To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Wuwei]

Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation

The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. ​

A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The volume of CO2 is about a quarter of the volume of water vapor.

In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

Bottom line: If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation

The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. ​

A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The volume of CO2 is about a quarter of the volume of water vapor.

In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

Bottom line: If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere.

And you can demonstrate this in a lab? It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I see. At 280 ppm of CO2, and about 800 ppb of CH4, we have a greenhouse effect. But when we raise the CO2 to over 400 ppm, and CH4 to over 1800 ppb, that does not cause an increase in the Greenhouse effect? An increase correctly called AGW.

and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?

 

[chikenwing]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Now this is a hoot,thread after thread, started by hysterical the sky is falling and we are doomed climate alarmist, calling others paranoid.

 

[Wuwei]

And you can demonstrate this in a lab? It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show

You can't measure the global H2O content in just a lab. It varies all over the map. Water vapor is almost zero in a dessert or arctic region, and up to 7% in moist areas. CO2 content of course is much more uniform.

 

[mamooth]

and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?

Well, yes. Many experiments have been done to quantify the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. If you head over to the HITRAN database and go to the documentation, it lists 77 sources just for CO2, and around a thousand sources for all atmospheric gases.

HITRAN

And that's why you look so utterly delusional for claiming no experiments have been done.

 

[jc456]

And you can demonstrate this in a lab? It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show

You can't measure the global H2O content in just a lab. It varies all over the map. Water vapor is almost zero in a dessert or arctic region, and up to 7% in moist areas. CO2 content of course is much more uniform.

how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.

 

[jc456]

and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?

Well, yes. Many experiments have been done to quantify the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. If you head over to the HITRAN database and go to the documentation, it lists 77 sources just for CO2, and around a thousand sources for all atmospheric gases.

HITRAN

And that's why you look so utterly delusional for claiming no experiments have been done.

now post up how warm it is. and it's supposed outbound radiation.

 

[westwall]

Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation

The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. ​

A way to calculate calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.
The volume of CO2 is about a quarter of the volume of water vapor.

In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any“gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

Bottom line: If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere.

How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.

 

[mamooth]

How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure.

This nonsense again? Guess I'll just have to debunk same as I did before.

Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans, from combined conduction and evaporation, depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocean to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.

Yes, we get it. You think conservation of energy is a suggestion, not a law, and you can ignore it whenever convenient for you. In your world, the backradiation strikes the ocean ... and then the energy just disappears into some magical mystery dimension. You ought to write a paper on the physics behind that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

We know the view of the cult.

 

[Wuwei]

how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.

You lost track of my point. Look back at post #781.

The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. ​

You will see that the amount of CO2 is about 1 quarter the amount of H2O vapor in the atmosphere right now. If you double it, as you say, the CO2 would then be half the mass of H2O. That is not trivial. You have to understand that H2O is also a trace element in the atmosphere when you compare it to the trace element CO2.

You said "double" and also said .04% to .06%. That isn't doubling.

 

[Wuwei]

How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.

Mamooth got it right above. Here is my similar explanation.

The theory does not fail. Yes, the short wave radiation from the sun warms the ocean and the long wave IR cannot penetrate it. (The long wave IR can't penetrate much of anything else on the earth.)

But remember that, night and day, the surface of the ocean and earth is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving from within the top few microns of the surface.

The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that same thin top surface. Otherwise the surface of the ocean would quickly freeze everywhere.

The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat through IR as it would otherwise. That is why the ocean can retain the short wave radiation heat that the sun provides.

Try to remember that scientists do not (or should not) claim that IR backscatter actually warms anything. What backscatter does is to prevent a lot of heat from escaping from the already warm earth. (Warmed by short wave radiation.)

 

[jc456]

how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.

You lost track of my point. Look back at post #781.

The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams. ​

You will see that the amount of CO2 is about 1 quarter the amount of H2O vapor in the atmosphere right now. If you double it, as you say, the CO2 would then be half the mass of H2O. That is not trivial. You have to understand that H2O is also a trace element in the atmosphere when you compare it to the trace element CO2.

You said "double" and also said .04% to .06%. That isn't doubling.

H2O is approximately .25% of the atmosphere give or take areas of the globe, it varies. CO2 again is .04% and doubling would be~ .06 from pre industrial time. Pardon, i didn't qualify that. So even leaving water at the .25% of the atmospheric make up, hmmm, I'm sorry, I don't see any impact to the atmosphere that would be doom and gloom. And it will take an experiment to move me from that point. CO2 is logarithmic. And has never actually been proven to have back radiation as most want to state. All I ask is for evidence of it. Yes, physics says it ought to, but I need to see the evidence. And, I'm not the only one.

 

[jc456]

How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.

Mamooth got it right above. Here is my similar explanation.

The theory does not fail. Yes, the short wave radiation from the sun warms the ocean and the long wave IR cannot penetrate it. (The long wave IR can't penetrate much of anything else on the earth.)

But remember that, night and day, the surface of the ocean and earth is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving from within the top few microns of the surface.

The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that same thin top surface. Otherwise the surface of the ocean would quickly freeze everywhere.

The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat through IR as it would otherwise. That is why the ocean can retain the short wave radiation heat that the sun provides.

Try to remember that scientists do not (or should not) claim that IR backscatter actually warms anything. What backscatter does is to prevent a lot of heat from escaping from the already warm earth. (Warmed by short wave radiation.)

I see this kind of picture how the atmospheric gases are mixed and just laugh that doubling CO2 can be so dangerous. I'm just saying.

 

[Muhammed]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Now this is a hoot,thread after thread, started by hysterical the sky is falling and we are doomed climate alarmist, calling others paranoid.

The global warming nut jobs are paranoid weirdos.

The science is settled, carbon dioxide is the "green" gas. It is fertilizer. It feeds plants.

Biology 101

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you can demonstrate this in a lab? It's simple enough to control the amount of the gases in a lab setting, what do the experiments show

You can't measure the global H2O content in just a lab. It varies all over the map. Water vapor is almost zero in a dessert or arctic region, and up to 7% in moist areas. CO2 content of course is much more uniform.

If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right

 

[westwall]

How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure.

This nonsense again? Guess I'll just have to debunk same as I did before.

Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans, from combined conduction and evaporation, depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocean to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.

Yes, we get it. You think conservation of energy is a suggestion, not a law, and you can ignore it whenever convenient for you. In your world, the backradiation strikes the ocean ... and then the energy just disappears into some magical mystery dimension. You ought to write a paper on the physics behind that.

No, you clearly DON'T get it. Heat rises. Please show us the physics defying science that supports the silly concept that somehow heat is carried into the deep ocean where it somehow magically resides in defiance of every physical law we know of.

 

[westwall]

How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.

Mamooth got it right above. Here is my similar explanation.

The theory does not fail. Yes, the short wave radiation from the sun warms the ocean and the long wave IR cannot penetrate it. (The long wave IR can't penetrate much of anything else on the earth.)

But remember that, night and day, the surface of the ocean and earth is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving from within the top few microns of the surface.

The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that same thin top surface. Otherwise the surface of the ocean would quickly freeze everywhere.

The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat through IR as it would otherwise. That is why the ocean can retain the short wave radiation heat that the sun provides.

Try to remember that scientists do not (or should not) claim that IR backscatter actually warms anything. What backscatter does is to prevent a lot of heat from escaping from the already warm earth. (Warmed by short wave radiation.)

Yes, it does fail. IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything. Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.

 

[Wuwei]

If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right

No. I have never claimed that man is driving the climate. I was pointing out where some of you guys had the science wrong. If you think I said anything from gut feel, let me know what it is you think.