http://i58.tinypic.com/sm3yn4.png


Quote:

The above figure is taken from an often cited paper, including by the IPCC, titled “Earth’s Annual Global Energy Budget” by Kiehl and Trenberth from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1997, with notations that we added. The top curve shows how the intensity of the average heat leaving the earth’s surface varies with infrared wavelength. The lower jagged curve is that leaving at the top of the atmosphere under average cloudy conditions. The area under a curve is its total heat in watts per square meter. Note the large downward notch leaving the atmosphere in the 12 to 18 microns range caused by CO2. It is such a strong absorber here that it cannot release its heat outward until the density of its molecules drops significantly at high altitudes where the temperature is about –60 F. Hence the low radiation rate. If the amount of CO2 increases, the escape altitude moves up causing both the temperature and heat loss to drop further. The area of the CO2 notch below the dashed line is about 22 watts per square meter and represents the impact of the total CO2 given the existing clouds and water vapor. Doubling CO2, taking over 100 years at the current growth rate, would move the notch downward and increase the area by about 3.5 watts per square meter, or 16%. When the heat loss drops, since the net heat from the sun remains at 235, the atmosphere gains heat and warms about 1 degree C until its emissions rise back to 235, restoring balance. A warmer atmosphere reduces the heat loss from the surface, and it also warms about 1 C. This is all that CO2 does. And very slowly. The feedback processes can increase or decrease this warming, as they do for any other temperature change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/25/i-am-a-climate-skeptic-who-believes-in-global-warming/

Bat Boy posts from another Koch Brothers funded site.

Oh, what were the odds?

Marla wrote on Oct 18^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

Bat Boy posts from another Koch Brothers funded site. Oh, what were the odds?

If that's synthetic latex your wearing Miss Muffet you better thank those poor old Kotch brothers you like putting sh!t on, for providing the oil so they can be made and you can wear them.

Mine is made from climate deniers.

Marla wrote on Oct 18^th, 2015 at 1:46pm:

Mine is made from climate deniers.

No such thing as climate deniers.....???

Only people that dispute the rubbish the IPCC and other algorian organisations spew out to the general public.

Marla wrote on Oct 18^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

Bat Boy posts from another Koch Brothers funded site.

Source please.

Ajax wrote on Oct 18^th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Marla wrote on Oct 18th, 2015 at 1:46pm: Mine is made from climate deniers. No such thing as climate deniers.....??? Only people that dispute the rubbish the IPCC and other algorian organisations spew out to the general public.

Correction: it's made from the aborted fetuses of climate deniers. I didn't look at the label.

lee wrote on Oct 18^th, 2015 at 4:19pm:

Marla wrote on Oct 18th, 2015 at 1:06pm: Bat Boy posts from another Koch Brothers funded site. Source please.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-32lQx3pJkNI/UETLwsH8TWI/AAAAAAAACx8/dehqSFoPTQo/s1600/Damn-kids-GET-OFF-MY-LAWN.jpg

So, once again an appeal from ignorance.

lee wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:16am:

So, once again an appeal from ignorance.

says the crack smoking kiddie fiddler

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

says the crack smoking kiddie fiddler

Your ad homs merely show the paucity of your argument.

lee wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:38am: says the crack smoking kiddie fiddler Your ad homs merely show the paucity of your argument.

:D :D yes mr jevons paradox profiteer  :D :D