antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
"residence time" is about hypothetical molecules precisely like my diesel. this is the same fact which you put forward with H2O and < 10 days. this H2O figure does not align with your CO2, 200 year figure. that remains inaccurate. if anything is a sly lie, it is this apple/orange juxtaposition which you've made.
i was presuming it was just a mistake. now you put this 200 year decline bit forward as if you meant something different than residence time when you said residence time. dont bother to explain.
no sweat.
my diesel argument is aimed at exploring the significance of this bullshit altogether. water vapor might last a week in the air, but there remains an equilibrium which keeps an average abundance in the atmosphere. while you have claimed that CO2 is that facilitator, i have made it real clear that CO2 does not significantly warm the atmosphere, but that the sun and water, particularly do in degrees more significant than are availed CO2. while the atmosphere can scarcely heat standing water, standing water which absorbs massive amounts of infrared can heat the atmosphere. one of the mechanisms is through water vapor itself. i'm a broken record on this.
this shit is dead-obvious, rocks. if you live on the coast, you can witness uptake and deposit indicating the extent which water directly influences atmospheric temperatures to a greater degree than land. this is water, rocks. one of the highest levels of heat enthalpy on the planet. CO2 dont play that.
tell you what, 'easily detect with a bit of research' how sea temperature averages dramatically increased in the 1970s and make the case that the directly correlated water vapor and atmospheric temperature increases are actually due to CO2 instead of water temps. alternatively, you can explain how CO2 could make the sea surface temp increase despite H2O holding about a 1000:1 heat retention advantage over air -- explain your thermodynamic magic, buddy.
What you are describing is two completely separate events. Both are net neutral.
First the state change of water liquid to water vapor does extract a lot of energy out of the parent material (water) when it occurs, but this energy is released when the water recondenses later.
Second you are describing water's unique ability as a gas or a fluid to carry heat and transfer heat. Again a net neutral reaction.
All of this is distinct from water's ability to secure and store heat and cause global warming. That is a purely atmospheric effect. It is based purely upon water vapor's ability to extract heat energy from passing photons in the atmosphere.
A different effect entirely.
this is not distinct. heat transfer is perfectly inversible, such that the capacity for water to heat air, whether vapor or liquid is ~ 1000:1 while the inverse - for air to heat water - is 1:1000. for this reason, those who contend that CO2 or the atmosphere is responsible for warming need to answer to global warming in the earth's oceans where i argue the vast majority of warming has been recorded. the atmospheric warming is a consequence of oceanic warming is what i argue, and trends in warming bear that out.
the challenge remains to explain the magic heat transfer which works against conventional logic.
as to net neutrality, this is not accurate. liquid water absorbs huge masses of ir energy, while ice reflects substantially more. the potential for land to absorb energy is facilitated by water and water-bearing plant life. vapor effects heat transfer to the atmosphere in ways which land mass cant manage. the atmosphere and oceans determine the degree which the planet can retain the heat of the sun. the oceans are responsible for better than 3/4 of this retention and water the vast majority of it's distribution.
this is another non-zero sum scenario, cannon. energy which reflects out of the atmosphere is lost to the system. the components which interact with the energy make all the difference and water is the one which makes warming on earth happen by and large.