What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't understand the absorption spectrum I posted?
Well, that's certainly a shocker!

And you can't post observed temperatures affected by CO2. So big deal!

And that indeed is derp!

And you can't post observed temperatures affected by CO2.

Feel free to ask a warmer for that.
I'm just glad I could get you to understand what "greenhouse gas" means.
Or not.

dude, no such thing, just remember that. It's either 'A' or 'B'. You can't seem to explain it or prove it. Greenhouses create humidity and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure. I look up at the sky and I don't see a dome.

dude, no such thing,

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

Greenhouses create humidity

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

 

[jc456]

And you can't post observed temperatures affected by CO2. So big deal!

And that indeed is derp!

And you can't post observed temperatures affected by CO2.

Feel free to ask a warmer for that.
I'm just glad I could get you to understand what "greenhouse gas" means.
Or not.

dude, no such thing, just remember that. It's either 'A' or 'B'. You can't seem to explain it or prove it. Greenhouses create humidity and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure. I look up at the sky and I don't see a dome.

dude, no such thing,

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

Greenhouses create humidity

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you can't post observed temperatures affected by CO2.

Feel free to ask a warmer for that.
I'm just glad I could get you to understand what "greenhouse gas" means.
Or not.

dude, no such thing, just remember that. It's either 'A' or 'B'. You can't seem to explain it or prove it. Greenhouses create humidity and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure. I look up at the sky and I don't see a dome.

dude, no such thing,

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

Greenhouses create humidity

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

 

[jc456]

dude, no such thing, just remember that. It's either 'A' or 'B'. You can't seem to explain it or prove it. Greenhouses create humidity and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure. I look up at the sky and I don't see a dome.

dude, no such thing,

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

Greenhouses create humidity

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove. I like that you admit by posting up zip.

By the way, the structure is the greenhouse, and it holds the water vapor therefore creating the environment for humidity. Creating big word for you fella.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, no such thing,

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

Greenhouses create humidity

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove. I like that you admit by posting up zip.

By the way, the structure is the greenhouse, and it holds the water vapor therefore creating the environment for humidity. Creating big word for you fella.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove.

Absorption spectrum over your head?

I like that you admit by posting up zip.

You mean besides the absorption spectrum?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where is the thread that the odds of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon are about 1,000,000,000 -1?

 

[jc456]

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove. I like that you admit by posting up zip.

By the way, the structure is the greenhouse, and it holds the water vapor therefore creating the environment for humidity. Creating big word for you fella.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove.

Absorption spectrum over your head?

I like that you admit by posting up zip.

You mean besides the absorption spectrum?

not the discussion, greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy. I'm still waiting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove. I like that you admit by posting up zip.

By the way, the structure is the greenhouse, and it holds the water vapor therefore creating the environment for humidity. Creating big word for you fella.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove.

Absorption spectrum over your head?

I like that you admit by posting up zip.

You mean besides the absorption spectrum?

not the discussion, greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy. I'm still waiting.

greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy.

I've already posted evidence of greenhouse gases....not my fault you don't understand absorption.

 

[IanC]

Observed

Observed what?

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

 

[jc456]

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove. I like that you admit by posting up zip.

By the way, the structure is the greenhouse, and it holds the water vapor therefore creating the environment for humidity. Creating big word for you fella.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove.

Absorption spectrum over your head?

I like that you admit by posting up zip.

You mean besides the absorption spectrum?

not the discussion, greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy. I'm still waiting.

greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy.

I've already posted evidence of greenhouse gases....not my fault you don't understand absorption.

nope

 

[jc456]

Observed what?

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun. Thermal. What part of that has you confused? See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap. You can't. The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit. More and more. If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out. It, is untested. CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it. It also doesn't heat the air around it. It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time. NO ONE has completed that experiment. It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room. Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time. Then talk to me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Observed what?

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

Should be easy for you to post the lab work showing the temperature differential cause by changing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM.

Where is it?

 

[jc456]

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

Should be easy for you to post the lab work showing the temperature differential cause by changing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM.

Where is it?

it's like they don't get it. For folks who act like they're smarter than all get out, can't figure out you and I aren't going to stop asking for that evidence. You know, the evidence that's so bountiful that there are thousands of pieces of this evidence. And yet, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Just wow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun. Thermal. What part of that has you confused? See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap. You can't. The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit. More and more. If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out. It, is untested. CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it. It also doesn't heat the air around it. It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time. NO ONE has completed that experiment. It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room. Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time. Then talk to me.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.

The Sun heats the Earth by convection and conduction? DERP!

 

[IanC]

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

Should be easy for you to post the lab work showing the temperature differential cause by changing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM.

Where is it?

The Mythbuster's experiment showed an increase of temperature from a massive increase in CO2. We all laughed at Crick for saying it was representative of the change from 280-400 ppm.

But it did increase. Are you saying that increase from 280-400 would be very small? I agree. But if you are saying it doesn't exist AT ALL, then I have to disagree with you because it is a logical fallacy. The effect of CO2 is there, even if it is swamped by other factors.

So what do you believe? Little effect or no effect? There is a huge difference between the two choices.

 

[jc456]

Observed what?

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

You don't understand the absorption spectrum I posted?
Well, that's certainly a shocker!

It's obvious you don't understand it isn't observed. Thanks

 

[jc456]

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun. Thermal. What part of that has you confused? See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap. You can't. The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit. More and more. If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out. It, is untested. CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it. It also doesn't heat the air around it. It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time. NO ONE has completed that experiment. It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room. Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time. Then talk to me.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.

The Sun heats the Earth by convection and conduction? DERP!

Sun heats the planet, obviously you don't thanks

 

[jc456]

dude, no such thing, just remember that. It's either 'A' or 'B'. You can't seem to explain it or prove it. Greenhouses create humidity and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure. I look up at the sky and I don't see a dome.

dude, no such thing,

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

Greenhouses create humidity

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

It does it holds in moisture creating humidity which i stated, thanks

 

[jc456]

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove. I like that you admit by posting up zip.

By the way, the structure is the greenhouse, and it holds the water vapor therefore creating the environment for humidity. Creating big word for you fella.

yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove.

Absorption spectrum over your head?

I like that you admit by posting up zip.

You mean besides the absorption spectrum?

not the discussion, greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy. I'm still waiting.

greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy.

I've already posted evidence of greenhouse gases....not my fault you don't understand absorption.

It's not my fault you don't understand observed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

You don't understand the absorption spectrum I posted?
Well, that's certainly a shocker!

It's obvious you don't understand it isn't observed. Thanks

This wasn't observed? Did they just make it up?