What AGW is doing to the planet

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

 

[jc456]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

SO what? Thermal equations show that it will only slow the outward radiation slightly. Water vapor and the convection cycles do the rest and it happens so fast that cooling is the result.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

SO what? Thermal equations show that it will only slow the outward radiation slightly. Water vapor and the convection cycles do the rest and it happens so fast that cooling is the result.

SO what?

So that's back-radiation. The stuff that SSDD and JC claim does not exist.

 

[Crick]

Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.

The first graph is prior to Karl et al 2015. The second graph is from Karl et al.

SO your using crap data... Got it.. Falsified in both instances one by homogenization and infilling then doubled down on by Karl and his cast of clowns again..

Those are both the best data available. If you think you've got something better, let's see it. And if those are as bad as you say, there must be hundreds of actual climate scientists pissed off about and telling the world. Where are they? You claim they've both been falsified. Where? When? By whom?

I find it stunning that you claim extinctions are due to man, but ignore your own killing off of the bald eagle and other birds that your agenda is doing.

It is not on my agenda to kill off the bald eagle and even under the worst conditions, windmills are not going to drive any species to extinction. But global warming will.

Your bull shit is pure HYPOCRITE .... Nothing more than partisan bull shit for your agenda.

You need to start substantiating your assertions. It's not that easy to get the crowd riled up about something when most of them are aware your accusations are anally derived.

 

[Crick]

I'm still waiting to hear what logical fallacies you believe are present in the OP Billy Boy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

So the green house effect doesn't readmit the Ir Radiation back to the surface. So you're saying there's no greenhouse effect! lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

So the green house effect doesn't readmit the Ir Radiation back to the surface. So you're saying there's no greenhouse effect! lol

So the green house effect doesn't readmit the Ir Radiation back to the surface.

Where the fuck did I ever say that? On this thread? Where? Show me the post.

 

[westwall]

AGW is a hoax designed to expand the power and wealth of the state.

So, where did all that data come from?

Science fiction writers. Where else.

 

[IsaacNewton]

2013 Pacific Typhoon Season

2014 Pacific Typhoon Season

Great post that actually shows what is happening.

Ignore the braindead denier cult here. Their input is worthless.

Global Warming has been settled science for the last 15 years. Scientists have been filling in the details but the causes and results are known.

The entire human race is soon going to face the horrendous consequences of not taking action sooner. As with most everything humanity does, it will wait until the problem is so bad that we can't reverse it and the biosphere will reach a critical point and collapse.

Humans will be lucky to survive the mass extinction that is already under way.

 

[Kosh]

Here is what the AGW cult believes..

 

[Kosh]

Another chart to defeat the cherry picked AGW cult religious dogma..

 

[Crick]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

SO what? Thermal equations show that it will only slow the outward radiation slightly. Water vapor and the convection cycles do the rest and it happens so fast that cooling is the result.

What happens so fast that cooling is the result?

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW is a hoax designed to expand the power and wealth of the state.

So, where did all that data come from?

Science fiction writers. Where else.

No, it came from the real scientists, not posers like Westwall. You can see and listen to their finding in the videos from the AGU's annual meetings in San Francisco every year.

American Geophysical Union AGU - YouTube

These are the real scientists, and they present real evidence, not flap-yap bullshit put out by the Kochs and the energy corporations.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another chart to defeat the cherry picked AGW cult religious dogma..

And what does that have to do with what a rapid rise in temperature, and the results in climate from that rise, at present? You fools put up crap like this as if it had some kind of meaning in the present situation. We are dealing with the results of a rapidly changing climate from the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere. A changing climate that will severely impact agriculture in a world with over 7 billion people depending on stable agricultural production.

 

[jc456]

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

 

[jc456]

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?