There is no Climate Emergency !

[mamooth]

... just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage ...

So?

If I put one drop of black ink in a glass of water, that will represent about .041% of the solution, yet the solution will become opaque.

And so crumbles your "But a trace of something can't absorb light significantly!" argument.

A tiny sprinkle of cyanide in a glass of water would be similarly dilute. By your standard, you should have no problem drinking it. It's just a trace, so it can't be harmful!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It takes balls to claim that number is "trace" ... just saying ...

You flopped badly on this one.

Okay ... you're a pussy for calling 10^19 "trace" ... sheesh ...

Wow! OMG!! No wonder atmospheric CO2 can cause life killing heat 700m deep in the oceans!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

... just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage ...

So?

If I put one drop of black ink in a glass of water, that will represent about .041% of the solution, yet the solution will become opaque.

And so crumbles your "But a trace of something can't absorb light significantly!" argument.

A tiny sprinkle of cyanide in a glass of water would be similarly dilute. By your standard, you should have no problem drinking it. It's just a trace, so it can't be harmful!

CO2: it warms, it chills, it kills instantly!

 

[Sunsettommy]

... just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage ...

So?

If I put one drop of black ink in a glass of water, that will represent about .041% of the solution, yet the solution will become opaque.

And so crumbles your "But a trace of something can't absorb light significantly!" argument.

A tiny sprinkle of cyanide in a glass of water would be similarly dilute. By your standard, you should have no problem drinking it. It's just a trace, so it can't be harmful!

You are so irrational since my .041% is completely supported fact, since it was based on the composition of the atmosphere.

You now deflect to DOSE of a chemical, which doesn't help you here.

You can drink a full glass of water without harm, but a couple droplets of hemlock can kill you.

Yet if you drink a GALLON of water quickly, it can now kill you since the electrolyte balance can be disrupted.

You are so bad at this science stuff, the entertainment alone is worth putting up with your stupidity every day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

... just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage ...

So?

If I put one drop of black ink in a glass of water, that will represent about .041% of the solution, yet the solution will become opaque.

And so crumbles your "But a trace of something can't absorb light significantly!" argument.

A tiny sprinkle of cyanide in a glass of water would be similarly dilute. By your standard, you should have no problem drinking it. It's just a trace, so it can't be harmful!

You're describing the AGW Cult's Squid ink defense perfectly.

When you have no science to support your improbably "theory" let out some ink and run away behind the cloud

 

[Likkmee]

... just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage ...

So?

If I put one drop of black ink in a glass of water, that will represent about .041% of the solution, yet the solution will become opaque.

And so crumbles your "But a trace of something can't absorb light significantly!" argument.

A tiny sprinkle of cyanide in a glass of water would be similarly dilute. By your standard, you should have no problem drinking it. It's just a trace, so it can't be harmful!

CO2: it warms, it chills, it kills instantly!

It shields well.
If you're a welder....

 

[mamooth]

You are so irrational since my .041% is completely supported fact, since it was based on the composition of the atmosphere.

I demonstrated how senseless your argument was using the "drop of ink in a glass of water" example. Your "but ... but ... a trace can't have any effect!" argument is obviously wrong.

.041% ink can absorb visible light very well.

.041% CO2 can absorb IR light very well.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm buffooned by your reference to a "dry area" ... what the hell are you talking about? ...

You've apparently never heard of deserts, yet you're claiming I lack climate knowledge?
Wow.

Divergent zones ... areas the lack energy transport ... how does air transport energy in places that lack energy transport ... maybe you didn't know that the desert belts at 30º latitude generally have very high air temperatures, indicating this lack of energy transport ... whatever your knowledge of climate, it's coming up short with basic meteorology ...

Deserts are strictly a land-based climate ... most of the 30th parallels are over the oceans ... and are considered oceanic climates ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are so irrational since my .041% is completely supported fact, since it was based on the composition of the atmosphere.

I demonstrated how senseless your argument was using the "drop of ink in a glass of water" example. Your "but ... but ... a trace can't have any effect!" argument is obviously wrong.

.041% ink can absorb visible light very well.

.041% CO2 can absorb IR light very well.

You didn't demonstrate shit, you completely ignored the simple DOSE level examples I posted to show that your use of Cyanide was misleading in relation to a proven trace GAS with an atmospheric level of .041%

CO2 is a GAS (floating around in the atmosphere) , with some limited warm forcing power, Ink is a liquid (not floating around in the atmosphere), that does NOT absorb sufficient energy to matter.....

You made an unsupported claim:

.041% ink can absorb visible light very well.

Care to back this up?

You also didn't show how Ink effect the atmosphere or heat transfer, which CO2 has a demonstrated effect.

I posted this early on, which actually destroys your stupid Ink argument anyway:

"Nitrogen is 78%
Oxygen is 20%

Argon .9%
CO2 .041% "

Those are the top four most abundant gases in the atmosphere.

Now try telling me where your Ink (Liquid) falls in place with THOUSANDS of other liquid based chemicals in existence....., what is it's percentage and what is it's role in absorbing spectral wavelengths.

Is it a common liquid among all liquids?


=====

No matter how you slice it, .041% is a tiny number for a gas in an atmosphere where Nitrogen and Oxygen compose 99% of the atmosphere by mass.

Why continue your stupid denial that it is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.......

You are truly stupid for trying to build a dose argument when I was from the start stated it was a Trace gas in the atmosphere, the .041% is the actual number by mass in the atmosphere.

 

[ReinyDays]

You are truly stupid for trying to build a dose argument when I was from the start stated it was a Trace gas in the atmosphere, the .041% is the actual number by mass in the atmosphere.

Closer to 0.07% by mass ... or 690 ppm(m) ... the 410 ppm is by volume, ppm(v) ...

Also, the atmosphere is on average 1% water vapor ... we could call this trace, but it has very profound effects on of weather and the climatic averages of weather ... in some climates, this trace gas is more important than temperature ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are truly stupid for trying to build a dose argument when I was from the start stated it was a Trace gas in the atmosphere, the .041% is the actual number by mass in the atmosphere.

Closer to 0.07% by mass ... or 690 ppm(m) ... the 410 ppm is by volume, ppm(v) ...

Also, the atmosphere is on average 1% water vapor ... we could call this trace, but it has very profound effects on of weather and the climatic averages of weather ... in some climates, this trace gas is more important than temperature ...

Now this is a good post, clarifying details and even make a good point about Water Vapor.

Thank you.

 

[mamooth]

Can you back this up?

A drop is 0.05 ml, or 0.00005 liter, or 0.005% of a liter. Put the drop in half a liter, 0.01%. Still less ss than 0.041%

See? Maths. No wonder you're confounded.

Remember, I can back up everything I say. I understand that's a foreign concept to your "BUT I FEEL THIS IS TRUE!" way of thinking.

CO2 is a GAS (floating around in the atmosphere) , with some limited warm forcing power, Ink is a liquid (not floating around in the atmosphere), that does NOT absorb sufficient energy to matter.....

Irrelevant. A mere trace is still absorbing light. The point is not to create complex model of energy flow. The point is to destroy your argument that a trace of something can't absorb significant light. I did that, and now you're flailing.

I posted this early on, which actually destroys your stupid Ink argument anyway:

"Nitrogen is 78%
Oxygen is 20%

Argon .9%
CO2 .041% "

Those are the top four most abundant gases in the atmosphere.

That doesn't address my argument in any way.

Now try telling me where your Ink (Liquid) falls in place with THOUSANDS of other liquid based chemicals in existence....., what is it's percentage and what is it's role in absorbing spectral wavelengths.

Nor does that.

Is it a common liquid among all liquids?

Nor does that.

No matter how you slice it, .041% is a tiny number for a gas in an atmosphere where Nitrogen and Oxygen compose 99% of the atmosphere by mass.

So? After all, we already know a trace of something can absorb light very well.

Why continue your stupid denial that it is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.......

Yes, a trace gas that absorbs longwave IR very well.

You are truly stupid for trying to build a dose argument

Then you shouldn't have done that. It had to be you, because it certainly wasn't me, and somebody here did it. Why else would you be screaming about it?

This isn't a debate. CO2 absorbs IR very well, even just a trace. You're pseudoscience cult nutter screaming nonsense that defies the known physics of the past century.

 

[mamooth]

Divergent zones ... areas the lack energy transport ... how does air transport energy in places that lack energy transport ... maybe you didn't know that the desert belts at 30º latitude generally have very high air temperatures, indicating this lack of energy transport ... whatever your knowledge of climate, it's coming up short with basic meteorology ...

You're actually saying there's no convection when the air is dry? I have no idea where you're getting this stuff. Your claims would come as a great surprise to scientists. For example ...

Thickness of the dry convection and large-scale subsidence above deserts - Boundary-Layer Meteorology

Thickness of dry convection above various deserts of the world is obtained from aerological data, and assimilated data from ECMWF. A mixed layer develops up to a height of about 1 km above the central Sahara, where strong subsidence occurs. However, above many other deserts in Africa and Asia, a...

link.springer.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

Can you back this up?

A drop is 0.05 ml, or 0.00005 liter, or 0.005% of a liter. Put the drop in half a liter, 0.01%. Still less ss than 0.041%

See? Maths. No wonder you're confounded.

Remember, I can back up everything I say. I understand that's a foreign concept to your "BUT I FEEL THIS IS TRUE!" way of thinking.

CO2 is a GAS (floating around in the atmosphere) , with some limited warm forcing power, Ink is a liquid (not floating around in the atmosphere), that does NOT absorb sufficient energy to matter.....

Irrelevant. A mere trace is still absorbing light. The point is not to create complex model of energy flow. The point is to destroy your argument that a trace of something can't absorb significant light. I did that, and now you're flailing.

I posted this early on, which actually destroys your stupid Ink argument anyway:

"Nitrogen is 78%
Oxygen is 20%

Argon .9%
CO2 .041% "

Those are the top four most abundant gases in the atmosphere.

That doesn't address my argument in any way.

Now try telling me where your Ink (Liquid) falls in place with THOUSANDS of other liquid based chemicals in existence....., what is it's percentage and what is it's role in absorbing spectral wavelengths.

Nor does that.

Is it a common liquid among all liquids?

Nor does that.

No matter how you slice it, .041% is a tiny number for a gas in an atmosphere where Nitrogen and Oxygen compose 99% of the atmosphere by mass.

So? After all, we already know a trace of something can absorb light very well.

Why continue your stupid denial that it is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.......

Yes, a trace gas that absorbs longwave IR very well.

You are truly stupid for trying to build a dose argument

Then you shouldn't have done that. It had to be you, because it certainly wasn't me, and somebody here did it. Why else would you be screaming about it?

This isn't a debate. CO2 absorbs IR very well, even just a trace. You're pseudoscience cult nutter screaming nonsense that defies the known physics of the past century.

Your desperate pretzel level quality effort can't address the fact that .041% of the ATMOPSPHERE (the other 99.99%) is a trace gas.

CO2 absorbs only a small area of the IR window, that is a fact you can't dispute, most of it in a small band area, which is mostly OUTSIDE of the main terrestrial IR outflow, the other two much smaller bands absorbs so little that it doesn't matter much, you were shown this before, it is a simple chart for most people can understand:

From an award winning Atmospheric Physicist:

"Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago."

===

Selected Excerpt:

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.
===

Go on about how rare CO2 is in the atmosphere:

"To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms."

For equidistant packing, a tetrahedron arrangement is required

To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

LINK

bolding mine

 

[mamooth]

CO2 absorbs only a small area of the IR window,

Since most of the IR window is closed, those spots blocked by CO2 become very significant. If my house has ten windows open and I close one, there's little effect. If my house has two windows open and I close one, there's a big effect. The latter case is the situtation with the atmosphere and CO2.

From an award winning Atmospheric Physicist:

One who got the big picture wrong.

Go on about how rare CO2 is in the atmosphere:

No, because that would be dumb. There's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb a lot of longwave IR, so calling it "rare" is just an attempt to confuse the issue with semantics.

 

[ReinyDays]

You're actually saying there's no convection when the air is dry? I have no idea where you're getting this stuff. Your claims would come as a great surprise to scientists. For example ...

I was commenting on energy transport ... and dry air transports very little energy compared to wet air ... I'm just pointing out your errors ... no need to get your fragile ego involved ... wet air transports energy up, where the energy is lost into space; the remaining dry air then descends back to the surface to absorbs more moisture to be transported up ... read your article again, this time with comprehension ...

 

[basquebromance]

here's what we're gonna do, my friends:

spend around $16 trillion over the next decade, deny new federal permits for fossil fuel infrastructure projects like pipelines, eliminate gas-fired heat and other fossil fuels in new buildings, and set vehicle fuel standards at levels so stringent they would halt the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-powered cars

 

[Sunsettommy]

CO2 absorbs only a small area of the IR window,

Since most of the IR window is closed, those spots blocked by CO2 become very significant. If my house has ten windows open and I close one, there's little effect. If my house has two windows open and I close one, there's a big effect. The latter case is the situtation with the atmosphere and CO2.

From an award winning Atmospheric Physicist:

One who got the big picture wrong.

Go on about how rare CO2 is in the atmosphere:

No, because that would be dumb. There's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb a lot of longwave IR, so calling it "rare" is just an attempt to confuse the issue with semantics.

You are embarrassing.

 

[Innocynioc]

CO2 absorbs only a small area of the IR window,

Since most of the IR window is closed, those spots blocked by CO2 become very significant. If my house has ten windows open and I close one, there's little effect. If my house has two windows open and I close one, there's a big effect. The latter case is the situtation with the atmosphere and CO2.

From an award winning Atmospheric Physicist:

One who got the big picture wrong.

Go on about how rare CO2 is in the atmosphere:

No, because that would be dumb. There's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb a lot of longwave IR, so calling it "rare" is just an attempt to confuse the issue with semantics.

You are embarrassing.

I hesitate to interrupt this two way brouhaha, but I will interject that I find the theory of anthropogenic global warming to be very unconvincing because of the plethora of abysmally failed predictions and the abundant deceit of the global warming disciples.

 

[ReinyDays]

here's what we're gonna do, my friends:

spend around $16 trillion over the next decade, deny new federal permits for fossil fuel infrastructure projects like pipelines, eliminate gas-fired heat and other fossil fuels in new buildings, and set vehicle fuel standards at levels so stringent they would halt the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-powered cars

Congress is on pace to spend $10 trillion in just the past six months ... $16 trillion of ten years is chump change ...