To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[jc456]

The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2

Deal?

^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^

 

[sealybobo]

The denier cult is almost to this point, a few guys screaming on the street. You can see the same psychological mechanisms at work, in the way remaining hardcore 9/11 Truthers believe they hold the RealTruth, and keep chanting the same debunked nonsense, and that it's everybody else who is too terrified to face TheTruth. But they march on, reveling in their martyrdom. The cult is what now gives meaning to their lives, so they don't know what else to do.

Same idiots who insisted for decades that lead wasn't poisoning our children.

Similar to what global warming deniers (corporations) are doing, the lead industry paid the government millions of dollars for them to remain ignorant to the problem. They even passed laws saying we couldn't even have public service announcements warning people about the "potential" harm that may have been caused by lead.

Fuck global warming deniers. They should move to Venus to see the future of earth if they keep doing what they are doing.

You might be surprised to know that Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. With a global temperature of 735 Kelvin (462 degrees C), the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. And if you could stand on the surface of Venus, you would experience atmospheric pressure 92 times greater than what you’re used to on Earth. Why is Venus so hot? The Venus greenhouse effect shows you what happens when this the process of trapping sunlight goes out of control into a runaway process.

Scientists think that Venus used to be more similar to Earth, with lower temperatures and even liquid water on the surface of the planet. At some point, billions of years ago, the planet started to heat up. At some point, all the water on the surface evaporated into the atmosphere. Water vapor is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and this caused temperatures to rise even more. Then the surface of Venus got so hot that the carbon trapped in rocks sublimated into the atmosphere and mixed with oxygen to form even more carbon dioxide. And so today we have a carbon dioxide atmosphere on Venus which is 92 times more dense than Earth’s atmosphere at the surface.

Could this happen on Earth? Scientists think that if the same process happened on Earth, we would have temperatures with several hundred degrees C, and an atmosphere 100 times as dense as we have right now.

since you went to Flint, is fluoride good or bad for you?

Read up:

10 Facts About Fluoride You Need to Know

10 Fluoride Facts You Should Know

I remember tasting and smelling the fluoride in my water. Nasty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2

Deal?

^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^

Odd that none of the Warmers posted an experiment in reply

 

[Dot Com]

The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2

Deal?

what does that have to do w/ Benghazi?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2

Deal?

what does that have to do w/ Benghazi?

So, you couldn't find an experiment either

Good to know

 

[jc456]

The Warmers can start to convince me by first posting a repeatable lab experiment that shows a us a temperature increase form a 120PPM increase in CO2

Deal?

what does that have to do w/ Benghazi?

huh?

 

[jc456]

an additional paper on fluoride.

Shocking News About Flouride

"The following article exposes the biggest on-going medical experiment ever carried out by the United States Government on an unsuspecting population.

Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson © July 1997

Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children’s teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age."

And then you wonder why some don't buy into scientists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

an additional paper on fluoride.

Shocking News About Flouride

"The following article exposes the biggest on-going medical experiment ever carried out by the United States Government on an unsuspecting population.

Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson © July 1997

Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children’s teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age."

And then you wonder why some don't buy into scientists.

JC, since we've been asking, how many experiments controlling for any CO2 much less 120PPM, have the Warmers posted to date?

There's the Mythbusters that had a 7% CO2 atmosphere, any others?

 

[jc456]

an additional paper on fluoride.

Shocking News About Flouride

"The following article exposes the biggest on-going medical experiment ever carried out by the United States Government on an unsuspecting population.

Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson © July 1997

Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children’s teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age."

And then you wonder why some don't buy into scientists.

JC, since we've been asking, how many experiments controlling for any CO2 much less 120PPM, have the Warmers posted to date?

There's the Mythbusters that had a 7% CO2 atmosphere, any others?

I like how when I first addressed this question, I got the answer, 1000 of them. Then they all started pounding out the answer about doing it in school, then they posted up the Bill Nye one, and then several others and in none of them did they ever do a controlled experiment. So what kind of scientist are these jokers that they don't know how to do them?

Then I got told after disqualifying all of them, and they the warmers, I supposed all agreeing with me, since now they say there is no way to do it outside a live environment. Frank it is hysterical to say the least. We'll never see one cause they are afraid to post anymore, cause they have zero that validate their claims. So each and every post is nonsense. mumbo jumbo, some tactic to distract from reality. hahahahahhahahaahaha it's precious.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still no experiment.

Weird, no?

 

[jc456]

Still no experiment.

Weird, no?

Yes,
well maybe they can post up more links that go to abstract experiments that one has to purchase to read. So why can't they buy them all and then post the one that addresses the requested one for 120 PPM supporting graphs and evidence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still no experiment.

Weird, no?

Yes,
well maybe they can post up more links that go to abstract experiments that one has to purchase to read. So why can't they buy them all and then post the one that addresses the requested one for 120 PPM supporting graphs and evidence?

Experiment?

Why, yes, we have it right here!

 

[Crick]

What do you think is making those two big gaps Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What do you think is making those two big gaps Frank?

Odd, no temperature axis. Did you mean to post that?

 

[IanC]

CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.

on this chart the dashed lines represent the theoretical emissions of a blackbody at different temperatures defined in Kelvin degrees. K= (C+273). eg 273K=0C.

the jagged line is the actual measured emissions. there is a chunk missing between 17-13 microns that is due to CO2 absorbing IR. the little that is emitted matches the Planck curve for a blackbody at about 213K, or minus 60C. if we check to see what level of the atmosphere is -60C we find that it matches fairly well with the theoretical concentration of CO2 where 15micron IR is likely to simply escape to space rather than be absorbed.

the range on the graph between 13-8 microns is called the atmospheric window because the IR freely escapes to space at the same temperature as the surface (the small piece missing at 9.6 microns is not considered important, I hope this was not the second of crick's 'gaps').

the other bite out of the emissions graph is 7 microns and below. H2O is mainly responsible for this area.


IF we had an emissions graph from when CO2 was 280 ppm we could compare it to today's emissions graph at 400 ppm, and CF's question would be answered. maybe.

every instrument that gets sent into space has its own strengths and weaknesses, and gives different results compared to the instrument it replaces and the one that replaces it. but as long as there is an overlap period between the two types of instrument usually a fairly good estimation can be calculated.

we probably have values of about 350ppm, when satellites first started measuring. perhaps even from the 50's when jets started going well into the stratosphere. what would the difference in the CO2 bite look like? it would be slightly less deep, corresponding to a slightly warmer temp when 15 micron IR escapes. it would be slightly less wide for reasons I wont go into right now.

the CO2 effect is saturated at near surface levels. it makes very little difference whether all the surface 15 micron IR is absorbed by the first 10.0 meters of atmosphere or the first 9.9 meters. the majority of surface energy is already being transported by water phase change and the convection it produces. most of the energy that does escape by radiation from the surface leaves through the atmospheric window (centered on 10microns), and very little of the remaining 25W is through the CO2 dominated 15 micron range.

the Greenhouse effect is real but dominated by water.

 

[SSDD]

What do you think is making those two big gaps Frank?

Epic failure crick....we all know that CO2 absorbs and emits in a narrow frequency of IR....now you need to prove that absorption and emission equals warming.....how much is required to cause warming...and how much warming it causes....

And while you are at it...tell us what the optimum temperature is for life on planet earth so that we know whether we are heading in the right, or wrong direction....and while you are at it, why not go ahead and admit that science, here in the 21st century can not even tease out a hint of a human fingerprint in the chaos of climate natural variability.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The denier cult is almost to this point, a few guys screaming on the street. You can see the same psychological mechanisms at work, in the way remaining hardcore 9/11 Truthers believe they hold the RealTruth, and keep chanting the same debunked nonsense, and that it's everybody else who is too terrified to face TheTruth. But they march on, reveling in their martyrdom. The cult is what now gives meaning to their lives, so they don't know what else to do.

* * * *

^ Manboob proclaiming the FAITH!

Mock dem infidels baby!

Praise your make-believe notion of "science" while devoutly ignoring the tenets of actual science!

Recite the Consensus Creed, say "Praise Gaia"and genuflect at the alter of "models."

In AGW we BELIEVE! Well, climate CHANGE, anyway.
Amen and pass the socialism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.

on this chart the dashed lines represent the theoretical emissions of a blackbody at different temperatures defined in Kelvin degrees. K= (C+273). eg 273K=0C.

the jagged line is the actual measured emissions. there is a chunk missing between 17-13 microns that is due to CO2 absorbing IR. the little that is emitted matches the Planck curve for a blackbody at about 213K, or minus 60C. if we check to see what level of the atmosphere is -60C we find that it matches fairly well with the theoretical concentration of CO2 where 15micron IR is likely to simply escape to space rather than be absorbed.

the range on the graph between 13-8 microns is called the atmospheric window because the IR freely escapes to space at the same temperature as the surface (the small piece missing at 9.6 microns is not considered important, I hope this was not the second of crick's 'gaps').

the other bite out of the emissions graph is 7 microns and below. H2O is mainly responsible for this area.


IF we had an emissions graph from when CO2 was 280 ppm we could compare it to today's emissions graph at 400 ppm, and CF's question would be answered. maybe.

every instrument that gets sent into space has its own strengths and weaknesses, and gives different results compared to the instrument it replaces and the one that replaces it. but as long as there is an overlap period between the two types of instrument usually a fairly good estimation can be calculated.

we probably have values of about 350ppm, when satellites first started measuring. perhaps even from the 50's when jets started going well into the stratosphere. what would the difference in the CO2 bite look like? it would be slightly less deep, corresponding to a slightly warmer temp when 15 micron IR escapes. it would be slightly less wide for reasons I wont go into right now.

the CO2 effect is saturated at near surface levels. it makes very little difference whether all the surface 15 micron IR is absorbed by the first 10.0 meters of atmosphere or the first 9.9 meters. the majority of surface energy is already being transported by water phase change and the convection it produces. most of the energy that does escape by radiation from the surface leaves through the atmospheric window (centered on 10microns), and very little of the remaining 25W is through the CO2 dominated 15 micron range.

the Greenhouse effect is real but dominated by water.

Right. And that's still not a lab experiment measuring temperature by making incremental adjustments to an atmospheric trace element.

EnviroMarxists treat the lab like Dracula meeting the rising sun

 

[Billy_Bob]

CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.

on this chart the dashed lines represent the theoretical emissions of a blackbody at different temperatures defined in Kelvin degrees. K= (C+273). eg 273K=0C.

the jagged line is the actual measured emissions. there is a chunk missing between 17-13 microns that is due to CO2 absorbing IR. the little that is emitted matches the Planck curve for a blackbody at about 213K, or minus 60C. if we check to see what level of the atmosphere is -60C we find that it matches fairly well with the theoretical concentration of CO2 where 15micron IR is likely to simply escape to space rather than be absorbed.

the range on the graph between 13-8 microns is called the atmospheric window because the IR freely escapes to space at the same temperature as the surface (the small piece missing at 9.6 microns is not considered important, I hope this was not the second of crick's 'gaps').

the other bite out of the emissions graph is 7 microns and below. H2O is mainly responsible for this area.


IF we had an emissions graph from when CO2 was 280 ppm we could compare it to today's emissions graph at 400 ppm, and CF's question would be answered. maybe.

every instrument that gets sent into space has its own strengths and weaknesses, and gives different results compared to the instrument it replaces and the one that replaces it. but as long as there is an overlap period between the two types of instrument usually a fairly good estimation can be calculated.

we probably have values of about 350ppm, when satellites first started measuring. perhaps even from the 50's when jets started going well into the stratosphere. what would the difference in the CO2 bite look like? it would be slightly less deep, corresponding to a slightly warmer temp when 15 micron IR escapes. it would be slightly less wide for reasons I wont go into right now.

the CO2 effect is saturated at near surface levels. it makes very little difference whether all the surface 15 micron IR is absorbed by the first 10.0 meters of atmosphere or the first 9.9 meters. the majority of surface energy is already being transported by water phase change and the convection it produces. most of the energy that does escape by radiation from the surface leaves through the atmospheric window (centered on 10microns), and very little of the remaining 25W is through the CO2 dominated 15 micron range.

the Greenhouse effect is real but dominated by water.

Crick infers that becasue there are areas of missing up-welling LWIR it must cause warming. He makes an assumption that science does not prove. As we continue to learn about our planet were finding out that CO2, while potentially capable, does not react as they had hoped in our atmosphere. I believe the current level of feedback observed is less than 50% of the potential.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CF- I am not sure if you are being serious about reading the graph, or just complaining about there not being a specific experiment showing the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 280- 400 ppm. specifying the actual range is important because 120 ppm has variable influence depending on the starting point. 280-400 is roughly half of a logrithmic double, theoretically ~0.5C. 400-520 is about 1/3 of a logrithmic double, 0.3C.

on this chart the dashed lines represent the theoretical emissions of a blackbody at different temperatures defined in Kelvin degrees. K= (C+273). eg 273K=0C.

the jagged line is the actual measured emissions. there is a chunk missing between 17-13 microns that is due to CO2 absorbing IR. the little that is emitted matches the Planck curve for a blackbody at about 213K, or minus 60C. if we check to see what level of the atmosphere is -60C we find that it matches fairly well with the theoretical concentration of CO2 where 15micron IR is likely to simply escape to space rather than be absorbed.

the range on the graph between 13-8 microns is called the atmospheric window because the IR freely escapes to space at the same temperature as the surface (the small piece missing at 9.6 microns is not considered important, I hope this was not the second of crick's 'gaps').

the other bite out of the emissions graph is 7 microns and below. H2O is mainly responsible for this area.


IF we had an emissions graph from when CO2 was 280 ppm we could compare it to today's emissions graph at 400 ppm, and CF's question would be answered. maybe.

every instrument that gets sent into space has its own strengths and weaknesses, and gives different results compared to the instrument it replaces and the one that replaces it. but as long as there is an overlap period between the two types of instrument usually a fairly good estimation can be calculated.

we probably have values of about 350ppm, when satellites first started measuring. perhaps even from the 50's when jets started going well into the stratosphere. what would the difference in the CO2 bite look like? it would be slightly less deep, corresponding to a slightly warmer temp when 15 micron IR escapes. it would be slightly less wide for reasons I wont go into right now.

the CO2 effect is saturated at near surface levels. it makes very little difference whether all the surface 15 micron IR is absorbed by the first 10.0 meters of atmosphere or the first 9.9 meters. the majority of surface energy is already being transported by water phase change and the convection it produces. most of the energy that does escape by radiation from the surface leaves through the atmospheric window (centered on 10microns), and very little of the remaining 25W is through the CO2 dominated 15 micron range.

the Greenhouse effect is real but dominated by water.

Crick infers that becasue there are areas of missing up-welling LWIR it must cause warming. He makes an assumption that science does not prove. As we continue to learn about our planet were finding out that CO2, while potentially capable, does not react as they had hoped in our atmosphere. I believe the current level of feedback observed is less than 50% of the potential.

All we know for certain is that we have to surrender our economy to the Anti-Science EnviroMarxists