I thought you guys were "winning"...?

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Since at 2 x 10^-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz Hug ( :lol: I love that guy's name) who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture.

Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.


And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit.

In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a "gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Buck's fave) has one of the best comments we've read on this subject:


"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."​

We can safely ballpark water vapor as being responsible for more than 95% of all the greenhouse effect, with oxygen and nitrogen playing no role and carbon dioxide being relatively insignificant... particularly the even smaller human-produced part.

TL : DR : IHTD
This is blasphemy. How dare you question the wisdom of the Prophet Al!!!!!
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
This is blasphemy. How dare you question the wisdom of the Prophet Al!!!!!
It's funny, the guys claiming "But...Science!!!" are only interested in soft science (ie. horseshit) and decry any mention of hard science like physics.

I love me some irony.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
This has also been debunked by the science. The very last statement in particular points to the unraveling of this entire argument. The water vapor band does not over-lap and dominate the CO2 band. Rather there is a positive feed back loop. The two are complimentary such that the net effect is greater than the sum of the two but not multiplicative.
CO2 spectra--Goody.jpg
I'll have to address the water vapour feedback later. Sleep is more important ATM.
I would cross reference this chart with NIST's database, though, to confirm the absorption spectra of water. I know the CO2 one is relatively accurate; 3 main peaks.
And yes, H2O dominates.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Fair enough. We can be software pirates. Good or bad strategy on developing the atomic bomb? (or just warfare period)

I don't mind sitting on the sidelines watching war in the middle east at all. But if we are going to get involved, I'd prefer we play more than just the tip hoping for sloppy seconds.
You see, if Obama get Arab boots to be the fodder this time, you must thank him for that.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Ok, forget the 97% number..

How about the fact every international science academy supports IPCC's analysis?

That'd be 100%
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Yet you simply omit the fact that nearly 70% of scientists cited "No position because of inadequate data".

Your side is a small minority with lots of mouthpieces, it's as simple as that.
You're an idiot. You think the IPCC position is the minority?

You haven't even put forth an argument or a citation. You have literally NOTHING.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
View attachment 3258524
I'll have to address the water vapour feedback later. Sleep is more important ATM.
I would cross reference this chart with NIST's database, though, to confirm the absorption spectra of water. I know the CO2 one is relatively accurate; 3 main peaks.
And yes, H2O dominates.
You are going to have to cite a study. The chart doesn't reflect current scientific findings.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
14 fucking pages of this shit. I post link upon link of peer reviewed studies and position statements from major scientific foundations and I'll give credit to Jahbrudda and Heckler for trying to put forth something scientific but all of the rest of the responses are literally trollery to bury good arguments which took hours to type out which were never rebutted.

The fact that conservatives toe a line says it all. I even linked a trace of the funding for denial, yep, it comes from conservative groups.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
14 fucking pages of this shit. I post link upon link of peer reviewed studies and position statements from major scientific foundations and I'll give credit to Jahbrudda and Heckler for trying to put forth something scientific but all of the rest of the responses are literally trollery to bury good arguments which took hours to type out which were never rebutted.

The fact that conservatives toe a line says it all. I even linked a trace of the funding for denial, yep, it comes from conservative groups.
Exact same conclusion you'll get in any of the ACC threads on RIU
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
This has also been debunked by the science. The very last statement in particular points to the unraveling of this entire argument. The water vapor band does not over-lap and dominate the CO2 band. Rather there is a positive feed back loop. The two are complimentary such that the net effect is greater than the sum of the two but not multiplicative.

As for there being a breaking point beyond which the CO2 loses effecacy as a greenhouse gas, I'm not sure how to proceed with out a more detailed argument regarding this (is it in chapter 9 which you suggested I read?) aside from the persistence of the CO2. More takes longer to clear away. However, I do doubt this maximum absorption notion and look forward to debating this further. So I will skip that for now and focus on water vapor and the positive feedback loop I mentioned.

Water vapor is not only the most dominant greenhouse gas, it is the very reason why the climate is so sensitive to CO2. Unlike external factors such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation. The rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapor levels to 'normal levels' in short time. This explains the hurricanes...

The proportions of water and CO2 heat absorption are confirmed by measurements of infra-red returning to the earth. You can find them in (Kiehl 1997 and Evans 2006) if you're interested in the proportions of the feedback loop. I know you love numbers. The calculation of a proportion definitely indicates the existence of a positive feedback loop. They didn't just guess it, they measured the proportion.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as a result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently, CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger. I'll be reading chapter 9 as you suggested.
Here it is again, feedback loop explained. The claim that skeptics make about water vapor debunked.
 

earnest_voice

Well-Known Member
You're an idiot. You think the IPCC position is the minority?

You haven't even put forth an argument or a citation. You have literally NOTHING.


but all of the rest of the responses are literally trollery to bury good arguments which took hours to type out which were never rebutted.
All i see is a whole lot of copy and pastes from you. Now you've given your anarcho-whatevathefuk a rest you need something else to harp on about. Gore would be proud.

No if only you climate scientists could get just one thing right, it would actually sure up your position immensely, until then; the sky is not falling.
 




All i see is a whole lot of copy and pastes from you. Now you've given your anarcho-whatevathefuk a rest you need something else to harp on about. Gore would be proud.

No if only you climate scientists could get just one thing right, it would actually sure up your position immensely, until then; the sky is not falling.
not a single damn person likes you.

tell us all about how you were in on the plot to get bin laden, armchair patton.

that is, if you're not too busy with holocaust denial and joining white supremacy groups.

you guya must have changed the name to tacoburrito to hide from buck because you were just doing it to get a rise out of buck hence why you tried to hide it from buck.

you dumb shits wouldn't know reality if it sucked your flaccid two inch peckers for free.

die in a fire, red1966 will be happy to oblige you.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
oh look sketchy etchy posted some fucking chart he found on google images...

that sure is a fine citation for his "well thought out rebuttal" of so many arguments with cited peer reviewed studies
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member




All i see is a whole lot of copy and pastes from you. Now you've given your anarcho-whatevathefuk a rest you need something else to harp on about. Gore would be proud.

No if only you climate scientists could get just one thing right, it would actually sure up your position immensely, until then; the sky is not falling.
100% of international science academies

Lets see you prove that one wrong
 

althor

Well-Known Member
Anyone who uses close and personal death as a way to jab at someone is as classless and useless as they come.
You are a disgrace to all you claim to represent.
 
Top