http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/alaska_tmap.html
It's the blob!
click on the one near the coast half way to Cook Inlet.53 F!
It's the blob!
click on the one near the coast half way to Cook Inlet.53 F!
You contradict yourself and your outrageous claims of anthropogenic global warming.
Oxygen and ozone account for the overwhelming majority of absorption in your own curve. I drew red arrows pointing at your self-contradiction.
View attachment 3106
Look at the spectrums. CO2 absorbs in some bands that water does not.
That's it? That's YOUR chemistry lesson?
1. Chemists call the plural of spectrum "spectra." That's your first mistake at trying to give others lessons in chemistry.
2. Water vapor has a concentration in the atmosphere of about 15,000 ppmv.
Anthropogenic CO2 increases at 1.36 ppmv per YEAR, over the past 50 YEARS!
Humans account for a small fraction of this 1.36 ppm.
And so you are going to return to the pre-industrial age, at the diktats of hypocrites Al Gore and Barack Obama and U.N. ?
Go ahead. I'd like to see you do that.
Loren: You have 16,000 blankets on your body. Don't you think a blanket on your head is going to make a difference?
I make a simple and comprehensible analogy, and you try to spin it aside.
1. The 16,000 blankets cover the whole earth. They leave NOTHING exposed.
2. BUT IF THEY DID, your nonsensical point still fails. I have lived in a very cold state, and had a good time outside with nothing covering my head,
and a great deal less than a 16,000 blanket equivalent covering my body. One sixteen thousandth of a winter coat would be far less than a tiny sheet of saran wrap for the equivalent "blanket."
But keep arguing. That's all you Leftists know how to do, even after you have repeatedly lost.
View attachment 3106
Look to the right of that band of maximum transmission. Note that CO2 blocks much better than H2O.
View attachment 3106
Look to the right of that band of maximum transmission. Note that CO2 blocks much better than H2O.
Look to the shorter wavelength side and water vapor is FAR more effective at absorbing radiation.
Look at the entirety of the curves and clearly water vapor is dominant. Moreover water vapor is
15,000 ppm. Carbon dioxide is ~400 ppm. Oxygen is 190,000 ppm.
<snip>
View attachment 3106
Look to the right of that band of maximum transmission. Note that CO2 blocks much better than H2O.
Look to the shorter wavelength side and water vapor is FAR more effective at absorbing radiation.
Look at the entirety of the curves and clearly water vapor is dominant. Moreover water vapor is
15,000 ppm. Carbon dioxide is ~400 ppm. Oxygen is 190,000 ppm.
Stop misusing science for petty political purposes. Al Gore has been doing that for years.
His hypocrisy is disgraceful, flying around in his private jet, like Obama flies around in Air Force One.
The nonsense you foisted is about as unscientific as Haeckel's Drawings, which were discredited 150 years ago,
and had been used to brainwash kids in school until at least 2000.
I have a bank account with a hundred thousand bucks in it.
Every month, exactly $16,000 is drawn out to pay the Water Corporation, and exactly $16,000 is deposited by the geosciences foundation - until this year. This year, there is an additional monthly payment to the Carbon Trust, of $1.36. Of course, that is not a problem, and never will be; $1.36 is a minuscule fraction of $100,000, and is totally dwarfed by the existing withdrawal of $16,000 a month.
Clearly nothing ever needs to be done about this. To even contemplate taking action with regards to the Carbon Trust debit would be crazy, given that $1.36 is essentially nothing when compared to the $16,000 we pay to Water Corp.
Anyone who suggests that we need to think about what effect the $1.36 per month might have in the future is clearly a conspiracy theorist.
Look to the shorter wavelength side and water vapor is FAR more effective at absorbing radiation.
Look at the entirety of the curves and clearly water vapor is dominant. Moreover water vapor is
15,000 ppm. Carbon dioxide is ~400 ppm. Oxygen is 190,000 ppm.
Stop misusing science for petty political purposes. Al Gore has been doing that for years.
His hypocrisy is disgraceful, flying around in his private jet, like Obama flies around in Air Force One.
The nonsense you foisted is about as unscientific as Haeckel's Drawings, which were discredited 150 years ago,
and had been used to brainwash kids in school until at least 2000.
You keep posting long-discredited propaganda from the deniers and complain about unscientific stuff?!?!
You keep posting long-discredited propaganda from the deniers and complain about unscientific stuff?!?!
You're right. What was I thinking. Everyone cut carbon dioxide emissions 80%. Guaranteed to solve all our problems, from
crime to terrorism.
Just because the higher energy, shorter wavelengths are more effectively absorbed by water vapor, at 15,000 ppm, means nothing.
You will always - ALWAYS come up with your spin to justify anything you want to justify.
I'm a "free-thinking" atheist now too. Smarter, more moral, all in just an instant. Cool.
2. Water vapor has a concentration in the atmosphere of about 15,000 ppmv.
Anthropogenic CO2 increases at 1.36 ppmv per YEAR, over the past 50 YEARS!
Humans account for a small fraction of this 1.36 ppm.
And so you are going to return to the pre-industrial age, at the diktats of hypocrites Al Gore and Barack Obama and U.N. ?
Go ahead. I'd like to see you do that.
You keep posting long-discredited propaganda from the deniers and complain about unscientific stuff?!?!
You're right. What was I thinking. Everyone cut carbon dioxide emissions 80%. Guaranteed to solve all our problems, from
crime to terrorism.
Just because the higher energy, shorter wavelengths are more effectively absorbed by water vapor, at 15,000 ppm, means nothing.
You will always - ALWAYS come up with your spin to justify anything you want to justify.
I'm a "free-thinking" atheist now too. Smarter, more moral, all in just an instant. Cool.
2. Water vapor has a concentration in the atmosphere of about 15,000 ppmv.
Anthropogenic CO2 increases at 1.36 ppmv per YEAR, over the past 50 YEARS!
Humans account for a small fraction of this 1.36 ppm.
And so you are going to return to the pre-industrial age, at the diktats of hypocrites Al Gore and Barack Obama and U.N. ?
Go ahead. I'd like to see you do that.
Lets just make a rough simple estimation of this appearent small fraction shall we?
Lets make some assumptions:
1. with no greenhouse effect the earth would be 0 K(elvin).
2. with the current greenhouse effect the tempeture of earth is 293 K.
3. 1 ppm of CO2 increases the temperature just as much as 1 ppm of H2O
The over the last 50 years, at a rate of 1.36 ppm/year the temperature would have increase this amount:
293 K * (15000 ppm / (15000 ppm + 50 years * 1.36 ppm/year) -293 K = 1.32 K
Don't tell us that this 1.36 ppm/year rate is insignificant. And if you want to refute this calculation, please bring on some real actual calculations, instead of making up your own. Mine is just a simple illustration to show you that it is not insignificant.
Do you work at NASA? There's a glaring unit error here!
You contradict yourself and your outrageous claims of anthropogenic global warming.
Oxygen and ozone account for the overwhelming majority of absorption in your own curve. I drew red arrows pointing at your self-contradiction.
View attachment 3106
The contribution of carbon dioxide becomes much clearer when the cumulative absorption is shown:
<figure>
It's quite clear from the above that carbon dioxide contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect, trapping radiation not absorbed by water vapour, oxygen or ozone. The fact the water vapour absorbs more radiation than carbon dioxide does is irrelevant, as the greenhouse effect of water vapour is not disputed, is universally-known among the experts, and does not negate the additional greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.
If you are so lazy that you can't look up this quote and find it elsewhere, I'll do it for you. tsk, tsk.If your idea of a reputable source is an unattributed blog, then you're way out of your depth.
And you talk about "depth."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/14/aps-responds-to-climate-change-accusations
One hundred sixty physicists echoed Professor Lewis' words. That is considerably more depth than you will ever have in your life.
Haeckel's drawings were not even published 150 years ago. It would be a wonderful trait of science if we could discredit findings 9 years before the findings are published.The nonsense you foisted is about as unscientific as Haeckel's Drawings, which were discredited 150 years ago,
and had been used to brainwash kids in school until at least 2000.
Your source is globalwarmingliars.blogspot.com.au
If your idea of a reputable source is an unattributed blog, then you're way out of your depth.
I'm fairly well certain the source is OP's own blog. He uses that hopelessly outdated website to create a "source" for whatever topic he wishes to "discuss" here, then links to it as if it were something other than a collection of gibberish on a platform that was old when MySpace was popular.