CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,642
- 71,961
- 2,330
So if we want to warm up Mars and make it habitable for humans all we have to do is add a wisp of CO2, right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So if we want to warm up Mars and make it habitable for humans all we have to do is add a wisp of CO2, right?
No, I did not. Note, 2/3 of the area of this planet is water. Deplete the atmosphere of water, and immediatly water will evaporate from the oceans and restore the normal amount of water vapor in the air for the temperature of the air. There might be a bit of cooling, but very little.
you've done it again. "Deplete the atmosphere of water", and the most substantial force contributing to the ambient temperature of the planet will be eliminated. how can you argue that the world would not instantaneously freeze over if the atmosphere where devoid of the substance acting several multiples the effect of CO2 with respect to greenhouse effect? this is a fallacy which you have endeared yourself to.
If you remove the water vapor, you are not removing the heat. The water vapor does not create heat. It absorbs heat from the from the warmed ground, heat that would normally escape into space. If the water vapor were to be somehow kept out of the atmosphere, then things would freeze, but hardly instantaneously. But, considering that 2/3 of the earth's surface is water, that water would evaporate into the dry atmosphere at a rapid rate, and the normal equalibrium would be restored.
you've done it again. "Deplete the atmosphere of water", and the most substantial force contributing to the ambient temperature of the planet will be eliminated. how can you argue that the world would not instantaneously freeze over if the atmosphere where devoid of the substance acting several multiples the effect of CO2 with respect to greenhouse effect? this is a fallacy which you have endeared yourself to.
If you remove the water vapor, you are not removing the heat. The water vapor does not create heat. It absorbs heat from the from the warmed ground, heat that would normally escape into space. If the water vapor were to be somehow kept out of the atmosphere, then things would freeze, but hardly instantaneously. But, considering that 2/3 of the earth's surface is water, that water would evaporate into the dry atmosphere at a rapid rate, and the normal equalibrium would be restored.
there's all kinds of issues with your hypothetical which we can get into if this does not penetrate: removing greenhouse capacity, allows heat to radiate away from the troposphere upwards. it does indeed 'remove the heat', consequentially. so you know, i know what water is like and what the greehouse effect is. without this greenhouse capacity afforded specifically by H2O -- many times more than all other GHGs put together -- more cooling effect (on the scale of exponents) will take place than in your no CO2 model. instantaneous is relative; the world would not be habitable. there would not be sufficient energy in the atmosphere to affect the evaporation which your model anticipates.
If you remove the water vapor, you are not removing the heat. The water vapor does not create heat. It absorbs heat from the from the warmed ground, heat that would normally escape into space. If the water vapor were to be somehow kept out of the atmosphere, then things would freeze, but hardly instantaneously. But, considering that 2/3 of the earth's surface is water, that water would evaporate into the dry atmosphere at a rapid rate, and the normal equalibrium would be restored.
there's all kinds of issues with your hypothetical which we can get into if this does not penetrate: removing greenhouse capacity, allows heat to radiate away from the troposphere upwards. it does indeed 'remove the heat', consequentially. so you know, i know what water is like and what the greehouse effect is. without this greenhouse capacity afforded specifically by H2O -- many times more than all other GHGs put together -- more cooling effect (on the scale of exponents) will take place than in your no CO2 model. instantaneous is relative; the world would not be habitable. there would not be sufficient energy in the atmosphere to affect the evaporation which your model anticipates.
Ever watch a patch of ice disappear at temperatures well below freezing? Even at below freezing temperatures, ice will sublimate if the air is dry. As pointed out numerous times, the surface of the earth is covered 2/3rds by water. A dry atmosphere would immediatly evaporate water out of the oceans, and attain equalibrium again in a matter of days. Inadaquete time to cause a major glaciation.
rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.
That's because the percentage of extra CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere is much greater than the amount of H2O we add. The ~80 ppm above historical averages of CO2 that we see today is about a 25-30% increase, very significant. An increase in 80 ppm H2O is negligible compared to its normal range, therefore not as significant. Water, therefore, is not ignored, but is not considered "forcing". While it is a greater GHG, we're not effecting its concentration, like we're doing with CO2.
rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.
That's because the percentage of extra CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere is much greater than the amount of H2O we add. The ~80 ppm above historical averages of CO2 that we see today is about a 25-30% increase, very significant. An increase in 80 ppm H2O is negligible compared to its normal range, therefore not as significant. Water, therefore, is not ignored, but is not considered "forcing". While it is a greater GHG, we're not effecting its concentration, like we're doing with CO2.
this is an argument for a few things: antho CO2 forcing and non-anthro H2O forcing. this is not supportive of the larger argument that global warming is anthropogenic because the greenhouse effect attributable to water vapor, proportionate to CO2 is vastly dominant. why hasn't the possibility of other contributors to atmospheric H20 been diligently investigated? remember the interest garnered by persistent el nino cycles and shorter, less frequent la ninas? this was the predominant curiosity prior to CO2 becoming the vogue compound.
can it really be argued that the minor variations in atmospheric temperatures can illicit commensurate variations in water? chemically this is not plausible. only the opposite is supported by heat transfer as i understand it.
what do you think?
...and with all the conflicting claims, even if some were true, you can't tie them back to human responsibility. It takes assumption after assumption for the faithers to have a case. That makes them the asses.
Seems to me that water vapor is a self limiting event.
When the atmosphere gets warmer there's more of it in the atmosphere which begins cooling off the atmosphere.
...and with all the conflicting claims, even if some were true, you can't tie them back to human responsibility. It takes assumption after assumption for the faithers to have a case. That makes them the asses.
You're the ass, if you don't realize that GHGs have risen, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and that some of the most potent aren't even found in nature. If humans aren't responsible, what is? There are no "assumptions after assumptions", merely scientific facts and collected data. The ability to absorb infra-red radiation is easily demonstratable in the lab. As I said, GHGs have risen since the IR, according to ice-core data. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming?
...and with all the conflicting claims, even if some were true, you can't tie them back to human responsibility. It takes assumption after assumption for the faithers to have a case. That makes them the asses.
You're the ass, if you don't realize that GHGs have risen, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and that some of the most potent aren't even found in nature. If humans aren't responsible, what is? There are no "assumptions after assumptions", merely scientific facts and collected data. The ability to absorb infra-red radiation is easily demonstratable in the lab. As I said, GHGs have risen since the IR, according to ice-core data. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming?
You attribute far too much to human activity. If we stopped today, we would die and the planet would not change temperature significantly. That is reality.
If not human activity, what's the cause of the rise in GHGs?
Who's talking about stopping? That's a denier "meme". Slowing down or better yet living smarter is the ticket.
What's this "we would die" stuff? Now who's being the "alarmist"? Why would we die?
I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.
That's because the percentage of extra CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere is much greater than the amount of H2O we add. The ~80 ppm above historical averages of CO2 that we see today is about a 25-30% increase, very significant. An increase in 80 ppm H2O is negligible compared to its normal range, therefore not as significant. Water, therefore, is not ignored, but is not considered "forcing". While it is a greater GHG, we're not effecting its concentration, like we're doing with CO2.
this is an argument for a few things: antho CO2 forcing and non-anthro H2O forcing. this is not supportive of the larger argument that global warming is anthropogenic because the greenhouse effect attributable to water vapor, proportionate to CO2 is vastly dominant. why hasn't the possibility of other contributors to atmospheric H20 been diligently investigated? remember the interest garnered by persistent el nino cycles and shorter, less frequent la ninas? this was the predominant curiosity prior to CO2 becoming the vogue compound.
can it really be argued that the minor variations in atmospheric temperatures can illicit commensurate variations in water? chemically this is not plausible. only the opposite is supported by heat transfer as i understand it.
what do you think?
Can you show that the amount of water in the atmosphere has increased significantly? You keep repeating that water is higher, but this is not a case where absolute values are significant, but the changes in relative concentrations. If you have a 25-30% increase in CO2 that's more significant than a <1% change in H2O. Yes, variations in temps can cause a change in humidity. Don't we see that every summer? What's not plausible about it? This doesn't happen in one direction. Look at what happens at night, temps go down and we get dew on the grass. In the morning it heats up and the dew evaporates.
If not human activity, what's the cause of the rise in GHGs?
Who's talking about stopping? That's a denier "meme". Slowing down or better yet living smarter is the ticket.
What's this "we would die" stuff? Now who's being the "alarmist"? Why would we die?
I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.
Rise in GHGs: Volcaneos, natural CO2 cycles other nonhuman sources.
Slowing down will NOT stop the trend, because of the other sources continuing to change CO2 levels.
If we stopped transporting food and fuel today, most of us would die off in weeks.
That is reality. You are the one who denies the folly of your suggested actions.
this is an argument for a few things: antho CO2 forcing and non-anthro H2O forcing. this is not supportive of the larger argument that global warming is anthropogenic because the greenhouse effect attributable to water vapor, proportionate to CO2 is vastly dominant. why hasn't the possibility of other contributors to atmospheric H20 been diligently investigated? remember the interest garnered by persistent el nino cycles and shorter, less frequent la ninas? this was the predominant curiosity prior to CO2 becoming the vogue compound.
can it really be argued that the minor variations in atmospheric temperatures can illicit commensurate variations in water? chemically this is not plausible. only the opposite is supported by heat transfer as i understand it.
what do you think?
Can you show that the amount of water in the atmosphere has increased significantly? You keep repeating that water is higher, but this is not a case where absolute values are significant, but the changes in relative concentrations. If you have a 25-30% increase in CO2 that's more significant than a <1% change in H2O. Yes, variations in temps can cause a change in humidity. Don't we see that every summer? What's not plausible about it? This doesn't happen in one direction. Look at what happens at night, temps go down and we get dew on the grass. In the morning it heats up and the dew evaporates.
from the NOAA's ESRL @ boulder, co.
this indicates a greater than 2% change. while you dismiss the significance of that -- the very theme of this thread -- this pattern more directly mimics the change in atmospheric temperature, coincides with el nino effects and constitutes a trend which acts more significantly on the greenhouse effect than carbon has the potential to, even in the higher concentrations which you propose. CO2 is marginally significant in the overall GHeffect, a fractional change in it may not explain the rise in the temperature of the atmosphere, particularly since a rise is indicated in a more -- the most -- significant contributor to greenhouse effect.
this chart:
courtesy of this blog illustrates the spectral efficiency of the compounds in question, lending an insight into the dominance of H2O in GHeffect. do you question the vast volumetric advantage of water over the other gases? volumetrically, a 2-3% increase in H2O is about as significant as your proposed 25-30% rise in CO2. this is before accounting for efficiency. considering that, it is H2O increases are substantially more significant. can you refute that?
If not human activity, what's the cause of the rise in GHGs?
Who's talking about stopping? That's a denier "meme". Slowing down or better yet living smarter is the ticket.
What's this "we would die" stuff? Now who's being the "alarmist"? Why would we die?
I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.
Rise in GHGs: Volcaneos, natural CO2 cycles other nonhuman sources.
Slowing down will NOT stop the trend, because of the other sources continuing to change CO2 levels.
If we stopped transporting food and fuel today, most of us would die off in weeks.
That is reality. You are the one who denies the folly of your suggested actions.
Volcanoes? Humans put out more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. Besides, that doesn't explain the gases not found in nature. What are the other sources you're talking about? Who says we're going to stop transporting food and fuel? I'll be kind and repeat that you're an alarmist. Otherwise I'd have to say you're purposely lying to us for some political agenda because, scientifically and logically, your statements don't make sense.