It's now global cooling

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Andre, Oct 31, 2008.

  1. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    You should read what a geologist has to add to that scenario. Water vapour is induced by something, which is the trace gases.
    Water simply turns back into ice unless the atmosphere and the surface store heat; water vapour quickly loses heat through convection, in a timescale of days to weeks. Water vapour is the product of the real driver, which is the trace gases, like CO2, methane, etc.

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    I think we've already established that at 0.038% not enough CO2 is present to significantly determine temperature...and therefore water vapour concentrations.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Bzzzzt! No.
    What we've established is that the CO2 and other trace gases (much less than 1%) significantly determine temperature background, and therefore water vapour concentrations.

    You're saying a transistor amplifies the electric field across it, by having an electric field. It doesn't amplify itself, it amplifies a signal.

    A transistor amplifies a signal (heat-trapping gases are a signal in an atmosphere 'circuit'), because of the potential in the field across it.


    You wouldn't do well in a physics course, if you maintained that sort of explanation of dynamics of a mixed gas - because it's completely wrong, back-to-front, ass-about-face, etc.
    You appear to have ignored what a geologist/geochemist who has published something in a reference journal, says about this signal - that gets amplified by the water vapour concentration that trapped solar radiation 'frees' from the background, which is actually equivalent to the vacuum temperature above the planet - the initial condition is absolute zero, plus the background insolation rate.

    Water vapour in a mixed gas like our atmosphere (which is bounded by space and the surface of the earth, mostly liquid water), is determined by something other than this insolation rate, that is: the small but significant concentration of heat-trapping gases, OK?
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    I'm afraid the testimony of the ice core record indicates precisely the opposite, and would be sufficient to debunk the 'CO2 as prime mover' theory...even if its profound absurdity wasnt manifest in every other direction.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I'm afraid you are just saying something that you've picked up from somewhere, without looking at what the statement was based on, or actually saying.

    You haven't done any physics or chemistry, have you, or maybe high schools don't teach it any more.
    Can you present something that analyses ice-cores, that shows the trace gases that trap heat are what is responsible, because they 'store' or retain insolation energy, whereas water vapour loses it too quickly, is "all wrong". Do you even know what feedback is, or an open or closed loop?

    Which testimony is that?
     
  9. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    I hate to tell you this but ALL information is picked up from somewhere.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    You don't know what information is though. What you know is how to repeat something that sounds "right"; you're just chanting ("la la la, I can hear myself"), but you don't really understand the words, do you?
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,420
    What we've established is that you imagine .038% is a really small number, and therefore you imagine that whatever it measures must be insignificant.

    {edit out -arithmetic error, decimal}

    You still haven't answered the question about absolute quantities. If the "fraction of a fraction" is several feet of extra absorption layer, or many billions of tons of accumulation, would it be significant enough to show up in your underclocking registry ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2008
  12. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
  13. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    About sometime over the last century. By the look of that graph there's a trend, which everyone else knows goes back to well before 1979.
    I'd really like to see these ice core datasets that debunk CO2 as a greenhouse gas (being so insignificant and all).

    It won't happen because these denialist guys have myths to cling to, and low reading comprehension standards to keep.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2008
  14. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Afraid you're so trapped in the groupthink box, that you'll never be able to leave it.

    But here is the graph that falsifies that CO2 caused warming, neither as direct effect, neither as positive feedback, since the behavior of positive feedback is totally different.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
  16. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Moving right along...it will be interesting to see how the lawsuit against Al Gore turns out, brought to court in the last few months by a coalition of 30,000 scientists:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,420
    Your conclusions from that graph were thoroughly debunked the first few times you posted it.

    You are now lying, deliberately and purposefully misrepresenting, when you post it without dealing with the debunking.

    There is no coalition of 30,000 scientists suing Al Gore.

    btw: about the insignificance of .038% - is a few feet of extra absorption layer, many billions of tons of accumulation, 50% increased quantity, and so forth, also insignificant, or is insignificance restricted to the small number form of the description ?
     
  18. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Carcano: where is the analysis, or the data from those ice-cores you keep rabbiting on about?

    P.S. Youtube is not a source of analyses or data, in general - have you been watching Sesame St. again?
     
  19. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Yeah, it's as if they intentionally created a water vapor feedback loop in their modeling. The modeling if I recall was hired by politicians with a motivated outcome...not independently. In fact the man who sits as primary advisor to congress has a degree in Atmospheric Chemistry and has never worked in his life with climatological modeling...or even meteorological modeling.
     
  20. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    It does remain an enticing prospect however...considering how Gore was flying around in a private jet on his crusade.

    Dont get me wrong I love what hes done! I would love for his theories to be true, as it would encourage humanity to curb pollution in general...not just CO2.
     
  21. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Oh thats right...blame the medium!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Blaming everything on Youtube has been a logical fallacy since Aristotle!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Considering how many videos he made, Aristotle must be feeling a little peeved, then?
     
  23. Chris C Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    Vkothii,

    you're fighting a pointless battle. Skeptics willingfully do not understand greenhouse physics. Some appear to just get bad information (which is why you need peer-reviewed documents; if you can't find the details of your argment in the scholarly literature then you're probably wrong). Others such as Andre have spent years trying to deceive people, so it is my recommendation that you ignore him and his graphs which look like a product of Microsoft Paint. He has stuck to this "groupthink" talk while ignoring his own misrepresentation and repetition of nonsense.

    Anyone who still uses the "CO2 lags temperature" argument against AGW is either very new to the subject, or they just have no desire to get the facts straight. In the case of the latter, there's really no point in correspondence...in the case of the former there are many articles on this subject. I recommend this, whose concluding paragraph is the real "testimony" yet the Global Warming Swindle had no problem referencing this document to support the argument. Makes you wonder if they even read it
    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
     

Share This Page