Climate of Denial

[daveman]

Water vapor is a feedback. Since you know or read nothing but talking points, why should anyone listen to you.

You're the shit-hot science guy, right?

Is it too much to ask that you get the science right?

Looks like it is.

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[13]


How come you morons aren't screeching about water vapor restrictions? Oh, yeah -- because you don't actually give a shit about the environment.

Feed back because water vapor only stays within the air for a short time period, but yes it makes up a very large percentage of the green house gas, but not uniform over all the surface. Co2 can last for a decade within the Atmosphere and plug up the carbon cycle, which makes it pretty much a gas that can remain the same amounts or constantrations for over a hundred years.

Just imagine a sink that got a bunch of crap plugging it up. So it only can drain that back into the system very slowly, but we keep adding more and more onto of the natural cycle, which the system only has the ability to handle the drainage for the natural co2. That is why it compounds and keeps growing and why for hundreds of years to come it will remain very high indeed.

Deserts have very little water vapor, but rain forest can make up to 4 percent of the air mass.

Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

 

[Si modo]

LOL I have been doing this for years, pointing out the work of Tyndall and Arnnhenius for a couple of decades. Pointing out the present trends in the cryosphere.

Of course the political hacks here believe quoting real scientists, living or dead, is political. But quoting an obese junkie radio jock or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman is scientific.

http://www.change.org/fas/details/about

Mission
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was formed in 1945 by atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project who felt that scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on critical national decisions, especially pertaining to the technology they unleashed - the Atomic Bomb.
Endorsed by 84 Nobel Laureates in chemistry, economics, medicine and physics, FAS addresses a broad spectrum of issues in carrying out its mission to promote humanitarian uses of science and technology. FAS members build on an honorable history of insisting that rational, evidence-based arguments be heard.

.Programs
The Strategic Security Program strives to reduce the spread and risk of nuclear weapons, to stop the global illicit trade in conventional weapons, to promote the safe and responsible use of new biotechnology, and to advocate sensible attitudes toward access to government information, which is a prerequisite for any intelligent decision-making in a democracy.

The Educational Technologies Program works to harness the potential of emerging information technologies to improve how we teach, learn and conduct research.

The Earth Systems Program examines the interactions among energy, food, water, and other natural resources in the context of international security.

And, you have a point? Please, articulate it.

They are talking to you, Sis.

Federation of American Scientists :: Five Minutes to End the War on Science

• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views

As I said before, someone who believes that my saying that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man on climate change is political is doing nothing but projecting their soiling of science on another.

So, now that you've made such a vacuous accusation, I challenge you to produce any post of mine that does politicize this at all. You can't, but I do challenge you. Your posts, however, do nothing but politicize the issue. You are an enemy of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Resistance to the Alvarez theory goes back to the date of its first publication as well. We know for example that the dinosaurs didn't vanish overnight, in some cases it took 5 or more million years for the particular species to go extinct. My colleagues and i spent many a night arguing the merits and demerits of the theory.

Saurian fossils definately dated post K-T?

Here's an article for ones that have been dated to 500,000 years after the impact and I have some others i will dig up that postulate up to 5 million years afterwords.

Some Dinosaurs Survived the Asteroid Impact | LiveScience

This from the fellow that got bent over the word 'could' in another article

However, I had a discussion at Philmont with the head of the USGS at Denver, many years ago, about saurian fossils he had recovered from layer that post dated the impact. At that time he was not sure that the fossils could not have eroded from an older formation.

I have no problem with the idea that a few saurians might have survived the impact, only to have the specie go exstinct later due to a changing habitat. The combination of the affects of the emissions, especially the GHGs, emitted by the Daccan Traps, and the effects of the impact, which included acidification of the oceans, left a world in flux.

The changes that we are making will be slower, and, hopefully, less drastic. You might want to have a look at this months Scientific American
for an article that compares the present warming to the PETM.

Some Dinosaurs Survived the Asteroid Impact | LiveScience

The great splat of an asteroid that might have wiped out the dinosaurs apparently didn't get all of them. New fossil evidence suggests some dinosaurs survived for up to half a million years after the impact in remote parts of New Mexico and Colorado.

The whole idea that a space rock destroyed the dinosaurs has become controversial in recent years. Many scientists now suspect other factors were involved, from increased volcanic activity to a changing climate. Either way, some 70 percent of life on Earth perished, and an asteroid impact almost surely played a role.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're the shit-hot science guy, right?

Is it too much to ask that you get the science right?

Looks like it is.

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[13]


How come you morons aren't screeching about water vapor restrictions? Oh, yeah -- because you don't actually give a shit about the environment.

Feed back because water vapor only stays within the air for a short time period, but yes it makes up a very large percentage of the green house gas, but not uniform over all the surface. Co2 can last for a decade within the Atmosphere and plug up the carbon cycle, which makes it pretty much a gas that can remain the same amounts or constantrations for over a hundred years.

Just imagine a sink that got a bunch of crap plugging it up. So it only can drain that back into the system very slowly, but we keep adding more and more onto of the natural cycle, which the system only has the ability to handle the drainage for the natural co2. That is why it compounds and keeps growing and why for hundreds of years to come it will remain very high indeed.

Deserts have very little water vapor, but rain forest can make up to 4 percent of the air mass.

Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

 

[Si modo]

Feed back because water vapor only stays within the air for a short time period, but yes it makes up a very large percentage of the green house gas, but not uniform over all the surface. Co2 can last for a decade within the Atmosphere and plug up the carbon cycle, which makes it pretty much a gas that can remain the same amounts or constantrations for over a hundred years.

Just imagine a sink that got a bunch of crap plugging it up. So it only can drain that back into the system very slowly, but we keep adding more and more onto of the natural cycle, which the system only has the ability to handle the drainage for the natural co2. That is why it compounds and keeps growing and why for hundreds of years to come it will remain very high indeed.

Deserts have very little water vapor, but rain forest can make up to 4 percent of the air mass.

Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the protocols/molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

What are protocols and how do they bump into each other or into molecules?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the protocols/molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

What are protocols and how do they bump into each other or into molecules?

Yeah-kind of screwed up with that one, but do you have a real argument against the rest of my case?

 

[Old Rocks]

And, you have a point? Please, articulate it.

They are talking to you, Sis.

Federation of American Scientists :: Five Minutes to End the War on Science

• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views

As I said before, someone who believes that my saying that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man on climate change is political is doing nothing but projecting their soiling of science on another.

So, now that you've made such a vacuous accusation, I challenge you to produce any post of mine that does politicize this at all. You can't, but I do challenge you. Your posts, however, do nothing but politicize the issue. You are an enemy of science.

LOL You mean to state that the proof that our burning of fossil fuels is affecting the climate is political? To point out that virtually all scientific societies state the same is political?

From your posts you apparently regard the vast majority of scientists as enemies of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the protocols/molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

What are protocols and how do they bump into each other or into molecules?

Yeah-kind of screwed up with that one, but do you have a real argument against the rest of my case?

No, Mathew, you did not screw up. Sis is real sharp using arguementive tools to deny reality. It would not surprise me were she a lawyer for Exxon or the Koch brothers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." - IPCC

The Decline Hiders keep manipulating the data. I live for the day when AGW has it's own wing in the Museum of Scientific Frauds.

 

[Si modo]

They are talking to you, Sis.

Federation of American Scientists :: Five Minutes to End the War on Science

• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views

As I said before, someone who believes that my saying that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man on climate change is political is doing nothing but projecting their soiling of science on another.

So, now that you've made such a vacuous accusation, I challenge you to produce any post of mine that does politicize this at all. You can't, but I do challenge you. Your posts, however, do nothing but politicize the issue. You are an enemy of science.

LOL You mean to state that the proof that our burning of fossil fuels is affecting the climate is political? To point out that virtually all scientific societies state the same is political?

From your posts you apparently regard the vast majority of scientists as enemies of science.

First of all, present the 'proof'.

Secondly, you do know that scientists know that they prove nothing. It's that silly little thing called the logic of scientific discovery that all scientists follow, at least those who know how to do science.

Thirdly, science is not done by polls, but apparently you believe it is.

And, finally, how are you doing on that challenge I presented to you? If you show nothing, which you will because I am well aware of my position on this, we all know you speak bullshit on that.

 

[Si modo]

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the protocols/molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

What are protocols and how do they bump into each other or into molecules?

Yeah-kind of screwed up with that one, but do you have a real argument against the rest of my case?

Well, I have to understand you case first. So, thanks for clarifying that.

Now, what exactly is a "large greenhouse gas"?

I'll have more questions for you, but I prefer to address them one at a time.

 

[Si modo]

What are protocols and how do they bump into each other or into molecules?

Yeah-kind of screwed up with that one, but do you have a real argument against the rest of my case?

No, Mathew, you did not screw up. Sis is real sharp using arguementive tools to deny reality. It would not surprise me were she a lawyer for Exxon or the Koch brothers.

Really! So, you think protocols bump into molecules, eh?

Logic is tricky shit to you, apparently.

Okie doke.

Thanks for that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What are protocols and how do they bump into each other or into molecules?

Yeah-kind of screwed up with that one, but do you have a real argument against the rest of my case?

Well, I have to understand you case first. So, thanks for clarifying that.

Now, what exactly is a "large greenhouse gas"?

I'll have more questions for you, but I prefer to address them one at a time.

In the context of what I was discussing a "large green house gas" being percentage of the warming caused by the total amount of of overall warming of the total green house effect. Imagine if earth was a "black" body, like black body temperature,,,. This is pretty much what the moon and mercury are that will be discused below. Now add a Atmosphere with green house gases and the temperature within that atmosphere will be increased and the temperature swings(On the moon there is a huge one) decreases greatly. So what this is talking about is what a body does without a Atmosphere or the green house effect that a Atmospheric gases cause.

What is the total green house effect? Lets say that water vapor is the vast majority of such being such a big part of the green house pie. So it would cause lets say 80-90 percent of the warming effect. Imagine the moon or mercury for a second---here you have a body that has NO Atmosphere and relays purely on the solar output of the sun. This energy when it is not facing the sun go's bye, bye very quickly because it has NO green house effect to hold in the heat. Of course 02 and n2(oxygen and nitrogen) within the earth's Atmosphere are not huge green house gases, but co2, h20 within vapor form is.

Now back to total green house effect--- so lets say water vapor is the big boy on the bloc that makes up 90 something percent of the green house effect and co2 makes up most of the rest. Now you have to admit that the earth is warmer and more stable temperature regime because of it...We know for a fact that is so. More stable then a goddamn space rock without a atmosphere.

Now back to my last post above---Water vapor don't stay within the Atmosphere for a very long time, but rains out within days of going to the Atmosphere. Hell most of the planet within deserts and cold places has very little of it. So it is NOT uniform. Co2 as I stated is not totally uniformed either of course, I will admit it, but its ability to stay within the climate system is far longer that last for decades and clogs the natural processes to remove it. Being that the cycle is spitting it back into the system naturally within the natural processes, but we keep adding more into the system---This compounds things and the whole damn thing grows in percentage. Sure the oceans remove it, but they're not moving it any faster out of the system any faster then 500 years ago or 5,000 years ago. So when you think about it the shit remains for hundreds of years. It takes time to have the natural processes to work. One of the natural scrubbers of co2 is called rock weathering.

So yes water vapor is kind of a feed back as I said in the above post and for those reasons. Tell me where I'm wrong??? Seriously.

So yes water vapor is a huge green house gas, but it has a limited time within Atmosphere, while co2 has a long time. More heat=higher temperature=water changing state to vapor=more of that big bad green house gas. But co2 is always there in its ever growing percentage working to compound the green house effect.

So water vapor time span within Atmosphere---hours to days. Throughout the cold polar and arctic parts of the world is very limited.
Co2---Naturally 10-12 years, but within the climatic system over all 100 or more years. Within 3-4 ppm world wide. Pretty uniform, but not perfect.

 

[Si modo]

Yeah-kind of screwed up with that one, but do you have a real argument against the rest of my case?

Well, I have to understand you case first. So, thanks for clarifying that.

Now, what exactly is a "large greenhouse gas"?

I'll have more questions for you, but I prefer to address them one at a time.

In the context of what I was discussing a "large green house gas" being percentage of the warming caused by the total amount of of overall warming of the total green house effect. Imagine if earth was a "black" body, like black body temperature,,,. This is pretty much what the moon and mercury are that will be discused below. Now add a Atmosphere with green house gases and the temperature within that atmosphere will be increased and the temperature swings(On the moon there is a huge one) decreases greatly.

What is the total green house effect? Lets say that water vapor is the vast majority of such being such a big part of the green house pie. So it would cause lets say 80-90 percent of the warming effect. Imagine the moon or mercury for a second---here you have a body that has NO Atmosphere and relays purely on the solar output of the sun. This energy when it is not facing the sun go's bye, bye very quickly because it has NO green house effect to hold in the heat. Of course 02 and n2(oxygen and nitrogen) within the earth's Atmosphere are not huge green house gases, but co2, h20 within vapor form is.

Now back to total green house effect so lets say water vapor is the big boy on the block that makes up 90 something percent of the green house effect and co2 makes up most of the rest. Now you have to admit that the earth is warmer and more stable temperature regime because of it...We know for a fact that is so.

Now back to my last post above---Water vapor don't stay within the Atmosphere for a very long time, but rains out within days of going to the Atmosphere. Hell most of the planet within deserts and cold places have very little of it. So it is NOT uniform. Co2 as I stated is not totally uniformed either, I will admit it, but its ability to stay within the climate system is far longer that last for decades and clogs the natural processes to remove it. Being that the cycle is spitting it back into the system naturally within the natural process, but we add more into the system. This compounds things. Sure the oceans remove it, but they're not moving it any faster out of the system any faster then 500 years ago or 5,000 years ago. So when you think about it the shit remains for hundreds of years. It takes time to have the natural processes to work.

So yes water vapor is kind of a feed back as I said in the above post and for those reasons. Tell me where I'm wrong??? Seriously.

So yes water vapor is a huge green house gas, but it has a limited time within Atmosphere, while co2 has a long time. More heat=higher temperature=water changing state to vapor=more of that big bad green house gas.

OK. So, I still don't understand what a "large greenhouse gas" is, but we'll set that aside for now.

Now, moving back to the post in question, I think you are trying to tell us that a normal increase of the kinetic energies of the CO2 molecules upon heating is what leads to the heating from the greenhouse effect, right?

Here's your post for reference.

Feed back because water vapor only stays within the air for a short time period, but yes it makes up a very large percentage of the green house gas, but not uniform over all the surface. Co2 can last for a decade within the Atmosphere and plug up the carbon cycle, which makes it pretty much a gas that can remain the same amounts or constantrations for over a hundred years.

Just imagine a sink that got a bunch of crap plugging it up. So it only can drain that back into the system very slowly, but we keep adding more and more onto of the natural cycle, which the system only has the ability to handle the drainage for the natural co2. That is why it compounds and keeps growing and why for hundreds of years to come it will remain very high indeed.

Deserts have very little water vapor, but rain forest can make up to 4 percent of the air mass.

Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

And, contrary to what other posters may think, I am not trying to 'trick' you into anything by using simple logic, I am just trying to understand what you are saying. Then, once we both understand each other, we can further discuss the attributes of your point.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, I have to understand you case first. So, thanks for clarifying that.

Now, what exactly is a "large greenhouse gas"?

I'll have more questions for you, but I prefer to address them one at a time.

In the context of what I was discussing a "large green house gas" being percentage of the warming caused by the total amount of of overall warming of the total green house effect. Imagine if earth was a "black" body, like black body temperature,,,. This is pretty much what the moon and mercury are that will be discused below. Now add a Atmosphere with green house gases and the temperature within that atmosphere will be increased and the temperature swings(On the moon there is a huge one) decreases greatly.

What is the total green house effect? Lets say that water vapor is the vast majority of such being such a big part of the green house pie. So it would cause lets say 80-90 percent of the warming effect. Imagine the moon or mercury for a second---here you have a body that has NO Atmosphere and relays purely on the solar output of the sun. This energy when it is not facing the sun go's bye, bye very quickly because it has NO green house effect to hold in the heat. Of course 02 and n2(oxygen and nitrogen) within the earth's Atmosphere are not huge green house gases, but co2, h20 within vapor form is.

Now back to total green house effect so lets say water vapor is the big boy on the block that makes up 90 something percent of the green house effect and co2 makes up most of the rest. Now you have to admit that the earth is warmer and more stable temperature regime because of it...We know for a fact that is so.

Now back to my last post above---Water vapor don't stay within the Atmosphere for a very long time, but rains out within days of going to the Atmosphere. Hell most of the planet within deserts and cold places have very little of it. So it is NOT uniform. Co2 as I stated is not totally uniformed either, I will admit it, but its ability to stay within the climate system is far longer that last for decades and clogs the natural processes to remove it. Being that the cycle is spitting it back into the system naturally within the natural process, but we add more into the system. This compounds things. Sure the oceans remove it, but they're not moving it any faster out of the system any faster then 500 years ago or 5,000 years ago. So when you think about it the shit remains for hundreds of years. It takes time to have the natural processes to work.

So yes water vapor is kind of a feed back as I said in the above post and for those reasons. Tell me where I'm wrong??? Seriously.

So yes water vapor is a huge green house gas, but it has a limited time within Atmosphere, while co2 has a long time. More heat=higher temperature=water changing state to vapor=more of that big bad green house gas.

OK. So, I still don't understand what a "large greenhouse gas" is, but we'll set that aside for now.

Now, moving back to the post in question, I think you are trying to tell us that a normal increase of the kinetic energies of the CO2 molecules upon heating is what leads to the heating from the greenhouse effect, right?

Here's your post for reference.

Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

And, contrary to what other posters may think, I am not trying to 'trick' you into anything by using simple logic, I am just trying to understand what you are saying. Then, once we both understand each other, we can further discuss the attributes of your point.

The kinetic energies(calories) is what changes the states of the matter. Water to a vapor takes a lot of calories(a term of science) to change from one state to another. That is what I was talking about. That is why a increase in global air temperature would=a increase of water vapor within the earth's atmosphere. right?


The green house effect--Is the energy reradiated outwards in all directions, and some of it back to the surface adding to a surplus within the climate system(100 percent inwards(this is the energy that makes it to the surface), lets say, but only 87 percent makes it to space and 13 percent back down to add to 113. As you add more green house gases that increases slowly). Of course some would say that it's all to do with the density of the atmosphere, which the molecules would be closer and would have a easier time bumping into each other=warmer air temperature. Look at mars and Venus---of course Venus gets more solar energy being it is closer, but it is 400 degree's hotter then mercury that is half the distance from the sun then Venus more or less. That is because What I'm trying to say is both mars and Venus are 97 percent co2, but one is much hotter being it has far more density(90 times that of earth atmosphere) on Venuses, while mars atmosphere is thin and a lot like the outer part of earth's atmosphere that maybe thousands of degree's, but wouldn't feel that way.

So yes density(pressure throughout the Atmosphere pressing down on the surface), which allows for molecules to do there thing. Then you have the green house effect omitting some of the energy back towards the body(planet). That reradiating back toward the surface is what we're discussing above before we went into density.

I mean my god if this is wrong then phd's all over the world are wrong and 150 years of science is wrong.

I hope I'm not totally wrong. Yes I will admit that the science could be full of it, but my knowledge is based off of what I've spent time reading and have went to college classes to understand. Maybe the whole damn process is just one big cluster fuck?


Large green house gas could simply be that water vapor takes up most of the green house gases on earth--- that would make it a large green house gas in relation to percentage, being 90 percent is pretty big. But the other processes discuses in my post above is of why I and many scientist believe co2 is a very important gas. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[Si modo]

In the context of what I was discussing a "large green house gas" being percentage of the warming caused by the total amount of of overall warming of the total green house effect. Imagine if earth was a "black" body, like black body temperature,,,. This is pretty much what the moon and mercury are that will be discused below. Now add a Atmosphere with green house gases and the temperature within that atmosphere will be increased and the temperature swings(On the moon there is a huge one) decreases greatly.

What is the total green house effect? Lets say that water vapor is the vast majority of such being such a big part of the green house pie. So it would cause lets say 80-90 percent of the warming effect. Imagine the moon or mercury for a second---here you have a body that has NO Atmosphere and relays purely on the solar output of the sun. This energy when it is not facing the sun go's bye, bye very quickly because it has NO green house effect to hold in the heat. Of course 02 and n2(oxygen and nitrogen) within the earth's Atmosphere are not huge green house gases, but co2, h20 within vapor form is.

Now back to total green house effect so lets say water vapor is the big boy on the block that makes up 90 something percent of the green house effect and co2 makes up most of the rest. Now you have to admit that the earth is warmer and more stable temperature regime because of it...We know for a fact that is so.

Now back to my last post above---Water vapor don't stay within the Atmosphere for a very long time, but rains out within days of going to the Atmosphere. Hell most of the planet within deserts and cold places have very little of it. So it is NOT uniform. Co2 as I stated is not totally uniformed either, I will admit it, but its ability to stay within the climate system is far longer that last for decades and clogs the natural processes to remove it. Being that the cycle is spitting it back into the system naturally within the natural process, but we add more into the system. This compounds things. Sure the oceans remove it, but they're not moving it any faster out of the system any faster then 500 years ago or 5,000 years ago. So when you think about it the shit remains for hundreds of years. It takes time to have the natural processes to work.

So yes water vapor is kind of a feed back as I said in the above post and for those reasons. Tell me where I'm wrong??? Seriously.

So yes water vapor is a huge green house gas, but it has a limited time within Atmosphere, while co2 has a long time. More heat=higher temperature=water changing state to vapor=more of that big bad green house gas.

OK. So, I still don't understand what a "large greenhouse gas" is, but we'll set that aside for now.

Now, moving back to the post in question, I think you are trying to tell us that a normal increase of the kinetic energies of the CO2 molecules upon heating is what leads to the heating from the greenhouse effect, right?

Here's your post for reference.

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

And, contrary to what other posters may think, I am not trying to 'trick' you into anything by using simple logic, I am just trying to understand what you are saying. Then, once we both understand each other, we can further discuss the attributes of your point.

The kinetic energies(calories) is what changes the states of the matter. Water to a vapor takes a lot of calories(a term of science) to change from one state to another. That is what I was talking about. That is why a increase in global air temperature would=a increase of water vapor within the earth's atmosphere. right?
....

Actually, phase transitions depend on more than just kinetic energy, but that's OK. A calorie is a unit of heat, so yes, I suppose that is a scientific term. And, yes, an increase in temperature would lead to an increase in water vapor, given that pressure and volume are constant (or close to constant) and you have a closed system.

Anyway, I don't think too many folks are arguing the existence of a feedback, at least, I am not.

....
The green house effect--Is the energy reradiated outwards and some of it back to the surface added to a surplus within the climate system.
....

I'm not really sure what your sentence says, so if you clarify, that would be great.

Now, back to my question - how do you think that reradiation occurs? Yoou seem to have said that a general increase in the mean kinetic energy of the CO2 molecules upon heating leads to their greenhouse effect heating. Please clarify what you meant, because I am not grasping that concept you alluded to. If that was not what you meant, then please let me know what you did mean. No problem.

....
Of course some would say that it is all to do with the density of the atmosphere, which the molecules would be closer and would have a easier time bumping into each other=warmer air temperature.
....

Well, definitely the mean kinetic energy of molecules is absolutely dependent on pressure and volume, as well as temperature. Of course, in a closed system, that is. That's the basic gas law.

....
Look at mars and venus---of course venus gets more solar energy being it is closer, but it is 400 degree's hotter then mercury that is half the distance from the sun then Venus more or less.

What I'm trying to say is both mars and Venus are 97 percent co2, but one is much hotter being it has far more density(90 times that of earth atmosphere) on Venuses, while mars atmosphere is thin and a lot like the outer part of earth's atmosphere that maybe thousands of degree's, but wouldn't feel that way.

So yes density(pressure throughout the Atmosphere pressing down the surface), which allows for molecules to do there thing. Then you have the green house effect omitting some of the energy back towards the body(planet).

I hope I'm not totally wrong.

That's OK, Matthew. No, you're not totally wrong. That's OK because I like your passion for the science, specifically the chemistry, of this and your enthusiasm. You're not quite right, either. I think that you would be thrilled to learn more about all this and I highly recommend it, too. I'm not being condescending at all. You have some of the points right and some wrong, but your interest is great to see. I think you have a passion for science and I recommend that you explore and pursue that so that you can knock the socks off of folks when discussing science. A chemistry course would be a great place to start for you. You have some of it, but you need more.

Anyway, it's good to see your interest and passion.

And, I like seeing that.

But, in the bigger picture, few are arguing the mechanism of the greenhouse effect (misnomer that it is). It's there and the mechanism is not often in dispute.

 

[daveman]

Feed back because water vapor only stays within the air for a short time period, but yes it makes up a very large percentage of the green house gas, but not uniform over all the surface. Co2 can last for a decade within the Atmosphere and plug up the carbon cycle, which makes it pretty much a gas that can remain the same amounts or constantrations for over a hundred years.

Just imagine a sink that got a bunch of crap plugging it up. So it only can drain that back into the system very slowly, but we keep adding more and more onto of the natural cycle, which the system only has the ability to handle the drainage for the natural co2. That is why it compounds and keeps growing and why for hundreds of years to come it will remain very high indeed.

Deserts have very little water vapor, but rain forest can make up to 4 percent of the air mass.

Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

Of course it is the largest green house gas, but co2 is still going to add up and make it into a cycle. See more heat=more calories=faster movement of the molecules motion bumping into each other=higher temperature. This also changes the state from a liquid to a vapor---the vapor of water is called water vapor and it takes more heat to get to that. So heat=change in states of matter.

So you add more co2 into the Atmosphere=more heat within the system=more water vapor, which as short of a time span it has is a huge green house gas=feed back.

I repeat: Do you really think that changes anything? OR made a claim. It was wrong. I pointed out his error. He got all bitchy.

And it looks like you are, too.

 

[akreberK]

Nice one.. ^_^