The Death of a Hoax

[Gipper]

Ah, I see Palerider has ridden back and is once again promulgating his idea that he has managed to uncover a great conspiracy of every scientific organization on Earth to fool us into thinking that actual scientific research is "religion" and that his credentials are better than theirs.

So, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, or not? Last time you rode in, you said it wasn't, then labeled my proof that it was as "scripture."

Does the term "misnomer" mean anything to you?

Hey Pale, you were right again. He has not learned a thing. The AGW faith is very strong though I suspect with THC1 it is decades of cannabis use and maybe a little acid now an then, which has twisted his ability to think....

 

[palerider]

I couldn't help but notice that his only real argument was nothing more than an ad hominem attack. No observable proof, no evidence, no smoking gun, no explanation as to how the physics behind the claims of AGW are actually correct. Nothing like that at all.

He is reduced to the most stale and banal of all the logical fallacies and the really sad thing is that I bet in his mind, he actually believes he put up some sort of actual argument. This is what the church of AGW has become across the internet. Believers throwing up ad hominems, meaningless appeals to authority, and bandwagon fallacies in lieu of any actual defense of the science while actual scientists (physicists, chemists, etc.,) are at last entering the fray and producing research that leaves little doubt of the flawed nature of the basic science behind the AGW hypothesis and is bringing the general fraud that has been perpetrated into high relief.

 

[PLC1]

Church/scripture is not science. That is the misnomer I mentioned.
Tobacco is not global warming.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We've been all over this before, no need to rehash. The conspiracy theorists are impervious to fact and logic anyway.

But, you've convinced the choir. Congratulations.

 

[dogtowner]

Church/scripture is not science. That is the misnomer I mentioned.
Tobacco is not global warming.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We've been all over this before, no need to rehash. The conspiracy theorists are impervious to fact and logic anyway.

But, you've convinced the choir. Congratulations.

one may call CO2 anything one likes but its been shown that it cannot act as purported

 

[PLC1]

one may call CO2 anything one likes but its been shown that it cannot act as purported

It has to do with retransmitting light in different wavelengths.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed.

Palerider knows this, at least I think he does, but it doesn't fit with his agenda of telling the fellow conspiracy theorists what they want to hear.

 

[dogtowner]

It has to do with retransmitting light in different wavelengths.


Palerider knows this, at least I think he does, but it doesn't fit with his agenda of telling the fellow conspiracy theorists what they want to hear.

he documented that it does not, and cannot.

 

[Cruella]

This page has some really good reports and graphs on CO2 levels and the global warming hoax

http://www.americantraditions.org/A...oxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming.htm

 

[PLC1]

he documented that it does not, and cannot.

He stated that it does not, and labeled my source to the contrary as "scripture." CO2 is not a dipole molecule, whether he wants it to be or not.

 

[dogtowner]

He stated that it does not, and labeled my source to the contrary as "scripture." CO2 is not a dipole molecule, whether he wants it to be or not.

he pointed to documentation that it can't.

 

[PLC1]

he pointed to documentation that it can't.

There is no documentation that carbon dioxide can't be a greenhouse gas.

 

[palerider]

It has to do with retransmitting light in different wavelengths.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed.

Palerider knows this, at least I think he does, but it doesn't fit with his agenda of telling the fellow conspiracy theorists what they want to hear.

What palerider knows is that you have provided a prime example of the terribly flawed pseudoscience that passes for climate science. What you just posted ranks high among the most stupid things I have ever heard any warmer say. The fact is that IR is absorbed by CO2, but what it absorbs is immediately emitted. IR passes through a CO2 molecule at, or very near the speed of light, which, by the way is the same speed it was going when it encountered the molecule being light. Its emission spectra tells us tha the IR that is absorbed is immediately emitted and further, it tells us that no energy is retained and the idea that it is released slowly is absolute BS. I would be interested in hearing how you believe that a molecule that has no mechanism by which to retain energy might slow down IR or hold on to it to release it slowly. The very idea of releasing light "slowly" is patently idiotic.

As to emitting at the same wavelenght that it absorbs, again, neither you, nor your sources have a clue. When IR is absorbed by CO2, it causes the molecule to vibrate and very often emit a photon. Even when a photon is not emitted, the vibration requires energy. Therefore, it is impossible for the CO2 molecule to emit the absorbed IR at the same wavelength at which it was absorbed because all of the energy is no longer present as some small bit was expended causing the vibration. That small bit of energy used in causing the vibration means that the molecule emits at a different wavelength and since CO2 absorbs in a very narrow wavelength, that means that the emission of one CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

Here is a formal paper on the topic of what happens to IR once it passes through a CO2 molecule. The author gives precise emission wavelengths. Feel free to reference said wavelengths against the absorption bands of CO2 and see for your self that the IR is not only not emitted at the same wavelength, but is emitted at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. I am sure that the math is way over your head, but he does make a pretty good effort to explain the mechanisms at work in a way that can be understood by a relatively intelligent layman.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/

Here is a clip from a paper published at the US Energy Information Administration:

http://www.eia.gov/renewable/afv/archive/index.cfm

CLIP: “What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.”

The fact PLC is that the claims of warmists are based on either a terribly flawed understanding of physics, or a deliberate mangling of physics. One is the result of stupidity and the other is malicious for a particular reason.

 

[palerider]

There is no documentation that carbon dioxide can't be a greenhouse gas.

Since there is no greenhouse effect within our atmosphere, it stands to reason that there can be no greenhouse gasses.

 

[dogtowner]

Since there is no greenhouse effect within our atmosphere, it stands to reason that there can be no greenhouse gasses.

now pale, you know as well as I do that in every single greenhouse on God's green earth there is CO2.O2, Nitrogen and a variety of other gasses present. what there seems to not be is greenhouse effect from CO2. H2O is another matter.

 

[palerider]

now pale, you know as well as I do that in every single greenhouse on God's green earth there is CO2.O2, Nitrogen and a variety of other gasses present. what there seems to not be is greenhouse effect from CO2. H2O is another matter.

It's my understanding that the glass, oddly enough, is what causes the greenhouse effect..I am not aware of any glass molecules floating around the atmosphere and CO2 certainly isn't anything like glass.

Did you catch that wiki article he posted? Guess he doesn't know that wiki is the last place one should look for credible information regarding climate science. I suppose he is unaware that they caught William Connolley, one of the editors of wiki altering, editing, and deleting more than 5000 articles on the climate to suit his personal taste.

 

[dogtowner]

It's my understanding that the glass, oddly enough, is what causes the greenhouse effect..I am not aware of any glass molecules floating around the atmosphere and CO2 certainly isn't anything like glass.

Did you catch that wiki article he posted? Guess he doesn't know that wiki is the last place one should look for credible information regarding climate science. I suppose he is unaware that they caught William Connolley, one of the editors of wiki altering, editing, and deleting more than 5000 articles on the climate to suit his personal taste.

well to be fair, warmers are kind of forced to use the rather small ring of sources all of which are complicit in shenanigans of one sort or other.