Jump to content

Climate Change. Threat to the World?


Paul6754
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

You're making some claims here. Can you back them up?

You say co2 is not 'potent'. Are you talking about sensitivity? What do you mean exactly?

HH, I wouldn't knowingly post claims that I can't back up. CO2 is a relatively poor absorber of  Infrared Radiation compared to the likes of water vapor hence it is not very potent. The easiest way for me to get this information to you and explained is in the two "goofy" videos below unless you wanna stick your head in to a Spectroscopy book.

In the videos note the points that water vapor absorbs IR radiation more strongly and at more wavelengths than CO2 and some of these wavelengths overlap with those absorbed by CO2 and since water vapor is present in larger quantities in the atmosphere than CO2 doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't double the greenhouse effect because water vapor also absorbs the same wavelength of radiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIBsjBvRTew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhYSVdOSj4E

The reason for this potency difference is well known and understood at the molecular level.

I believe the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is Sulfur Hexafluoride but it is present only in very trace quantities, something like parts per trillion.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

What papers have you read that are 'con' as you put it?

Richard Lindzen (MIT), Murry Salby although his stuff can be very mathematical, Will Happer (Princeton), Judith Curry and others but as a retired organic chemist I'm familiar with atomic and molecular structure and have developed my own thoughts although I'm open to the fact I may be wrong.

16 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Maybe it would be easier if we avoid any conspiracy theories.

There is no need to post comments like that, you may post conspiracy theories but I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

HH, I wouldn't knowingly post claims that I can't back up. CO2 is a relatively poor absorber of  Infrared Radiation compared to the likes of water vapor hence it is not very potent. The easiest way for me to get this information to you and explained is in the two "goofy" videos below unless you wanna stick your head in to a Spectroscopy book.

In the videos note the points that water vapor absorbs IR radiation more strongly and at more wavelengths than CO2 and some of these wavelengths overlap with those absorbed by CO2 and since water vapor is present in larger quantities in the atmosphere than CO2 doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't double the greenhouse effect because water vapor also absorbs the same wavelength of radiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIBsjBvRTew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhYSVdOSj4E

The reason for this potency difference is well known and understood at the molecular level.

I believe the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is Sulfur Hexafluoride but it is present only in very trace quantities, something like parts per trillion.

Richard Lindzen (MIT), Murry Salby although his stuff can be very mathematical, Will Happer (Princeton), Judith Curry and others but as a retired organic chemist I'm familiar with atomic and molecular structure and have developed my own thoughts although I'm open to the fact I may be wrong.

There is no need to post comments like that, you may post conspiracy theories but I don't.

The problem with the first part of what you wrote is that you don't mention that increasing co2 increases water vapour.

I'm assuming you don't question that fact, so you're basically attacking your own argument there.

Lindzen is an interesting case, I wonder why you like work of someone who described one of his own papers as "embarrassing" and that it contained "some stupid mistakes"?

It's sad what's happened to Judith Curry, many years ago she did some good work, lately she's been happy enough to churn out "it's all too complicated" blog posts that don't really add anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

The problem with the first part of what you wrote is that you don't mention that increasing co2 increases water vapour.

I'm assuming you don't question that fact, so you're basically attacking your own argument there.

You don't seem to understand what was posted. I'm not attacking my own argument, where do you get that from.

What you may be getting at is that when the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor and as a consequence the atmosphere can then hold more CO2 forming a feedback loop. The greenhouse effect of the water vapor still dominates though.

6 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Lindzen is an interesting case, I wonder why you like work of someone who described one of his own papers as "embarrassing" and that it contained "some stupid mistakes"?

It's sad what's happened to Judith Curry, many years ago she did some good work, lately she's been happy enough to churn out "it's all too complicated" blog posts that don't really add anything.

Lindzen has been a Prof at one of the best science universities on the planet for a long time and has published good stuff. Judith Curry was forced out of Georgia Tech for refusing to bow down to the CO2 climate dogma mob.

Climate Science has now become a dogma, a religion. The politicians and activists have taken over, any scientific debate has gone out of the window, it's as though CO2 is being prosecuted for damage to the earth but the defense isn't allowed into the court room.

If idiots like this co-founder of ER get their way there's no hope for any of us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQA8XIF1Apg&t=37s

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ginge said:

Did you know the moon is made out of cheese 

 

30 minutes ago, ginge said:

Liz Truss... i do wonder if she has anything between her ears. 

The same question should also be asked of your good self.  

image.gif

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

You don't seem to understand what was posted. I'm not attacking my own argument, where do you get that from.

What you may be getting at is that when the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor and as a consequence the atmosphere can then hold more CO2 forming a feedback loop. The greenhouse effect of the water vapor still dominates though.

Lindzen has been a Prof at one of the best science universities on the planet for a long time and has published good stuff. Judith Curry was forced out of Georgia Tech for refusing to bow down to the CO2 climate dogma mob.

Climate Science has now become a dogma, a religion. The politicians and activists have taken over, any scientific debate has gone out of the window, it's as though CO2 is being prosecuted for damage to the earth but the defense isn't allowed into the court room.

If idiots like this co-founder of ER get their way there's no hope for any of us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQA8XIF1Apg&t=37s

 

Yes. co2 increases temperature, the increased temperature means the atmosphere can hold more water vapour. They are connecting. Mentioning that water vapour is a stronger green house gas than co2 is therefore irrelevant at best, misleading at worst.

I just showed you that Lindzen has published rubbish. Rubbish that he himself is embarrassed about. What 'good stuff' has he done? Why are you impressed with it? How did you verify that his work is 'good stuff'?

Curry has done nothing for years. Just moans about uncertainty and makes predictions that turn out to be wrong.

"Climate Science has now become a dogma, a religion. The politicians and activists have taken over, any scientific debate has gone out of the window, it's as though CO2 is being prosecuted for damage to the earth but the defense isn't allowed into the court room."

 

Guaranteed Nobel Prize to anyone that upturns climate science. The problem is that the likes of Lindzen, Willie Soon, Tim Ball etc have failed.

I've been following climate science for over 20 years. Nothing has changed from the 'sceptics' side. Same handful of names (apart from Richard Muller jumping ship - how funny was that?), same useless arguments. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ginge said:

Do you believe the moon landings were real Paul? 

and the earth is flat and God created us all and Noah had 2 of every animal on earth on his cruise liner. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WV said:

and the earth is flat and God created us all and Noah had 2 of every animal on earth on his cruise liner. 

Even if Noah had 2 of everything on his barge he would have needed a fleet the size of the armada to carry the food.

I can't say much about God's grand design if he made a killing machine at the top of the food chain then allowed a greater god, money, to oust him/her/it.

The Pope's new book "The pills grim progress" isn't doing the birth rate much good..... hey ho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Yes. co2 increases temperature, the increased temperature means the atmosphere can hold more water vapour.

We're going round in circles HH so I'll just make a few comments.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere does increase with increasing atmospheric temperature, this is because water evaporates, cold air will cause the water vapor to condense  back to water.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere do not directly increase due to rising temperature because CO2 does not evaporate or condense at temperatures found on earth.

In the atmosphere water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and in models used to predict climate it is not accounted for and hence why many models are inaccurate. Water vapor is just as instrumental as, if not more so than CO2 in warming the planet and cannot just be ignored by the climate scientists/modelers.

2 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

They are connecting. Mentioning that water vapour is a stronger green house gas than co2 is therefore irrelevant at best, misleading at worst.

I just showed you that Lindzen has published rubbish. Rubbish that he himself is embarrassed about. What 'good stuff' has he done? Why are you impressed with it? How did you verify that his work is 'good stuff'?

Curry has done nothing for years. Just moans about uncertainty and makes predictions that turn out to be wrong.

"Climate Science has now become a dogma, a religion. The politicians and activists have taken over, any scientific debate has gone out of the window, it's as though CO2 is being prosecuted for damage to the earth but the defense isn't allowed into the court room."

Guaranteed Nobel Prize to anyone that upturns climate science. The problem is that the likes of Lindzen, Willie Soon, Tim Ball etc have failed.

I've been following climate science for over 20 years. Nothing has changed from the 'sceptics' side. Same handful of names (apart from Richard Muller jumping ship - how funny was that?), same useless arguments. Sad.

I just try and understand as best I can and go from there. Some issues for me are there has been so much manipulation of data and so much conflicting data put out that it's hard to know what's fact and what's not other than the basic science. I don't think much has changed on either "side" apart from the "Skeptics" attempting to get themselves heard.

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"CO2 levels in the atmosphere do not directly increase due to rising temperature because CO2 does not evaporate or condense at temperatures found on earth."

Are you saying that outgassing from oceans doesn't occur? Or are you saying the rate doesn't increase with increased temperatures? Are you saying that there's another explanation for rock weathering rates that doesn't involve co2 levels? I'd like to see the research you have that backs that up. Thanks.

"In the atmosphere water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and in models used to predict climate it is not accounted for and hence why many models are inaccurate. Water vapor is just as instrumental as, if not more so than CO2 in warming the planet and cannot just be ignored by the climate scientists/modelers."

Which models are you talking about?  James Hansen's 1988 projections seem to be pretty accurate, for instance.

"I just try and understand as best I can and go from there. Some issues for me are there has been so much manipulation of data and so much conflicting data put out that it's hard to know what's fact and what's not other than the basic science. I don't think much has changed on either "side" apart from the "Skeptics" attempting to get themselves heard."

The reasons for any data adjustments are always openly discussed and debated. For instance, if temperature readings in the past were taken at different times of the day then that has to be accounted for. Or if equipment is moved then that has to be accounted for. For sea surface temperature if some measurements are taken close to the ship's engine bay then that has to be accounted for. And so on and so on.  There are dishonest people out there calling these things manipulations. They're wrong.

The best way for "skeptics" to get themselves heard is to publish some research that backs up their prior beliefs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Are you saying that outgassing from oceans doesn't occur? Or are you saying the rate doesn't increase with increased temperatures? Are you saying that there's another explanation for rock weathering rates that doesn't involve co2 levels? I'd like to see the research you have that backs that up.

HH, I'm absolutely not saying "Outgassing from the oceans does not occur" but you did when you refuted the existence of the carbon cycle and the inflow and outflow of CO2 between the land, oceans and the air which led to my comment, "We'll have to agree to disagree" a few posts ago. 

It's not always clear what you post. Are you asking me, "does the rate of outgassing of CO2 from the oceans increase with increased temperatures", the answer is yes and I posted it earlier.

Since you like to put words into other people's mouths please explain this,  "What is the basic chemistry behind the oceans being basic", try and answer without looking at the internet.

7 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Which models are you talking about?  James Hansen's 1988 projections seem to be pretty accurate, for instance.

Hansen predicted a rise in temp of 0.45oC between 1988 and 1997, actual ground temp's went up just 0.11oC, his predictions were considered a failure as were/are many other predictions made by may climate scientists using models. Heck man can't predict the weather a few days from now with any certainty let alone climate in 10+ years time.

7 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

The reasons for any data adjustments are always openly discussed and debated. For instance, if temperature readings in the past were taken at different times of the day then that has to be accounted for. Or if equipment is moved then that has to be accounted for. For sea surface temperature if some measurements are taken close to the ship's engine bay then that has to be accounted for. And so on and so on.  There are dishonest people out there calling these things manipulations. They're wrong.

The best way for "skeptics" to get themselves heard is to publish some research that backs up their prior beliefs.  

If only they were, just look at the controversy Michael Mann and his cohorts created with climategate and issuing law suits  to other researchers who requested their original data on the "Hockey Stick graph", science is not settled in a court room. There's much money to be made in this field just ask Al Gore.

It's probably too late for meaningful scientific discussion in this field, the only time any form of common sense may prevail is when the cost of net zero by 2030 starts dropping into people's mail boxes.

There is no climate emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...