Remember me
▼ Content

The reason I don't believe the hypothesis doubling CO2 increases temp by 1 C is


The reason I don't believe the hypothesis doubling CO2 increases temp by 1 C is03-02-2019 19:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(934)
because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface so why would each doubling of CO2 beyond the first 10 ppm CO2 increase temp by another 1 C?
03-02-2019 22:59
Wake
★★★★★
(3952)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface so why would each doubling of CO2 beyond the first 10 ppm CO2 increase temp by another 1 C?


Actually it's about 200 ppm that captures about that amount of the IR in the absorption bands of CO2. But this is essentially nothing so it really doesn't matter.

If you have an hour to spare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDNcWxvy4ds

This will demonstrate both the mistakes of the IPCC and do it with their own theories of what CO2 is doing.
03-02-2019 23:09
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
.....because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface....



10 ppm of CO2 captures 98% of infrared from the Earth's surface? Where did you get that from?
03-02-2019 23:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface so why would each doubling of CO2 beyond the first 10 ppm CO2 increase temp by another 1 C?


It doesn't. Infrared light emitted by the Earth's surface (and by CO2 as well) is easily seen from space.

Most infrared light is not absorbed by CO2 at all. Wrong frequency, you see.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-02-2019 23:18
03-02-2019 23:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3952)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface so why would each doubling of CO2 beyond the first 10 ppm CO2 increase temp by another 1 C?


It doesn't. Infrared light emitted by the Earth's surface (and by CO2 as well) is easily seen from space.

Most infrared light is not absorbed by CO2 at all. Wrong frequency, you see.


So you can see it from space but your can't interpret is huh? Most of the IR is absorbed by the water content in the atmosphere, translated to conduction and moved mechanically into the stratosphere where it must radiate. Then the exactly color of it is changed due to the power being translated from molecule to molecule.

How ever the total power is calculable by the weather satellites that you don't believe can be constructed to do so.

It sure must be lonely being so stupid that you can't find a friend in a group of mentally challenged children.
04-02-2019 00:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface so why would each doubling of CO2 beyond the first 10 ppm CO2 increase temp by another 1 C?


It doesn't. Infrared light emitted by the Earth's surface (and by CO2 as well) is easily seen from space.

Most infrared light is not absorbed by CO2 at all. Wrong frequency, you see.


So you can see it from space
Yes, Wake. You can see it from space.
Wake wrote:
but your can't interpret is huh?
It is interpreted Wake. All observations are interpreted by the observer. Even those augmented by instruments.
Wake wrote:
Most of the IR is absorbed by the water content in the atmosphere, translated to conduction and moved mechanically into the stratosphere where it must radiate.

WRONG. You are AGAIN denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. MOST of the infrared light from Earth is from the surface itself. There is no magick cutoff point to radiance!
Wake wrote:
Then the exactly color of it is changed due to the power being translated from molecule to molecule.

Earth emits in many frequencies, Wake. All of them in the infrared band.
Wake wrote:
How ever the total power is calculable by the weather satellites

No, it isn't Wake. You don't how much light the satellite sees is the result of reflections or scattering. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Weather satellites do not measure temperature, Wake.
Wake wrote:
that you don't believe can be constructed to do so.

They can't. No satellite can measure the absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
It sure must be lonely being so stupid that you can't find a friend in a group of mentally challenged children.

...and your usual insults.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-02-2019 00:19
04-02-2019 00:36
Wake
★★★★★
(3952)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface so why would each doubling of CO2 beyond the first 10 ppm CO2 increase temp by another 1 C?


It doesn't. Infrared light emitted by the Earth's surface (and by CO2 as well) is easily seen from space.

Most infrared light is not absorbed by CO2 at all. Wrong frequency, you see.


So you can see it from space
Yes, Wake. You can see it from space.
Wake wrote:
but your can't interpret is huh?
It is interpreted Wake. All observations are interpreted by the observer. Even those augmented by instruments.
Wake wrote:
Most of the IR is absorbed by the water content in the atmosphere, translated to conduction and moved mechanically into the stratosphere where it must radiate.

WRONG. You are AGAIN denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. MOST of the infrared light from Earth is from the surface itself. There is no magick cutoff point to radiance!
Wake wrote:
Then the exactly color of it is changed due to the power being translated from molecule to molecule.

Earth emits in many frequencies, Wake. All of them in the infrared band.
Wake wrote:
How ever the total power is calculable by the weather satellites

No, it isn't Wake. You don't how much light the satellite sees is the result of reflections or scattering. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Weather satellites do not measure temperature, Wake.
Wake wrote:
that you don't believe can be constructed to do so.

They can't. No satellite can measure the absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
It sure must be lonely being so stupid that you can't find a friend in a group of mentally challenged children.

...and your usual insults.


And again, when you are stuck for an answer you pretend to not understand the questions. More demonstrations for the viewers.
04-02-2019 21:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7133)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
because the first 10 ppm CO2 already captured 98% of IR coming off Earth surface so why would each doubling of CO2 beyond the first 10 ppm CO2 increase temp by another 1 C?


It doesn't. Infrared light emitted by the Earth's surface (and by CO2 as well) is easily seen from space.

Most infrared light is not absorbed by CO2 at all. Wrong frequency, you see.


So you can see it from space
Yes, Wake. You can see it from space.
Wake wrote:
but your can't interpret is huh?
It is interpreted Wake. All observations are interpreted by the observer. Even those augmented by instruments.
Wake wrote:
Most of the IR is absorbed by the water content in the atmosphere, translated to conduction and moved mechanically into the stratosphere where it must radiate.

WRONG. You are AGAIN denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. MOST of the infrared light from Earth is from the surface itself. There is no magick cutoff point to radiance!
Wake wrote:
Then the exactly color of it is changed due to the power being translated from molecule to molecule.

Earth emits in many frequencies, Wake. All of them in the infrared band.
Wake wrote:
How ever the total power is calculable by the weather satellites

No, it isn't Wake. You don't how much light the satellite sees is the result of reflections or scattering. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Weather satellites do not measure temperature, Wake.
Wake wrote:
that you don't believe can be constructed to do so.

They can't. No satellite can measure the absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
It sure must be lonely being so stupid that you can't find a friend in a group of mentally challenged children.

...and your usual insults.


And again, when you are stuck for an answer you pretend to not understand the questions. More demonstrations for the viewers.


What question is that, Wake? You aren't asking any. You are just angry and insulting people.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate The reason I don't believe the hypothesis doubling CO2 increases temp by 1 C is:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.525-04-2019 03:20
Even if Democrats spend 100 trillion dollars and reduce CO2 in air to 100 ppm temperature won't chang124-04-2019 21:42
CO2 is O2C is order to cash so CO2 is profitable?123-04-2019 11:24
15 ppm O3 capture 98% of UV so what makes IPCC think 15 ppm CO2 don't capture 98% of those 3 bands of019-04-2019 16:27
Rising CO2 on declining nutrition in food is big issue, TED talk hears019-04-2019 15:32
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact