1.36 Parts out of `16,000 Drives Climate? Not the Sun?

[bleubird]

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!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 to the right of that band of maximum transmission. Note that CO2 blocks much better than H2O.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You made a simple and comprehensible but incorrect analogy.

1. The 16,000 blankets cover the whole earth. They leave NOTHING exposed.

Parts of the IR band--look at the graph.

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."

The issue is where they cover, not how thick they are.

But keep arguing. That's all you Leftists know how to do, even after you have repeatedly lost.

You're repeating standard conservative talking points that have long been rebutted.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, almost all of the CO2 and trapped heat in the atmosphere is from non-human factors that are part of the natural cycle. Yet, the small amount humans have added can have massively destructive consequences.

An analogy:
Imagine a natural water basin in the mountains that developed over many centuries due to non-human factors. The size of the basin and the amount of water it can handle is a product of the amount of naturally produced water that drains into it. A group of people notice that the basin never gets above a certain level and thus does not spill down into a valley below it. So, they build a civilization down in the valley. They also start to cut trees from the slopes above the basin causing soil erosion and thus a 1% increase in the water that drains into the basin. That added 1% causes the water to begin to erode the lip of the basin above the village the lower the lip gets the more water it contacts, in a cycle that leads the lip to erode even below the prior water level before human impact. Now the whole natural wall that keeps the water back is weakened and will soon come crashing down destroying the village and their way of life.

The 99% of the water that now threatens them is the water that was already there and from non-human factors. Yet is was the added 1% that altered the natural equilibrium and caused notable changes that then threatened their way of life that was allowed by and was a by-product of those prior conditions that now no longer exist.

Keep in mind that the natural CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the resulting heat trapping were already at their historic max levels in their natural cycle when we started having our impact. Thus, every little bit we have added in the last 150 years puts the cycle at levels above natural historic highs, which means historically rare or unprecedented effects. Had the natural cycle been at a low point, then our additions would merely speed up the cycle but the values would be well within normal range, and thus the impact completely different.

 

[Starman]

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.

 

[Jokodo]

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>

Your figures don't add anything to the discussion. Those above spectra show the actual absorption rates given the atmosphere's current composition, not what would be absorbed by an atmosphere solely consisting of the respective gasses. So, contrary to your interpretation, that clearly show that, at only 400ppm, CO2 is very much capable of blocking 100% of the outgoing radiation at certain wavelengths, such as around 4.5 micrometers and in a broad range between appr. 14 and 18 micrometers - radiation that is absorbed neither by oxygen nor water vapor. It's obvious from this that any increase in CO2 will decrease the total outgoing radiation -- it will widen the bands where nothing gets out due to CO, for a start --, thus adding heat to the Earth's surface.

 

[fromderinside]

Jokodo this is the pseudoscience thread. You have to present pseudoscientific explanations and back them up with priestly stuff like "In the beginning...."

Duh

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You keep posting long-discredited propaganda from the deniers and complain about unscientific stuff?!?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The analogy I prefer is a swimming pool's filter pump vs a garden hose. The main cycle is inherently balanced.

 

[Starman]

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'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.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Your "15,000 ppm" really mean nothing, because the graph already shows how much carbon dioxide and water vapour respectively absorb at current concentrations. That it absorbs more at higher wavelengths also means little, because those lower wavelengths aren't where the outgoing radiation peaks. Though even if it did, the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs at alone means that more carbon dioxide = more absorption of outgoing radiation.

 

[crispy]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You keep obsessing about the irrelevant PPM number. What's important is how much is absorbed--and that's what that chart is showing.

- - - Updated - - -

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!

 

[crispy]

Do you work at NASA? There's a glaring unit error here!

And im missing a paranthesis

 

[bigfield]

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

Here is what I wrote:

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.

In no way does the presence of oxygen and ozone cancel or make redundant the absoptivity of carbon dioxide. There is no contradiction.

The combined absoptivity of carbon dioxide, water and ozone is greater than the absorptivity of water vapour and ozone alone. Subtracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would decrease the amount of outgoing radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, and therefore would decrease the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.

Further, the relatively low concentration of ozone means that it makes a relatively small amount of contribution to the greenhouse effect:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060330...nks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

Note that O₂ is not a greenhouse gas.

If your idea of a reputable source is an unattributed blog, then you're way out of your depth.

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.
And you talk about "depth."

Good boy. You were supposed to do that when you first posted the quote. One wonder why you need to perform a second search for the quote when you could have simply provided us with the source that you used.

When I pasted part of the quote into Google, I received 5 results:

Search results here

The search results show that you probably cut and pasted the quote from globalwarmingliars.blogspot.com, as it is the only site that contains the quote exactly as it is typed in yuor post. If that wasn't your source then that's one hell of a typographic coincidence.

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.

Actually, that source doesn't contain the quote that you posted; it only contains snippets of it. Considering that the full text of Lewis' letter is available online, it is baffling as to why you would source the quote from globalwarmingliars.blogspot.com, and then in follow-up, cite physicsworld.com.

Here is the full text of the resignation letter:

https://web.archive.org/web/2013123...signation-from-the-american-physical-society/

Lewis does not point to any particular problems with the science itself or particular problems with the APS statement, offering only vague criticisms. Instead he cites accountant Andrew Montford, who is not an expert on climate science, let alone physics or any other scientific field. Lewis himself was a physicist, but his work was not related to climatology.

The APS's response is here: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

The APS's statement on climate change: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Note that the APS was very reserved in making claims regarding the human contribution to climate change.

 

[Perspicuo]

I guy who claims he believes in a book that says the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago and that followers of Christ can bring back the dead to life and are immune to poisons... thinks he can lecture others on science.

The amazing human capacity for self-delusion never fails to astound me every single time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

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.
But this seems to just be you talking shit without knowing what you're really going on about.


As usual.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Haeckel's only relevance today is due to Creationists insisting on digging his corpse to use as a punching bag.

 

[Duke Leto]

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.

Starman is an Aussie?

Had him pegged as one of America's home grown conservative sociopaths... Oh well, live and learn...