97% of Climate Science papers show that humans are responsible for global warming.

Uh-huh, and now we see the denial reflex in action. I post truth and fact, and give sources of these, and you respond with what exactly? Denying it regardless of truth and implying my knowledge is lacking..LOL..And your logic comes from the same place poor debaters does, his butt.. thank you for playing..

 

Posting "truth and fact" without understanding what you read does not bring about knowledge. And I'm not "implying" your knowledge is lacking; I'm stating it. My "logic" comes from physics classes while majoring in physics at ISU and a lifelong interest in science and physics.

If you have the patience, Poor Debater, he's all yours because I'm out of patience. And your explanations are right on; too bad gs can't learn from them.

 

Apparently not, because up until now you've been convinced that the thermal properties of CO2 play a part in the greenhouse effect. They don't.

I did address that point, but since it's clear you don't read what I write, let me repeat myself: "Thermal insulation and photon absorptivity are entirely different effects, with different causes, so they aren't related. Some things (like nitrogen) are poor emitters of IR, poor absorbers of IR, and good thermal insulators. CO2 is also a good thermal insulator, but it is a good emitter and absorber of IR." There is no violation of any scientific law.

As I have previously noted, when you say something that's false, I'm going to call you out on it. Every. Single. Time. You made a false claim about air: you said that air is a poor thermal insulator. That's not true: air is an excellent thermal insulator. I corrected your mistake. You were wrong. I was right.

You also made yet another mistake. You mistakenly thought that the thermal insulative properties of CO2 had something to do with the greenhouse effect. That's also not true. I called you out on that one too. I corrected your mistake. You were wrong. I was right.

We are rapidly finding out that gslack is entirely capable of making multiple and self-contradictory mistakes. Don't worry, though: I'm going to keep on correcting them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A good absorber is a good emitter. Remember? Go back to Wikipedia and read it again. Or go back to high school and take a science class.

So you're now admitting that thermal insulation plays no part in the greenhouse effect. In the very same post in which you ridicule the idea. I wish you'd make up your mind what you believe.

And again, the answer is both. And again, only the emissive and absorptive properties of CO2 play a role in the greenhouse effect, while the insulative properties play no part. I suspect that if I keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, there is a slight possiblility that you might learn something. But I might be wrong.

Utterly false, and you will never be able to document even a single such experiment. A good emitter (of radiation) is a good absorber (of radiation), but radiative absorption and thermal insulation are two completely different things.

Also utterly false, and a complete misunderstanding of the way nature works.

There is no problem with the theory. There is, however, a huge problem with your education.

Only you could cite a Wikipedia article that fails to support your case in even the smallest sense. Thermal conductivity of a gas is measured in Watts per meter-Kelvin. Thermal conductivity of a solid is measured in Watts per meter-Kelvin. But wait! Thermal conductivity of a liquid is measured in: Watts per meter-Kelvin. If you have actual evidence that shows what you're saying is true, please present it. Otherwise, you were just plain wrong. Again.

In the first place, I never said that. In the second place, gee, explain what? Explain why Table 1 of your own linked source tells us that the thermal conductivity of Aluminum is measured in Watts per meter-Kelvin, and the thermal conductivity of water is measured in Watts per meter-Kelvin, and the thermal conductivity of air is also measured in Watts per meter-Kelvin? Explain why your own source is saying that I'm right and you're wrong? Explain why your own source is telling you that air has the lowest thermal conductivity (and therefore is the best thermal insulator) of the five materials they cite, and by a long shot?

Explain why your own source is supporting every single thing I've said, and shows that every single thing you've said is competely wrong? Here's my explanation: the guy who wrote that web page knows what he's talking about.

You were the one who asserted that thermal conductivity was a different process in a gas than in a solid. Oddly enough, the rules for thermal conductivity apply to a solid exactly the same as a gas, which means that -- once again -- you were wrong.

 

No it's not, silly person. Heat is the average kinetic energy of molecules. Infrared radiation is composed of photons.

But you're not the only person who has the same misconception, so I don't fault you too much for that one.

 

LOL, no your of excuses and BS.. Thanks again..

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Do you have a point? A real one? Seriously I can't tell anymore because your childish attempts to wreck debate by quoting each sentence and ruining any form of context in what your quoting, ruins it for me..

So care to actually address my post properly or can we expect the same nonsense single sentence quotes from you? If you can't debate don't. Simple really... LOL, your lack of a life and desperation shows when you resort to pedantic and immature methods..

In all your nonsense you argued against your own previous claims and you're pedantic methods are the cause... ROFL.. Idiotic, completely...You're words from your previous post...

"They're exactly the same, and measured in exactly the same units."

That was your claim when I said you attributed the thermal properties of a gas with that of a solid... Now you claim this...

"Thermal conductivity of a gas is measured in Watts per meter-Kelvin. Thermal conductivity of a solid is measured in Watts per meter-Kelvin. But wait! Thermal conductivity of a liquid is measured in: Watts per meter-Kelvin. "

So which is it now? is it measured the exact same as you claimed before or is it measured differently as I said? You ding a ling, you just swapped sides of the debate a few times in your pedantic nonsense and you think nobody will notice????

ROFL, I know you think everyone sees your incessant quoting each line and doesn't bother. That's your whole shtick, we see that. Well just because I don't bother to humor your nonsense, doesn't mean I don't read it.. LOL, goof..

 

LOL, where to start..

A photon is the Quantum (smallest measurement) of light,and the smallest measurement of all EM radiation. Not specific to infrared radiation. It was developed by Einstein to explain the way light didn't always follow the classical wave theory. it's called wave-particle duality. meaning it shows properties of both a wave and a particle.

When heat manifests in our environment (leaves the heated object or body) it does so by conduction, convection, and radiation. So when we discuss IR radiation in atmospheric and climatological discussions IR is one of the manifestations of heat . Anything heated produces some amount of IR...

Glad you don;t fault me much for it considering it was a proper and correct assessment anyway.. How kind of you..ROFL.

 

If I'm ruining your fun, please feel free to go away. I won't miss you in the slightest.

I haven't switched at all. I said originally that thermal conductivity in a gas and in a solid were the same, and measured in the same units, while you said originally that thermal conductivity in a gas and in a solid were completely different. YOUR OWN LINKED SOURCE proved that you were wrong and I was right.

 

LOL, no sorry but I won't "go away". And your asking me to leave doesn't help your position here...

And yes you did, your words are right there and here in this thread.. Unlike you I quote you fully and any single line quote of yours is backed up by the full quote above verbatim. You changed your position and claim quick as you could. We see it right there..

 

We see it right where? Oddly enough, you can't post a single quote that backs up your absurd claim. Because there are no such quotes.

 

I already did in my previous posts, your dishonesty in this is transparent.. You're circle talk nonsense gave you away too plainly. I don't have to repeat what we all saw and you do, and why bother? You aren't going to be honest about it anyway we see that. When you were confronted with it you deny and keep on talking.. Sorry but you did it to yourself.

 

And you have not yet pointed out a single case where I have contradicted myself in the slightest. You're just blowing smoke. As you well know.

 

So you're claiming now you didn't change your position? LOL,okay then you just don't know that conduction, convection, and radiation use different equations for heat transfer calculations? And you didn't knowthat the temperature in a gas changes the thermal properties of that gas? Got it...

Okay let's put on our learning caps...Here's a simple explanation from NASA..

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/heat.html

Now the equations...

http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/heat-transfer-formula.html

and

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~allan/heat_trans/page4/page4f.html

As you can see there each form of heat transfer uses a different equation. And as for a gas we already know from NASA that the temperature of a gas changes it's state and it's state effects the calculations.

Now you should recall earlier when I stated that you tried to claim the fact they are both measured in the same units, means they are measured the same way.Well no they aren't and we see that clearly. They are measured in different ways, but use Kelvin as the temperature scale in most scientific applications. Using the same scale is not the same thing as measuring the same way.

I hope that clarifies things for you.