The cause of global cooling is a global water radiator

[Crick]

100 years? ... human population quadrupled in that time ... that's a hell of a lot of respiration ... plus the ants, they respirate too ... even algae respirate ... I'm surprised you know less about biology than engineering ... have you gotten as far as High School Health class? ... you need to learn where babies come from in a hurry, young lady ...

"Hell of a lot of respiration". Is that an accurate, scientific quantification? Can you tell us just how much Kreb's Cycle water production increased? And then perhaps you can point us towards the data showing the massive increase in water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere over that period. Eh? Perhaps beyond that which would be expected from the increasing Greenhouse heating?

 

[Crick]

Water Vapor Feedback and the Global Warming Pause « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

Yeah... a HELL of a lot of respiration. And this is from one of yours.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702872104

 

[ReinyDays]

And then perhaps you can point us towards the data showing the massive increase in water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere over that period. Eh?

Water vapor is in equilibrium with the air, that's natural law ... how much water depends on temperature alone ... roughly 7% per ºC at normal surface temperatures ...

I don't know much about the Kreb's Cycle, I'm told a massive dose of penicillin will take care of it ... but I do know this cycle consumes ATP, and spits out ADP ... which in turn is consumed by respiration, and ATP is spit out again ... what's usually called the energy cycle ...

Breath on a cold mirror ... or get some houseplants ... water is a powerful GHG ... but it also condenses ...

 

[Crick]

And it also evaporates from 98.6 degree mucous membranes.

And here is some discussion about the Krebs Cycle that seems to suggest the net change of water is ZERO.

How much H2O is produced in the Krebs cycle?

Answer: First of all i am greatly thankful to you. would you not ask why??? O.k..…wait buddy…i am telling. Yesterday, i was just going through questions where i saw your question. Your question reminds me that i have to prepare for a test of half book of biology. I couldn't decide that from whe...

www.quora.com

 

[ReinyDays]

And it also evaporates from 98.6 degree mucous membranes.

And here is some discussion about the Krebs Cycle that seems to suggest the net change of water is ZERO.

How much H2O is produced in the Krebs cycle?

Answer: First of all i am greatly thankful to you. would you not ask why??? O.k..…wait buddy…i am telling. Yesterday, i was just going through questions where i saw your question. Your question reminds me that i have to prepare for a test of half book of biology. I couldn't decide that from whe...

www.quora.com

The change is in the state of water ... from liquid to vapor ... most of which is through transpiration ... basic AGW Theory ... where have you been these past 50 years? ...

 

[Crick]

The change is in the state of water ... from liquid to vapor ... most of which is through transpiration ... basic AGW Theory ... where have you been these past 50 years? ...

Ahh.. but that wasn't the claim. The claim was that the Krebs Cycle created water from oxygen and hydrogen and led to a net increase of water that was cooling the planet. So, I guess you don't buy that nonsense either.

 

[ding]

Roy Spencer is da man!

 

[ReinyDays]

Ahh.. but that wasn't the claim. The claim was that the Krebs Cycle created water from oxygen and hydrogen and led to a net increase of water that was cooling the planet. So, I guess you don't buy that nonsense either.

I missed the "net" part ... you added that in afterwards ... the Kreb's cycle does reduce oxygen, where did you think the electrons came from? ... simple redox ... doesn't the vocational school you attend have college-level chemistry courses? ... if not, try your local community college ...

 

[Crick]

I missed the "net" part ... you added that in afterwards ... the Kreb's cycle does reduce oxygen, where did you think the electrons came from? ... simple redox ... doesn't the vocational school you attend have college-level chemistry courses? ... if not, try your local community college ...

Post #24, I used the term "net". I had earlier noted it was a cycle, certainly suggestive that I was addressing the water coming and going. I have a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering. That curriculum did not include a lot of biology but it did have a good chunk of inorganic chemistry. Of course I used virtually none of it during my career so I don't expect to impress anyone with my command of redox reactions. Despite all those shortcomings, the fact that all animals will die of thirst if they don't take in water from the environment tells me that the Krebs cycle couldn't be producing a lot of the wet stuff and the whole idea that the globe is being cooled by this process is a moronic fantasy as I'm quite certain you already know. I assume you're just arguing with me because you dislike me. No?

 

[ReinyDays]

Post #24, I used the term "net". I had earlier noted it was a cycle, certainly suggestive that I was addressing the water coming and going. I have a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering. That curriculum did not include a lot of biology but it did have a good chunk of inorganic chemistry. Of course I used virtually none of it during my career so I don't expect to impress anyone with my command of redox reactions. Despite all those shortcomings, the fact that all animals will die of thirst if they don't take in water from the environment tells me that the Krebs cycle couldn't be producing a lot of the wet stuff and the whole idea that the globe is being cooled by this process is a moronic fantasy as I'm quite certain you already know. I assume you're just arguing with me because you dislike me. No?

I was speaking of respiration and transpiration ... as defined in AGW Theory ... which evaporates water ...

I don't dislike you ... I'm sure your as poplar as any of the young ladies at your middle school ... I'm just correcting your mistakes ... biology produces water ... ask your parents if you can have a house plant ... then watch ...

 

[Crick]

I was speaking of respiration and transpiration ... as defined in AGW Theory ... which evaporates water ...

I don't dislike you ... I'm sure your as poplar as any of the young ladies at your middle school ... I'm just correcting your mistakes ... biology produces water ... ask your parents if you can have a house plant ... then watch ...

RESPIRATION:
The action of breathing
MEDICINE

a single breath​

"observation of the patient's respirations will gradually be decreased"​

BIOLOGY

a process in living organisms involving the production of energy typically with the intake of oxygen and the release of carbon dioxide from the oxidation of complex oranic substances.​

TRANSPIRATION
BOTANY

(of a plant or leaf) the exhalation of water vapor through the stomata.​

"plants lose more than 90 percent of their water through transpiration"​

Respiration as a process does not make use of water. Water gets evaporated by circulating air from inside the body and leaves through respiration. No water is produced. Water lost through evaporation must be replaced by consumption. Transpiration is the movement of water out of plants. That water entered the plants from the soil through the roots. Plants consume water in the process of photosynthesis (sunlight + 6H2O + 6CO2 -> C6H1206 + 6O2), they do not produce it.

So, I'm sorry, but once again you are wrong.

PS, I am the fellow in the avatar photograph. If you think I look like a middle schooler or that young ladies are commonly bald with full beards and moustaches, I don't think I want to hang out in your milieu. If you doubt that is me in the photograph, I can change it to one of me holding a sign mentioning this conversation and you personally. Say the word. Or continue to act like... a middle schooler.

 

[Rigby5]

It's very simple. How did I not guess before.

Water during circulation in the atmosphere simply removes heat to the ocean.

It is elementary, as any refrigerator works.

It turns out that there is more moisture in the atmosphere, and it circulates faster.

Circulation of heat around the globe is not global warming or cooling.
The sum total is the same.

The problem with global warming is that CO2 prevents heat from radiating out from the upper atmosphere, into space.
Carbon converts photonic energy into vibratory energy.
And since you can't conduct vibratory energy out into space, carbon traps more heat in the atmosphere.

 

[Rigby5]

It is possible that the Global cooling is caused by the fact that the amount of water increases. Water is constantly produced during the respiratory processes of the biosphere.

If more water is constantly produced, it would not cause any global cooling.
Evaporation of water can move heat around, but the sum total of the planetary energy is the same.

 

[Rigby5]

Water vapor is in equilibrium with the air, that's natural law ... how much water depends on temperature alone ... roughly 7% per ºC at normal surface temperatures ...

I don't know much about the Kreb's Cycle, I'm told a massive dose of penicillin will take care of it ... but I do know this cycle consumes ATP, and spits out ADP ... which in turn is consumed by respiration, and ATP is spit out again ... what's usually called the energy cycle ...

Breath on a cold mirror ... or get some houseplants ... water is a powerful GHG ... but it also condenses ...

As an aside. even though water is a powerful green house gas, it does not at all matter.
The reason why is that water condenses out at colder temperatures.
And the only place where greenhouse gases matter, is the upper atmosphere, the boundary to space.
Only there does the atmosphere determine if energy is radiated out into space as photons, or kept in the planetary heat reserve of the atmosphere, as vibratory energy.
And while CO2 can't condense out at that cold altitude, water does.
So water has no effect on planetary heat retention.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem with global warming is that CO2 prevents heat from radiating out from the upper atmosphere, into space.

No heat radiates out? Ever?

 

[Crick]

No heat radiates out? Ever?

Explain it to him Todd

 

[Rigby5]

No heat radiates out? Ever?

Well no of course most heat must escape or else we would already be like Venus and the surface hot enough to melt lead.
And even Venus loses some heat.
I just meant CO2 prevents SOME heat from radiating out into space.
The amount coming in does not change much, even from orbit eccentricity.
What regulates planetary heat is how much can escape.
And that is regulated on Earth, by CO2.

 

[ding]

I just meant CO2 prevents SOME heat from radiating out into space.

How much?

 

[ding]

And that is regulated on Earth, by CO2.

That is incorrect. Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. See?

 

[Rigby5]

That is incorrect. Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. See?

View attachment 649075

Wrong.
Water vapor has zero effect on retention of earth heat because it condenses out at the cold temperatures of the high stratosphere.
There is no water vapor at the edge to space, so it has no effect on retaining heat or not.
Water vapor absorbing heat energy at sea level, is pointless.
That has nothing at all to do with whether the planet warms or cools.
The only place where molecular energy absorption mattes is at the very top edge of the stratosphere.
No where else.
The only heat retention that matters is if the heat would otherwise radiate out into space, if not retained by a carbon containing molecule.