Re: Take Their Word For It


"Scott L" <scottlwi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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/askasci/wea00/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/geo/GOES/GOESmain.html


Scott


.

Quantcast