Coby Beck wrote:

According to all of the scientific literature and climate experts I have
read, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9 to 30% towards the overall
greenhouse
effect.

There is ZERO evidence that CO2 contributes even the low
figure, 9%, that you quote. There's 597 times as much oxygen in the
atmosphere than there is CO2. 2,231 times as much nitrogen. 57 to 114
times as much H20. And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much
difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as compared to
CO2.

So how are we supposed to believe that CO2, which comprises
0.035% of the atmosphere contributes 9 to 30%. The evidence for this
opinion exists only in the fertile imagination of global warming whackos.
IOW, we're supposed to just take their word for it.

Claudius Denk wrote:
And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as compared to
CO2.


wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/wea00082.htm

wrote in message
oups.com...

Claudius Denk wrote:
And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as
compared to
CO2.


wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/wea00082.htm


Uh. There's nothing on this website that addresses the issue I presented.
Replacing the word radiative for thermal doesn't make much difference.
We're still expected to take their word for it.

Claudius Denk wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Claudius Denk wrote:

And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as
compared to
CO2.



wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/wea00082.htm



Uh. There's nothing on this website that addresses the issue I presented.
Replacing the word radiative for thermal doesn't make much difference.
We're still expected to take their word for it.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'thermal properties' of diatomic
oxygen & nitrogen in comparison with carbon dioxide. There is
ample evidence that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in specific
wavelengths that the Earth is very fond of emitting at, given
its temperature. In fact, they've built satellite infrared
sensors based on this very fact. Diatomic oxygen/nitrogen,
in contrast, do not absorb radiation so efficiently at outgoing
wavelenghts.

Of course, you do still have to take my word for it. But you
can go to the link below, and read some, and branch off other
links. You'll still have to take someone's word for it, of
course, unless you're going to start doing a lot of radiation
experiments in the laboratory.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/opsats/ge.../GOESmain.html


Scott

"Scott L" wrote

And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as
compared to
CO2.



wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/wea00082.htm



Uh. There's nothing on this website that addresses the issue I
presented. Replacing the word radiative for thermal doesn't make much
difference. We're still expected to take their word for it.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'thermal properties' of diatomic
oxygen & nitrogen in comparison with carbon dioxide.

Yes. It appears that nobody does. Including the AGW alarmists. We're
supposed to take their word on it despite the fact they can't produce any
evidence.

There is
ample evidence that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in specific
wavelengths that the Earth is very fond of emitting at, given
its temperature.

That's just fine and dandy. It's unfortunate that this, "ample evidence,"
seems to not exist anywhere but the fertile imagination of AGW whackos. And
this is further complicated by the fact that I do not have direct access to
the whacko imagination.

In fact, they've built satellite infrared
sensors based on this very fact.

That's just great. If they ever get around to publishing anything on this I
hope they make it available to the public.


Diatomic oxygen/nitrogen,
in contrast, do not absorb radiation so efficiently at outgoing
wavelenghts.

Thank you for this information. Now look at he subject heading of this post
and from that you can discern my next question.

Of course, you do still have to take my word for it. But you
can go to the link below,

I looked at your link. Unfortunately it seems to have nothing to do with
the issue I brought up at the beginning of this thread. If you think I
missed something on this website feel free to cut and paste it in your
response to this post.

and read some, and branch off other
links. You'll still have to take someone's word for it,

Ultimately, this is what all AGW arguments come down to: "Take our word on
it."

of
course, unless you're going to start doing a lot of radiation
experiments in the laboratory.

It's unfortunate that climatologists don't have your appreciation for
empirical methods.


http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/opsats/ge.../GOESmain.html


Scott

Claudius Denk wrote:
"Scott L" wrote


And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as
compared to
CO2.



wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/wea00082.htm



Uh. There's nothing on this website that addresses the issue I
presented. Replacing the word radiative for thermal doesn't make much
difference. We're still expected to take their word for it.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'thermal properties' of diatomic
oxygen & nitrogen in comparison with carbon dioxide.


Yes. It appears that nobody does. Including the AGW alarmists. We're
supposed to take their word on it despite the fact they can't produce any
evidence.

Um, so what *do* you mean by thermal properties of a molecule?

Scott

"Scott L" wrote

Um, so what *do* you mean by thermal properties of a molecule?

What do you think I mean?

"Claudius Denk" writes:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Claudius Denk wrote:
And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as
compared to
CO2.


wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/wea00082.htm


Uh. There's nothing on this website that addresses the issue I presented.
Replacing the word radiative for thermal doesn't make much difference.
We're still expected to take their word for it.


Please note that this idiot (who until recently was posting as Jim
McGinn, and has changed sock puppets recently to use this Claudius Denk
label) decide to post this dreck in at least two newsgroups independently,
instead of cross-posting. He's getting thoroughly trashed over in
sci.envionment, so I've stuck that in here. His post here is trying to
pretend that if he "corrects" his claim to cover radiative properties
instead of thermal properties, that he's magically right instead of even
more wrong.

"D Smith" wrote in message
...
"Claudius Denk" writes:


wrote in message
groups.com...

Claudius Denk wrote:
And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as
compared to
CO2.


wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/wea00082.htm


Uh. There's nothing on this website that addresses the issue I presented.
Replacing the word radiative for thermal doesn't make much difference.
We're still expected to take their word for it.


Please note that this idiot (who until recently was posting as Jim
McGinn, and has changed sock puppets recently to use this Claudius Denk
label) decide to post this dreck in at least two newsgroups independently,
instead of cross-posting. He's getting thoroughly trashed over in
sci.envionment, so I've stuck that in here. His post here is trying to
pretend that if he "corrects" his claim to cover radiative properties
instead of thermal properties, that he's magically right instead of even
more wrong.

I'm not making any claims here, retard. It's you whackos crying wolf.

"Scott L" wrote

Um, so what *do* you mean by thermal properties of a molecule?


What do you think I mean?

eyeroll

If you don't want to / can't answer a question, just
say so.

Maybe you should look into getting a dictionary. If that doesn't help my
next best suggestion is to get a tutor. Or you can wait until you get to
high school and, I'm sure, one of the teachers will eventually educate you
on this.

Claudius Denk