Arctic ice thins dramatically

[RWatt]

I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.

I don't know what you mean by "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege", but given the atmosphere can't be simulated in a lab then I wonder how you know "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege" to be the case in the actual atmosphere, unless you accept some other type of evidence than lab experiments?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.

I don't know what you mean by "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege", but given the atmosphere can't be simulated in a lab then I wonder how you know "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege" to be the case in the actual atmosphere, unless you accept some other type of evidence than lab experiments?

This is like saying you can't predict planetary orbits because we can't put a planet in a lab.

 

[wirebender]

What are the chances that this year breaks the record for the lowest sea ice in recorded history in the arctic?

Considering the fact that the ice has been melting back for some 14,000 years now, and the fact that for the bulk of earth history, there has been no ice at one, or both of the poles, I would say that the chances are very high of records being broken, or not as that is the natural tendency of the climate system.

 

[wirebender]

But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?

I just posted an experiment, and the directions for building the equipment yourself that proves quite convincingly that the greenhouse effect as described by warmists is simply not happening.

Or perhaps you might like to tell me how, if the phenomenon of downdwelling IR exists, how one might aim a solar oven at the nightime sky and get ice with an ambient temperature of nearly 48 degrees or realize a cooling during the day light hours. Describe that observed evidence in the context of a hypothesis that suggests that IR emitted by the earth is being backradiated 24 hours a day to the extent that the earth is warming.

 

[wirebender]

I say co2 can cause a pretty solid effect on a Atmospheres temperature "if" there is high percentage of it being co2. Venus with its 97 percent co2 Atmosphere is case in point to this...Heat can only increase temperature if the Atmospheric density is dense enough to bring the molecules close enough together to hit each other.

Are you making the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are going to raise the atmospheric pressure of the earth 90+ times and bring about a venus like climate on earth?

but a increase in co2 "if" co2 on earth where to increase to 10, 20, 50, 70 or 90 percent would have a very real effect on the surface temperature of our planet.

No it wouldn't. CO2 is not driving the climate.

Now I don't know the effect 60 or 130 ppm increase in co2 would cause. Maybe not much at all or maybe our green friends could be right. I don't know.

Look at earth history. Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine. CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate. Certainly not a driver.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I say co2 can cause a pretty solid effect on a Atmospheres temperature "if" there is high percentage of it being co2. Venus with its 97 percent co2 Atmosphere is case in point to this...Heat can only increase temperature if the Atmospheric density is dense enough to bring the molecules close enough together to hit each other.

Are you making the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are going to raise the atmospheric pressure of the earth 90+ times and bring about a venus like climate on earth?

Nope, Just pointing out that co2 has a very real effect at high enough levels and not that the earth is going to see anything even a thousandth of one percent of venus.

but a increase in co2 "if" co2 on earth where to increase to 10, 20, 50, 70 or 90 percent would have a very real effect on the surface temperature of our planet.

No it wouldn't. CO2 is not driving the climate.

Still green house gas and we can see with Venus that is so at high enough levels. Not sure about 60 or 130 ppm of course.

Now I don't know the effect 60 or 130 ppm increase in co2 would cause. Maybe not much at all or maybe our green friends could be right. I don't know.

Look at earth history. Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine. CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate. Certainly not a driver.

60, 100, 500 million years ago the sun put out less energy and was dimmer to. Maybe that co2 helped make the planet warm enough for life to flourish? Water vapor on earth of course is a much more important driver of climate and will remain so for another 4 billion years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Several times the GHGs in the atmosphere spiked in geological history. And several times the temperature spiked, and there was a major extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the physics of the atmosphere. And, yes, Frank, that is your laboratory experiment. It has been done, and the results weren't pretty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I say co2 can cause a pretty solid effect on a Atmospheres temperature "if" there is high percentage of it being co2. Venus with its 97 percent co2 Atmosphere is case in point to this...Heat can only increase temperature if the Atmospheric density is dense enough to bring the molecules close enough together to hit each other.

Are you making the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are going to raise the atmospheric pressure of the earth 90+ times and bring about a venus like climate on earth?

Nope, Just pointing out that co2 has a very real effect at high enough levels and not that the earth is going to see anything even a thousandth of one percent of venus.



No it wouldn't. CO2 is not driving the climate.

Still green house gas and we can see with Venus that is so at high enough levels. Not sure about 60 or 130 ppm of course.

Now I don't know the effect 60 or 130 ppm increase in co2 would cause. Maybe not much at all or maybe our green friends could be right. I don't know.

Look at earth history. Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine. CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate. Certainly not a driver.

60, 100, 500 million years ago the sun put out less energy and was dimmer to. Maybe that co2 helped make the planet warm enough for life to flourish? Water vapor on earth of course is a much more important driver of climate and will remain so for another 4 billion years.

In fact, in Al Gore's Peer Reviewed Bible on the subject "Earth in the Balance" he blames Water vapor for any increases in temperature

 

[Old Rocks]

God, Franky, will you ever stop being a dumb ass? Water vapor is a feedback from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

God, Franky, will you ever stop being a dumb ass? Water vapor is a feedback from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

Are we measuring daily micro fluctuations in H2O in PPM like we monitor CO2?

Even in you example you describe a LOCAL effect at In Salah in southern Algeria, how is that GLOBAL?

Again, your phony "Science" presumes that CO2 is the cause of the warming and increase in H2O are caused by CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.

 

[konradv]

I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.

I don't know what you mean by "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege", but given the atmosphere can't be simulated in a lab then I wonder how you know "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege" to be the case in the actual atmosphere, unless you accept some other type of evidence than lab experiments?

This is like saying you can't predict planetary orbits because we can't put a planet in a lab.

You're the one that keeps asking why things can't be shown in a lab. Given your earlier posts that EXACTLY what YOU'RE saying!!! Are you flip-flopping on us, Frank? Were you for lab experiments before you were against them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.

That's not the issue, Buckwheat.

Can you please state what your "Theory" is? I don't believe you've ever answered that

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.

I don't know what you mean by "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege", but given the atmosphere can't be simulated in a lab then I wonder how you know "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege" to be the case in the actual atmosphere, unless you accept some other type of evidence than lab experiments?

This is like saying you can't predict planetary orbits because we can't put a planet in a lab.

You're the one that keeps asking why things can't be shown in a lab. Given your earlier posts that EXACTLY what YOU'RE saying!!! Are you flip-flopping on us, Frank? Were you for lab experiments before you were against them?

I can't believe that you may actually be as stupid as your post indicates. I was being glib, facetious, sarcastic. I was not suggesting we put the planet Mars in a laboratory to study planetary trajectories.

You see that now, right?

 

[American Cowboy]

Maybe the engine from Al Gore LearJet is melting the ice?

 

[wirebender]

Nope, Just pointing out that co2 has a very real effect at high enough levels and not that the earth is going to see anything even a thousandth of one percent of venus. [/B]

CO2 isn't the driver on venus either, pressure is. If venus had an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere much like earth with the pressure found on venus, it would still be an oven.

Still green house gas and we can see with Venus that is so at high enough levels. Not sure about 60 or 130 ppm of course.[/B]

Greenhouse gas is a misnomer and a hoax.

Look at earth history. Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine. CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate. Certainly not a driver.[/QUOTE]

60, 100, 500 million years ago the sun put out less energy and was dimmer to. Maybe that co2 helped make the planet warm enough for life to flourish? Water vapor on earth of course is a much more important driver of climate and will remain so for another 4 billion years.

Since CO2 can not make the earth warmer, it doesn't matter what concentration existed.

 

[wirebender]

Several times the GHGs in the atmosphere spiked in geological history. And several times the temperature spiked, and there was a major extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the physics of the atmosphere. And, yes, Frank, that is your laboratory experiment. It has been done, and the results weren't pretty.

As usual, you are wrong. Do try and extract some corelation between extinction events and spikes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[wirebender]

Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.

I provided you with an experiment you can perform in your own back yard that proves beyond doubt that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that the idea of downdwelling radiation is little more than a steaming pile of excrement. Feel free to try the experiment. It won't cost you much and will show you that downdwelling radiation does not exist and downdwelling radiation is the cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Several times the GHGs in the atmosphere spiked in geological history. And several times the temperature spiked, and there was a major extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the physics of the atmosphere. And, yes, Frank, that is your laboratory experiment. It has been done, and the results weren't pretty.

Was there a point in that?

 

[konradv]

Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.

I provided you with an experiment you can perform in your own back yard that proves beyond doubt that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that the idea of downdwelling radiation is little more than a steaming pile of excrement. Feel free to try the experiment. It won't cost you much and will show you that downdwelling radiation does not exist and downdwelling radiation is the cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis.

We're supposed to take the word of someone who got on this board and said that H2CO3 isn't an acid?!?! Your rather fluid knowledge of science puts anything you have to say on this subject in a bad light. Got a cite where someone other than you did this experiment?