think that more of a radiative gas reduces the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself

So you think the greenhouse effect is "just silly"? Well. that's one way to demonstrate your level of scientific expertise. By the way, things that radiate well also absorb well.

The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is beyond silly. It is an ad hoc construct that only works (and works badly) on this planet. If you model any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using models based on the greenhouse effect, the temperature those models predict isn't even close. You can, however accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and the amount of incoming solar radiation. The atmospheric thermal effect is much greater than the greenhouse effect and can predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...but isn't dependent upon the make up of the atmosphere so politically, it is unacceptable as man can't be blamed.

 

[orogenicman]

It would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses as convection and conduction would be the only way to move heat to the top of the atmosphere. It is just silly to think that more of a radiative gas reduces the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself

So you think the greenhouse effect is "just silly"? Well. that's one way to demonstrate your level of scientific expertise. By the way, things that radiate well also absorb well.

The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is beyond silly. It is an ad hoc construct that only works (and works badly) on this planet. If you model any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using models based on the greenhouse effect, the temperature those models predict isn't even close. You can, however accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and the amount of incoming solar radiation. The atmospheric thermal effect is much greater than the greenhouse effect and can predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...but isn't dependent upon the make up of the atmosphere so politically, it is unacceptable as man can't be blamed.

There are only two other rocky planets in the solar system with an atmosphere. One is sun-side of the habitable zone and has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of CO2 where the surface is (surprise surprise) hot enough to melt lead. The other is outside of the habitable zone (towards Jupiter) , but still can reach temperatures above freezing in the summer at the equator, despite having atmosphere as rarified as Earth's at an altitude of 30 miles (because - you guessed it, its atmosphere is also composed of CO2). Were it not for the presence of CO2 here on Earth, the oceans would be nearly frozen solid. So no you are wrong, CO2 is a rather efficient greenhouse gas. Next.

 

[SSDD]

Just what the hell are you talking about? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere just before the last ice age began was not 1000 ppm.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

The ice ages began about 2 million years ago.

No rocks, the glacial began about 2 million years ago. The ice age began much earlier. For someone who claims to have some knowledge of geology, you sure do make a great number of very basic errors.

The earth started defending into the ice age that still continues a tick over 50 million years ago. The ice caps and glaciation began in earnest about 30 million years ago. Prior to that, there was no ice at the north pole and trees grew on antarctica. Northern Spain was tropical as were the central latitudes of the US. The ice age has relaxed, then surged, relaxed, and surged several times over the past 50 million years or so but the ice age has continued. Right now the earth is exiting from the third major cooling period of the ice age which began about 3 million years ago.

You must go back more than 50 million years to reach a time when the earth was not in an ice age and at that time...the time the earth began to descend into the present ice age, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm.

If you have some knowledge of geology, why does a non geologist have to point this obvious and very basic error out to you? That's the problem with being a fake geologist, or a fake anything. You spend so much time picking through information on the internet for stuff that you think makes you look impressive, that you have no time to learn the basics...things any geologist would know and be able to call up as easily as people educated prior to 1970 can call up their multiplication tables. You are a fake rocks and you get outed over and over again on the basics.

It is understandable why you guys never want to talk about the actual time prior to the beginning of the ice age....what with maintaining the hoax and all, but 5 million years ago when you acknowledge that CO2 was as high or greater than it is now, the earth had already been in the grips of an ice age for 25 million years. Low levels of CO2 during an ice age...who would have thought.

The normal level of atmospheric CO2 on planet earth, when it is not in an ice age is over 1000 ppm whether you like it, or care to acknowledge it, or not. Try learning some basics before you continue with your fakery. Here is a relatively basic explanation, and time table of the ice age from a source trusted by warmer wackos such as yourself.

What Triggers Ice Ages?

The fact is rocks, that ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth....it isn't normal. The normal condition for earth is warm with a high atmospheric concentration of CO2....eventually the ice age will end and the earth will return to its normal state. With any luck, we are standing at that threshold now and are in for a very long period of warming.....although, it is looking like the cold may be beginning again..

 

[SSDD]

There are only two other rocky planets in the solar system with an atmosphere. One is sun-side of the habitable zone and has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of CO2 where the surface is (surprise surprise) hot enough to melt lead. The other is outside of the habitable zone (towards Jupiter) , but still can reach temperatures above freezing in the summer at the equator, despite having atmosphere as rarified as Earth's at an altitude of 30 miles (because - you guessed it, its atmosphere is also composed of CO2). Were it not for the presence of CO2 here on Earth, the oceans would be nearly frozen solid. So no you are wrong, CO2 is a rather efficient greenhouse gas. Next.

Do you guys ever read anything? Are you completely devoid of education? Why is it that those with the smallest information base claim to be professionals? Mercury has an atmosphere...very thin, but an atmosphere none the less. It is composed mostly of hydrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and potassium.

Venus has an atmosphere and it is indeed hot enough to melt lead. It has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere however (beyond the atomic weight of CO2). If our own atmosphere were 90 times more dense with the same percentages of the various gasses, it would be hot enough to melt lead here as well. If you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, and correct for the difference in incoming solar radiation, the temperature there is very close to the temperature here.

Mars has an atmosphere as well. Thin, but an atmosphere none the less. Mostly CO2 interestingly enough but no where near as warm as the greenhouse effect predicts.

The atmospheric thermal effect based on the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation can predict the temperatures at the various altitudes in the gas giants...the greenhouse effect can't even come close.

Uranus has an atmosphere....interestingly enough, it is considered to be one of the coldest places in the solar system but at the base of its troposphere, it is about 33 degrees warmer than at the base of the troposphere here on earth. Explained by the atmospheric thermal effect, but not by the greenhouse hypothesis.

Neptune has an atmosphere as well...again the atmospheric thermal effect and incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature at the various altitudes while the greenhouse effect can't even come close.

That fact alone should be enough for a thinking person to disregard the greenhouse hypothesis...the physics are the same here as on any other planet so why does it only work here? If it doesn't work everywhere, it is flawed and therefore useless.

Then there are the moons. Our own moon, as well as ganymeade, europa, castillio, rhea, dione, enceladus, and titania all have very thin atmospheres.

Triton and Io have atmospheres dense enough for them to experience weather, clouds, and seasons and Titan has a fully developed atmosphere.

And the atmospheric thermal effect along with the incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature of them all while the greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here with constant tweaking and adjustment.

I am surprised that you would think that only two planets in the solar system have atmospheres. Like I told rocks, that's the problem with being a fake scientist, you spend so much time sifting through data trying to look impressive, that you are always tripping up on the basics that an actual scientist would know as surely as children educated prior to 1970 know their multiplication tables.

 

[mamooth]

Had you actually looked at the study, you would have seen that the one you posted referenced older work.

So now your everchanging story is that you actually knew what the original 2001 source was, but deliberately chose to attribute it instead to a 2013 source by different authors. I don't see how that makes your story any better. Is it still your final answer, or would you like to try a new revision?

That graph is from none of the papers above. It is just one of many that show OLR increasing. I am not sure who produced the graph...the data, however is from NOAA.

So your devout religious faith has you believing it must be gospel truth, given that it agrees with your cult's teachings. Therefore, you don't need to know where it came from, nor do you care.

Here is another that shows the increase in OLR more clearly if you wish. Are you going to claim that NOAA does not understand satellite drift as well?

They understand it, but you don't. Your heroes are plotting NOAA data that doesn't correct for drift, different sampling platforms, differing sampling algorithms, ENSO state, anything. So, the only thing that graph proves is that you're clueless on the topic.

Yes, that graph is from harries 2001. And it is interesting in that the graph itself says exactly the opposite of what they say. Can you show me a decrease in OLR in the CO2 absorption bands on that graph? The model certainly shows a difference, but there is no difference in observation. Another example of climate science taking the word of a computer over direct measured observation.

You mean another example of you being clueless, since the top line _is_ the actual observation, and not a model. The second line is the model. Both the actual observation and the model shows the dips for CO2, ozone and methane. As I directly stated before, but your brain seems to auto-ignore any info that contradicts your sacred scripture.

This means, of course, that you'll need a new tactic to handwave away this troublesome data that disagrees with your cult. I'd suggest you switch to your standard fallback position that it's all just a big fraud.

The third and forth graphs are from chen, harries, brindly and ringer and again,

Good, though your link was mangled.

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

they show that there is no difference in OLR in the CO2 bands.

Bzzzt, no, sorry, not even close, but we have some lovely parting gifts for you. You had the source right, but seemingly refused to read it. You think that graph is showing a difference between two time periods, which is totally wrong. It's just comparing measurements to model predictions at a single instant in time. It's not showing any OLR differences in the real world, it's showing where the model is good and bad.

Now, figure 3 in that paper (grabbing an image from a pdf takes significant work, so I'll just tell people to look at the link), shows the 1970-2006 OLR differences, and that shows the OLR decreases in the greenhouse gas bands. Hence yet another paper you'll have to handwave away somehow.

I guess if I lost as many discussions as you,

You are truly a legend in your own mind. I suppose that's what keeps you going through all the humiliation.

 

[mamooth]

Do you guys ever read anything? Are you completely devoid of education?

Says the guy who just brought Uranus and Neptune and various moons into a discussion of rocky planets.

They are amusing, these constant belligerent ignorance routines of yours.

However, the way you always try to switch the topic of discussion and then call people stupid for not having talked about whatever you switched to, that's more deliberate dishonesty on your part.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you think the greenhouse effect is "just silly"? Well. that's one way to demonstrate your level of scientific expertise. By the way, things that radiate well also absorb well.

The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is beyond silly. It is an ad hoc construct that only works (and works badly) on this planet. If you model any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using models based on the greenhouse effect, the temperature those models predict isn't even close. You can, however accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and the amount of incoming solar radiation. The atmospheric thermal effect is much greater than the greenhouse effect and can predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...but isn't dependent upon the make up of the atmosphere so politically, it is unacceptable as man can't be blamed.

There are only two other rocky planets in the solar system with an atmosphere. One is sun-side of the habitable zone and has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of CO2 where the surface is (surprise surprise) hot enough to melt lead. The other is outside of the habitable zone (towards Jupiter) , but still can reach temperatures above freezing in the summer at the equator, despite having atmosphere as rarified as Earth's at an altitude of 30 miles (because - you guessed it, its atmosphere is also composed of CO2). Were it not for the presence of CO2 here on Earth, the oceans would be nearly frozen solid. So no you are wrong, CO2 is a rather efficient greenhouse gas. Next.

Stupid fuck, Venus can melt lead due to the atmospheric PRESSURE, not the composition

 

[mamooth]

Um, Frank? Compression only heats a gas once. Once it's compressed, the heat will then flow away, unless you keep adding more heat. Sitting there at the same high pressure won't magically keep creating heat.

 

[orogenicman]

There are only two other rocky planets in the solar system with an atmosphere. One is sun-side of the habitable zone and has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of CO2 where the surface is (surprise surprise) hot enough to melt lead. The other is outside of the habitable zone (towards Jupiter) , but still can reach temperatures above freezing in the summer at the equator, despite having atmosphere as rarified as Earth's at an altitude of 30 miles (because - you guessed it, its atmosphere is also composed of CO2). Were it not for the presence of CO2 here on Earth, the oceans would be nearly frozen solid. So no you are wrong, CO2 is a rather efficient greenhouse gas. Next.

Do you guys ever read anything? Are you completely devoid of education? Why is it that those with the smallest information base claim to be professionals? Mercury has an atmosphere...very thin, but an atmosphere none the less. It is composed mostly of hydrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and potassium.

Mercury's tenuous atmosphere mostly comes from the fact that it is being constantly bombarded by the solar wind - and the particles that make up that atmosphere is mostly FROM THE SUN.

Venus has an atmosphere and it is indeed hot enough to melt lead. It has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere however (beyond the atomic weight of CO2). If our own atmosphere were 90 times more dense with the same percentages of the various gasses, it would be hot enough to melt lead here as well. If you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, and correct for the difference in incoming solar radiation, the temperature there is very close to the temperature here.

By that reasoning, the bottom of the ocean where the pressure is crushingly high should be hundreds of degrees - except that it is not.

Mars has an atmosphere as well. Thin, but an atmosphere none the less. Mostly CO2 interestingly enough but no where near as warm as the greenhouse effect predicts.

According to who?

The atmospheric thermal effect based on the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation can predict the temperatures at the various altitudes in the gas giants...the greenhouse effect can't even come close.

But then, the gas giants are mostly composed of hydrogen and helium.

Uranus has an atmosphere....interestingly enough, it is considered to be one of the coldest places in the solar system but at the base of its troposphere, it is about 33 degrees warmer than at the base of the troposphere here on earth. Explained by the atmospheric thermal effect, but not by the greenhouse hypothesis.

Erm, WTF??? None of the gas giants are rocky planets, which is what I was talking about in the first place.

Neptune has an atmosphere as well...again the atmospheric thermal effect and incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature at the various altitudes while the greenhouse effect can't even come close.

According to who?

That fact alone should be enough for a thinking person to disregard the greenhouse hypothesis...the physics are the same here as on any other planet so why does it only work here? If it doesn't work everywhere, it is flawed and therefore useless.

Right, so the number of NASA scientists who are on board with your utter rejection of the greenhouse gas effect based on these ridiculous proposals is?

Then there are the moons. Our own moon, as well as ganymeade, europa, castillio, rhea, dione, enceladus, and titania all have very thin atmospheres.

And?

Triton and Io have atmospheres dense enough for them to experience weather, clouds, and seasons...

Only in a Harry Potter movie is this true.

and Titan has a fully developed atmosphere.

Composed entirely of methane and ethane, and is nearly one billion miles from the sun. Your point?

And the atmospheric thermal effect along with the incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature of them all while the greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here with constant tweaking and adjustment.

Right, so in your next post you are going to provide us with links to these peer reviewed papers.

I am surprised that you would think that only two planets in the solar system have atmospheres.

I am not surprised that you are misconstruing what I actually said. Probably a comprehension problem.

 

[SSDD]

Do you guys ever read anything? Are you completely devoid of education?

Says the guy who just brought Uranus and Neptune and various moons into a discussion of rocky planets.

Actually, it was a discussion of planets with atmospheres...orogemican tried to limit it to rocky planets as if that would make the failed greenhouse hypothesis acceptable...it doesn't work on them either. Limiting the discussion is the warmer tactic because if you look at the whole picture...you look like the hysterical handwaving old women you all are.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you guys ever read anything? Are you completely devoid of education?

Says the guy who just brought Uranus and Neptune and various moons into a discussion of rocky planets.

Actually, it was a discussion of planets with atmospheres...orogemican tried to limit it to rocky planets as if that would make the failed greenhouse hypothesis acceptable...it doesn't work on them either. Limiting the discussion is the warmer tactic because if you look at the whole picture...you look like the hysterical handwaving old women you all are.

The atmospheres of the gas giants are irrelevant as models for Earth's atmosphere, particularly Jupiter and Saturn since they emit more energy than they receive from the sun, but also because they have totally different compositions. You may as well be comparing Jupiter with Arcturus for all it matters.

 

[IanC]

you cannot compare historical CO2 levels to today's artificially induced levels. if CO2 has a meaningful impact on greenhouse warming, past the initial bolus, we will find out soon enough. if it is just a trivial adjustment as the last 15 years appears to show, that will be obvious as well.

 

[polarbear]

Says the guy who just brought Uranus and Neptune and various moons into a discussion of rocky planets.

Actually, it was a discussion of planets with atmospheres...orogemican tried to limit it to rocky planets as if that would make the failed greenhouse hypothesis acceptable...it doesn't work on them either. Limiting the discussion is the warmer tactic because if you look at the whole picture...you look like the hysterical handwaving old women you all are.

The atmospheres of the gas giants are irrelevant as models for Earth's atmosphere, particularly Jupiter and Saturn since they emit more energy than they receive from the sun, but also because they have totally different compositions. You may as well be comparing Jupiter with Arcturus for all it matters.

So according to you NASA`s and all the other scientists who are investigating CO2 cooling rates are wasting their time?

CO2 cooling in terrestrial planet thermospheres - Bougher - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991?2012) - Wiley Online Library

The comparative approach to planetary problems is becoming increasingly fruitful as new information from various planet atmospheres is assimilated. In particular, it is clear that the important problem of CO2 cooling in the Earth's lower thermosphere is closely tied to the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus and Mars. CO2 cooling in each of these thermospheres is strongly impacted by collisions of CO2 and O, yielding vibrationally excited CO2 and enhanced 15-μm emissions in regions where non-local thermodynamic equilibrium conditions prevail. Both the relative abundance of atomic O and the CO2-O relaxation rate affect the magnitude of this enhanced cooling process. We examine the recent progress in the debate on the CO2-O relaxation rate, its temperature dependence, and its corresponding impact on the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus, Earth, and Mars. This comparative approach provides the broadest range of conditions under which a common CO2-O relaxation rate should provide consistent results. New global mean calculations are presented for the heat budgets of these three planets using large CO2-O relaxation rates that have been inferred recently from Earth CO2 radiance measurements and laboratory studies. Results indicate that available Venus and Mars data constrain the CO2-O relaxation rate to be 2–4 × 10−12 cm3/s at 300 K. For Venus, this strong cooling serves as an effective thermostat that gives rise to a small variation of thermospheric temperatures over the solar cycle, just as observed. Conversely, CO2 cooling does not appear to be dominant in the dayside heat budget of the Mars thermosphere over most of the solar cycle. For the Earth, this strong cooling implies that the lower thermosphere does not typically require significant eddy diffusion or heat conduction. However, global-scale dynamics or an additional heating mechanism may be needed to restore calculated temperatures to observed values when relaxation rates exceeding 2 × 10−12 cm3/s are employed.

Non-LTE radiative transfer studies show how non-"settled" your so called "settled" science is.
There is a lot more energy transferred from CO2 to O2 than any of the current climate model budgets considered.
Matter of fact that mechanism does not even exist in your religion.
It exaggerates what`s going on at 15 μm and totally ignores what`s going on at 4.3 μm where CO2 enhances the cooling rate by as much as .35 deg K per day.

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, it was a discussion of planets with atmospheres...orogemican tried to limit it to rocky planets as if that would make the failed greenhouse hypothesis acceptable...it doesn't work on them either. Limiting the discussion is the warmer tactic because if you look at the whole picture...you look like the hysterical handwaving old women you all are.

The atmospheres of the gas giants are irrelevant as models for Earth's atmosphere, particularly Jupiter and Saturn since they emit more energy than they receive from the sun, but also because they have totally different compositions. You may as well be comparing Jupiter with Arcturus for all it matters.

So according to you NASA`s and all the other scientists who are investigating CO2 cooling rates are wasting their time?

CO2 cooling in terrestrial planet thermospheres - Bougher - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991?2012) - Wiley Online Library

The comparative approach to planetary problems is becoming increasingly fruitful as new information from various planet atmospheres is assimilated. In particular, it is clear that the important problem of CO2 cooling in the Earth's lower thermosphere is closely tied to the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus and Mars. CO2 cooling in each of these thermospheres is strongly impacted by collisions of CO2 and O, yielding vibrationally excited CO2 and enhanced 15-μm emissions in regions where non-local thermodynamic equilibrium conditions prevail. Both the relative abundance of atomic O and the CO2-O relaxation rate affect the magnitude of this enhanced cooling process. We examine the recent progress in the debate on the CO2-O relaxation rate, its temperature dependence, and its corresponding impact on the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus, Earth, and Mars. This comparative approach provides the broadest range of conditions under which a common CO2-O relaxation rate should provide consistent results. New global mean calculations are presented for the heat budgets of these three planets using large CO2-O relaxation rates that have been inferred recently from Earth CO2 radiance measurements and laboratory studies. Results indicate that available Venus and Mars data constrain the CO2-O relaxation rate to be 2–4 × 10−12 cm3/s at 300 K. For Venus, this strong cooling serves as an effective thermostat that gives rise to a small variation of thermospheric temperatures over the solar cycle, just as observed. Conversely, CO2 cooling does not appear to be dominant in the dayside heat budget of the Mars thermosphere over most of the solar cycle. For the Earth, this strong cooling implies that the lower thermosphere does not typically require significant eddy diffusion or heat conduction. However, global-scale dynamics or an additional heating mechanism may be needed to restore calculated temperatures to observed values when relaxation rates exceeding 2 × 10−12 cm3/s are employed.

Non-LTE radiative transfer studies show how non-"settled" your so called "settled" science is.
There is a lot more energy transferred from CO2 to O2 than any of the current climate model budgets considered.
Matter of fact that mechanism does not even exist in your religion.
It exaggerates what`s going on at 15 μm and totally ignores what`s going on at 4.3 μm where CO2 enhances the cooling rate by as much as .35 deg K per day.

Damn, are you people really this fucking thick? Again, Jupiter and Saturn, as well as Uranus and Neptune are gas giants that have different compositions and different thermal input and outputs than Earth, and as such are not appropriate models for Earth's atmosphere. Nowhere in your post is this contradicted.