Why is the climate changing. (Page 14)

ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Just remember that pollution keeps you cool by blocking sunlight from reaching the earth's surface.
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: But if people are really concerned about the effect humanity is presumed to be having on the climate there is a really effective solution. Kill billions of people and compel those who remain to return to the Stone Age.
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Of course, few of us are going to vote for that so it is a little hypocritical of people to keep pointing fingers at others when it comes to energy use.
1 month ago Report
0
The flying Squirrel
The flying Squirrel: LOL Its the Polution you reckon , thats funny , No I reckon Its the same old story Corperate Welfair , We Pay Companys to come and Mine Coal ,Pay them Millions in Subsertitys Its supposed to Be Super High Quality , Well If its so High Quality , Why does the Government Pay them to come and Mine it , They should be Bashing at the door The only money the Government Makes In In Taxes , I donno dont make sence to me
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: In the final analysis, it always comes down to self-interest.
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Anyway, what about the effect of the largest of the greenhouse gases?

Abstract

Robust scientific evidence shows the sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually. Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO2 molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics. The effect of back radiation on Earth’s atmosphere is up to 200 times larger than that of CO2 and works in the opposite direction. Thus, if CO2 has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change we show it is negligible. Consequently, current government policies to control atmospheric temperature by limiting consumption of fossil fuels will have negligible effect. Measured data reported in IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5) indicate increased water vapour content of the atmosphere is the cause of the 0.5℃ temperature increase from the mid-1970s to 2011.

[ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X17722790 ]
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: One thing is certain. The science of climate change is far from settled.
1 month ago Report
0
The flying Squirrel
The flying Squirrel: Yeah I don"t bye the Whole Climate change Panic , Its always about Money some where
lol
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: There's always money to be made from scaring people. Politicians have been doing for the whole of recorded history.
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Now for something from the demon site:

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects.

The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.

[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ ]
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: The whole wheel comprises the so-called greenhouse gasses, of which water vapor is 95 percent by volume. The nut on the rear wheel is total CO2, but the IPCC narrow their focus to a portion of one thread, the human fraction. The IPCC ignore water vapor by assuming humans don’t change it measurably. In the 2007 Report they wrote,

“Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”

It is essentially impossible to determine the impact of 4 percent if you have very limited knowledge about 95 percent.

The IPCC tried to downplay the role of water vapor in affecting global temperatures by amplifying the role of CO2 and CH4. The range of numbers used to determine greenhouse effectiveness or Global Warming Potential (GWP) suggested people were just creating numbers – it was not scientific.

[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ ]
1 month ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: anthony watts isnt being genuine about the greenhouse gas effect, and you still haven't posted the rest of that paragraph you keep cherry-picking from the IPCC.

maybe if you read the rest of it, you would see what the scientists mean by the log that defines the relationship between IR absorption in co2 and forced radiation and that it does not support anthony's claim that co2 will saturate the upper atmosphere, then he makes two separate claims about the climate sensitivity and how much heat co2 can trap to begin with. first, what about venus?? 95% co2 over 800f average temp and constantly covered in thick clouds...

then he makes a bogus claim about climate sensitivity in relation to the bandwidths that co2 absorbs in the infrared. and so his claim is basically where you have to believe that co2 can only absorb IR in a very minute portion of it, mislabel a group of graphs and cherry pick a paragraph from the horses mouth to make it seem all the more plausible that the scientists are conspiring to promote bad science to enrich themselves. well, co2 is not nearing a saturation point, that is pretty clear and all we have to do is look at the atmosphere of venus. more clouds DOES NOT mean cooler temperatures. the key difference in earth and venus is earth has relatively much less carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than venus.
1 month ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: venus atmosphere is said to be 95% co2
earths is i believe 95% nitrogen?
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Notice how doubling the amount of CO2 has virtually no difference on temperature ( some few tenths of a degree centigrade ).
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: About 71% nitrogen and 21% oxygen in earth's atmosphere.
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: And please stop going on about what I should post. I give you directions to where I get my information from, so I'm hiding nothing.
1 month ago Report
1
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.

The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.

[ file:///C:/Users/mick/Documents/Climate%20Change/4.%20Carbon%20dioxide%20is%20already%20absorbing%20almost%20all%20it%20can%20%C2%AB%20JoNova.htm ]
1 month ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: okay, again, im not telling you what to post, im asking why you don't want to post the rest of the paragraph that anthony watts or who ever is taking to misrepresent the data
1 month ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: also, your file link is not a URL
1 month ago Report
0
theHating
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: More from the demon site:

Wikipedia typifies the illogical “runaway greenhouse” argument with this statement.

Without the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth.

No it wouldn’t. 9000 kPa atmospheric pressure would occur on earth at an altitude many miles below sea level. No such place exists, but if it did – it would be extremely hot, like Venus. A back of the envelope estimate – temperatures on earth increase by about 80C going from 20 to 100 kPa, so at 9,000 kPa we would expect temperatures to be in the ballpark of :

20C + ln(9000/(100-20)) *80C = 400C

This is very close to what we see on Venus. The high temperatures there can be almost completely explained by atmospheric pressure – not composition. If 90% of the CO2 in Venus atmosphere was replaced by Nitrogen, it would change temperatures there by only a few tens of degrees.

How did such bad science become “common knowledge?” The greenhouse effect can not be the cause of the high temperatures on Venus. “Group Think” at it’s worst, and I am embarrassed to admit that I blindly accepted it for decades.

[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/ ]
1 month ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: smh, you just dont know how the greenhouse effect works
1 month ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: And I take it you think you do? Well, it seems you are in disagreement with a lot of people.
1 month ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: "a lot of people" = only 30% of americans
the other 7 billion assholes are laughing at you
1 month ago Report
0