Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:

...

If you are correct Ican, it would mean much of what we know about the universe could well be wrong since spectroscopy requires that molecules always react the same to electromagnetic energy.

More correctly stated: spectroscopy requires that molecules OF THE SAME KIND WITHIN THE SAME PHYSICAL CONDITIONS always react the same to electromagnetic energy.

I see. So then you will provide us of the source for your claim that CO2 doesn't absorb as much IR when it is in water vapor?

No! I don't want to bother going to the trouble of providing you well known evidence. I'll simply give you a vector to that well known evidence you demand. However, for that vector to be useful, you will have to open your mind and do an honest piece of objective research.

Do a search on molecular mixtures and/or on air radiation and re-radiation or radiation and re-radiation by air gases.

Here's only a sample of the introductory information you might come across in your search:

Quote:

http://www.psinvention.com/mixtures.htm

Brief Outline Of Molecular Mixtures
There are basically 3 types of mixtures. They can be characterized by how they combine ( interaction with the solute (substance being disolved) and solvent ( dissolving medium)) as well as how they can be separated.
Suspension:
The ingredients are (stirred) in. If left alone, they will settle out. The heavier ingredient will settle to the bottom. Filtration can seperate the two ingredients. An example would be dirt mixed with water.
Colloidial:
The size of the solute is smaller than in a suspension, but greater than in a solution (see below). The solute breaks down but remains as a clump of molecules and is smaller than the eye can see. Colloids are a bit unusual in that the solute is equally dispersed in the solvent as in a solution, but the solute does not completely break down. In many cases this is because something coats the bits of solute and prevents them from completely disolving in the solvent. An example would be mayonaise, jello or Oobleck.
Solution:
The solute and solvent are dissolved and cannot be separated unless one of the ingredients changes state of matter. ie. distilation, (evaporating) or crystallation. An example would be salt and water.
Home Page of Poseidon Software and Invention.

Or start your search here:

Quote:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2002/5000/5480jaworske.html
Solar Selective Coatings Prepared From Thin-Film Molecular Mixtures and Evaluated
Thin films composed of molecular mixtures of metal and dielectric are being considered for use as solar selective coatings for a variety of space power applications. By controlling molecular mixing during ion-beam sputter deposition, researchers can tailor the solar selective coatings to have the combined properties of high solar absorptance and low infrared emittance. On orbit, these combined properties simultaneously maximize the amount of solar energy captured by the coating and minimize the amount of thermal energy radiated. The solar selective coatings are envisioned for use on minisatellites, for applications where solar energy is used to power heat engines or to heat remote regions in the interior of the spacecraft. Such systems may be useful for various missions, particularly those to middle Earth orbit.

Or start your search here:

Quote:

http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.html
Geog 474
Energy Interactions with the Atmosphere and at the Surface

Solar and Terrestrial Radiation
Most remote sensing instruments are designed to detect solar radiation and terrestrial radiation
Solar radiation

emr emitted from sun which passes through the atmosphere and is reflected in varying degrees by Earth's surface and atmosphere
detectable only during daylight

0 Replies

A nice load of crap that doesn't explain anything about which spectrum CO2 absorbs when it is suspended in water compared to when it is not suspended.

By mixing molecules scientists can use different molecules to absorb specific wavelengths. Since one molecule doesn't absorb all the wavelengths they just selectively pick the molecules to absorb the required wavelengths. Water vapor doesn't absorb all the wavelengths that CO2 does. You have shown me nothing that even comes close to answering my question. Mixing molecules doesn't make the individual molecules absorb different wavelengths.

I will ask again. What source do you have that shows that a CO2 atom suspended in water does not absorb any energy in the infrared range. Every paper I have looked at shows that CO2 does absorb IR when suspended in water which is why they can use spectography to tell that the water contains CO2

0 Replies

parados wrote:

A nice load of crap that doesn't explain anything about which spectrum CO2 absorbs when it is suspended in water compared to when it is not suspended.

By mixing molecules scientists can use different molecules to absorb specific wavelengths. Since one molecule doesn't absorb all the wavelengths they just selectively pick the molecules to absorb the required wavelengths. Water vapor doesn't absorb all the wavelengths that CO2 does. You have shown me nothing that even comes close to answering my question. Mixing molecules doesn't make the individual molecules absorb different wavelengths.

I will ask again. What source do you have that shows that a CO2 atom suspended in water does not absorb any energy in the infrared range. Every paper I have looked at shows that CO2 does absorb IR when suspended in water which is why they can use spectography to tell that the water contains CO2

I never claimed: "a CO2 atom suspended in water does not absorb any energy in the infrared range."

I actually wrote the following, Posted Mon 05 Nov, 2007 5:50 pm Post: 2929018 (page 737 of this forum), and repeated it more than once in subsequent posts:

ican711nm wrote:

OK! So now all we have to focus our attention on, is the source of that infrared radiation and the cause of its variable intensity over past millennia as well as past centuries and decades. Some say the most immediate source is the CO2 in the atmosphere. But much of that CO2 in the atmosphere is mixed with H2O. Consequently, its ability to radiate infrared light from the infrared radiation it receives from earth is somewhat reduced. So as the global temperature rises, more H2O would evaporate into the atmosphere and reduce further the atmospheric CO2's ability to radiate infrared. That would then lead to global cooling.

You have repeatedly asked me to supply evidence that what I wrote and copied above is true. Since I did not want to make the effort to obtain evidence to support what I think is obvious, I finally gave you what I called a vector to how you could begin researching that evidence on your own.

Do you now claim that what I wrote and copied above is false? If so, provide evidence--not opinion--to support your claim. If you do not make tthat claim, then the validity of your claim that the earth was primarily warmed by increased CO2 in the atmosphere is in serious doubt.

0 Replies

I see. So you can't provide any evidence of your claim then. Thanks for clarifying for all of us.

0 Replies

Quote:

the infrared radiation it receives from earth is somewhat reduced. So as the global temperature rises, more H2O would evaporate into the atmosphere and reduce further the atmospheric CO2's ability to radiate infrared. That would then lead to global cooling.

You claimed that it would lead to cooling..

The science clearly shows it won't. When 2 gases with different spectral radiations are combined you can add the 2 together to get the spectral outcome. When they are not completely different then you have to use a different formula. The formula can be found here.
p.454 - formula for overlapping spectrum
I have found more than one abstract that has shown models of CO2 and H20 closely match the theoretical results.

It doesn't mean that CO2 absorbs less. It means the combined gases absorb more than the individual gases and it also means the combined gases can't absorb as much as simply adding the 2 absorbtion rates.

The individual absorbtion spectrum for water and CO2 can be found here
http://jcbmac.chem.brown.edu/baird/CHEM-F1/Chem-IRC/images/water_CO2Absn.html
You will note that CO2 has an absorbtion band in the 12-18 range that water doesn't completely absorb.

My initial response to your statement about how it would lead to cooling can be found here..
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2929149#2929149

0 Replies

Some of the studies concerning gas overlap can be found here..
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/corrk_bib.htm

This one shows that water vapor increases the temperature in the atmosphere.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/each/137.html

Quote:

The water vapor continuum is included in a manner consistent with the water vapor line absorption. Fluxes calculated with the model agree with LBLRTM to about 1 W m(-2) for the entire vertical range of the atmosphere for several test cases. The heating rate errors are reduced by as much as 0.25 degrees C day(-1) below the tropopause

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
the infrared radiation it receives from earth is somewhat reduced. So as the global temperature rises, more H2O would evaporate into the atmosphere and reduce further the atmospheric CO2's ability to radiate infrared. That would then lead to global cooling.

You claimed that it would lead to cooling..

The science clearly shows it won't. When 2 gases with different spectral radiations are combined you can add the 2 together to get the spectral outcome. When they are not completely different then you have to use a different formula. The formula can be found here.
p.454 - formula for overlapping spectrum

This reference of yours says gas mixtures that contain spectral bands that overlap, will absorb less heat than the sum of the heats each unmixed gas will absorb separately.

If such a mixture of gases absorbs less heat, then that mixture will radiate less heat than their component gases acting alone will radiate.

The individual absorbtion spectrum for water and CO2 can be found here
http://jcbmac.chem.brown.edu/baird/CHEM-F1/Chem-IRC/images/water_CO2Absn.html
You will note that CO2 has an absorbtion band in the 12-18 range that water doesn't completely absorb.

But CO2 does have absorbtion bands in the range of some of the same bands in water. Thus there is some overlap of absorbtion bands in CO2 and water. Therefore a mixture of CO2 and water will absorb less heat than will the sum of both when they are not mixed.

My initial response to your statement about how it would lead to cooling can be found here..
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2929149#2929149

parados wrote:
What? How does H20 affect the absorbtion and radiation rate of CO2? The only thing H20 could do is be so prevalent that it absorbs all the IR so that there is none left for the CO2 to absorb. Of course the H20 would radiate it's own IR at a reduced rate from what it received which again would be radiated in all directions including back toward the earth. ANY green house gas that prevents radiation of the earth's IR to space would lead to warming not cooling.

Thank you, parados, for objectively supplying the evidence you needed to prove me correct.

Clearly, parados, the water vapor in a mixture of water and CO2, doesn't have to absorb all the heat from the sun in a mixture of CO2 and water vapor, in order to reduce the amount of heat absorbed by that mixture. The water vapor in that mixture only has to absorb some of the heat that unmixed CO2 would absorb, in order to reduce the sum of the absorbtion of heat by that mixture.

Consequently, the greater the ratio of water vapor to CO2 in the atmosphere, the less absorbtion of heat by CO2 there will be in that atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere gets, the more water vapor evaporated from surface waters there will be in the atmosphere, and the less warming there will be by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Then when the heat absorbtion by CO2 is reduced, the more precipitation of the water-CO2 mixture there will be.

So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any time is less a contributor to atmospheric IR re-radiation, the more H2O there is in the atmosphere. The more H2O there is in the atmosphere, the more CO2 will be precipitated out of the atmosphere.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Some of the studies concerning gas overlap can be found here..
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/corrk_bib.htm

This one shows that water vapor increases the temperature in the atmosphere.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/each/137.html

Quote:
The water vapor continuum is included in a manner consistent with the water vapor line absorption. Fluxes calculated with the model agree with LBLRTM to about 1 W m(-2) for the entire vertical range of the atmosphere for several test cases. The heating rate errors are reduced by as much as 0.25 degrees C day(-1) below the tropopause

I agree that the more water vapor in the atmosphere, the more the average temperature of the atmosphere will be. But when that water paper cools, say at night or when blown toward the poles, the more of that water vapor will precipitate out of the atmosphere. The more precipitation of that water vapor the cooler will be the atmosphere.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I see. So you can't provide any evidence of your claim then. Thanks for clarifying for all of us.

As I said previously, I wanted you, not me, to provide the evidence that showed whether I was right or wrong. You provided evidence that I was right. Thank you.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
Some of the studies concerning gas overlap can be found here..
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/corrk_bib.htm

This one shows that water vapor increases the temperature in the atmosphere.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/each/137.html

Quote:
The water vapor continuum is included in a manner consistent with the water vapor line absorption. Fluxes calculated with the model agree with LBLRTM to about 1 W m(-2) for the entire vertical range of the atmosphere for several test cases. The heating rate errors are reduced by as much as 0.25 degrees C day(-1) below the tropopause

I agree that the more water vapor in the atmosphere, the more the average temperature of the atmosphere will be. But when that water paper cools, say at night or when blown toward the poles, the more of that water vapor will precipitate out of the atmosphere. The more precipitation of that water vapor the cooler will be the atmosphere.

Wow... And you think that this would cause global cooling? Rolling Eyes

I guess we can all agree that your "science" violates the laws of thermodynamics.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Thank you, parados, for objectively supplying the evidence you needed to prove me correct.

Quote:

Clearly, parados, the water vapor in a mixture of water and CO2, doesn't have to absorb all the heat from the sun in a mixture of CO2 and water vapor, in order to reduce the amount of heat absorbed by that mixture.

The absorbtion of IR from the sun isn't the problem. It is the absorbtion of the radiated IR from the earth's surface. Water vapor and CO2 don't absorb visible light which is what creates much of the IR that the surface radiates.

Quote:

The water vapor in that mixture only has to absorb some of the heat that unmixed CO2 would absorb, in order to reduce the sum of the absorbtion of heat by that mixture.

LOL.. the MORE water vapor means the MORE IR that is absorbed. That is what the science I cited said. I see no science that says more water vapor decreases the amount of IR that is absorbed.

What I posted in NO WAY supports your claim that more water vapor would cause cooling because the CO2 would absorb less IR. Unless of course you are arguing that the only IR that the atmosphere absorbs is from the sun and the surface of the earth doesn't radiate IR. Such an argument would go against the known science.

Quote:

Consequently, the greater the ratio of water vapor to CO2 in the atmosphere, the less absorbtion of heat by CO2 there will be in that atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere gets, the more water vapor evaporated from surface waters there will be in the atmosphere, and the less warming there will be by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Then when the heat absorbtion by CO2 is reduced, the more precipitation of the water-CO2 mixture there will be.

That is complete nonsense. Rain does NOT cause the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be reduced by any amount let alone the substantial amount you are claiming. You have shown no science to support this specious claim of yours.

Quote:

So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any time is less a contributor to atmospheric IR re-radiation, the more H2O there is in the atmosphere. The more H2O there is in the atmosphere, the more CO2 will be precipitated out of the atmosphere.

Even if that is true (which you have presented ZERO science for) it in no way supports your claim that more water vapor causes global cooling. The more H2O in the atmosphere the mare HEAT that is retained. That is simple science. I provided sources. You didn't bother to read them obviously if you think any of them said more H20 will result in cooling because CO2 is blocked or because CO2 is precipitated out of the atmosphere.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
Some of the studies concerning gas overlap can be found here..
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/corrk_bib.htm

This one shows that water vapor increases the temperature in the atmosphere.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/aconley/requirements/refs/each/137.html

Quote:
The water vapor continuum is included in a manner consistent with the water vapor line absorption. Fluxes calculated with the model agree with LBLRTM to about 1 W m(-2) for the entire vertical range of the atmosphere for several test cases. The heating rate errors are reduced by as much as 0.25 degrees C day(-1) below the tropopause

I agree that the more water vapor in the atmosphere, the more the average temperature of the atmosphere will be. But when that water paper cools, say at night or when blown toward the poles, the more of that water vapor will precipitate out of the atmosphere. The more precipitation of that water vapor the cooler will be the atmosphere.

Wow... And you think that this would cause global cooling?

I guess we can all agree that your "science" violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat Absorbtion:
W = heat absorbtion for a given amount of water vapor.
C = heat absorbtion for a given amount of carbon dioxide.
A = water vapor spectral bands not included in CO2 spectral bands.
B = carbon dioxide spectral bands not included in H2O spectral bands.
M = spectral bands that are in both H2O vapor and CO2 gas.

Unmixed Water Vapor heat absorbtion, W = A + M

Unmixed Carbon Dioxide heat absorbtion, C = B + M

Total Heat absorbtion of unmixed water vapor and unmixed carbon dioxide = Hm = W + C = A + M + B + M = A + B + 2M.

Total Heat absorbtion of mixed water vapor and mixed carbon dioxide = Hum= W + C = A + M + B + M = A + B + M.

Difference in absorbtion between unmixed and mixed water vapor and carbon dioxide = D(m-um) = Hm - Hum = A + B + 2M - (A + B + M) = M

Therefore, in mixed solutions of water vapor and carbon dioxide, as the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, the amount of heat absorbtion by the M spectral parts of more carbon dioxide molecules will decrease, and that will reduce the total amount of heat absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere.

At a higher average earth temperatures, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. As it increases, the amount of precipitation of mixed water vapor and carbon dioxide will increase at night and nearer the poles, causing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to decrease.

The net effect of that will lead to a decrease in the CO2 heating of both the atmosphere and the earth. I perceive such decrease in CO2 heating to be equivalent to cooling.

Now you argue that with an increase in average surface temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, there will be less precipitation, not more, despite the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere. What you overlook is the fact that the earth does not warm uniformly. Not only is that cooling and heating variable over the surface of the globe, it is variable by time of day, and seasons of the year. Infact, we note that ice nearer the south pole area is increasing now, while ice nearer the north pole area is decreasing now. That increase in ice nearer the south pole comes from increased precipitation. That decrease in ice nearer the north pole comes from increased temperatures of north polar ocean currents. While the earth's average temperature is alleged to be increasing due to the CO2 in the atmosphere, the south pole area is cooling even while the north pole area is warming.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

Wow... And you think that this would cause global cooling?

I guess we can all agree that your "science" violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat Absorbtion:
W = heat absorbtion for a given amount of water vapor.
C = heat absorbtion for a given amount of carbon dioxide.
A = water vapor spectral bands not included in CO2 spectral bands.
B = carbon dioxide spectral bands not included in H2O spectral bands.
M = spectral bands that are in both H2O vapor and CO2 gas.

Unmixed Water Vapor heat absorbtion, W = A + M

Unmixed Carbon Dioxide heat absorbtion, C = B + M

Total Heat absorbtion of unmixed water vapor and unmixed carbon dioxide = Hm = W + C = A + M + B + M = A + B + 2M.

Total Heat absorbtion of mixed water vapor and mixed carbon dioxide = Hum= W + C = A + M + B + M = A + B + M.

Difference in absorbtion between unmixed and mixed water vapor and carbon dioxide = D(m-um) = Hm - Hum = A + B + 2M - (A + B + M) = M

Yes, if you are only comparing the same amount of each in both equations.

I guess you just forgot to increase the amount of water vapor in your 2 equations. Rolling Eyes

Let's try it again..
Present spectrum is A + B + M but for the sake of argument we will DOUBLE the water. When you increase the amount of water vapor by that much our heat is no longer A+B+M It is now 2A+B+2M

If we double the amount of CO2 it is now A+2B+2M

Of course because of the concentrations of CO2 and water vapor the equations would actually be fractions of a full A, B and M. By increasing either H2O or CO2 we would increase 2 of the 3 spectral areas that are causing increases in heat.

Quote:

Therefore, in mixed solutions of water vapor and carbon dioxide, as the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, the amount of heat absorbtion by the M spectral parts of more carbon dioxide molecules will decrease, and that will reduce the total amount of heat absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere.

But you didn't increase your water vapor. If you want to claim increasing the amount of water vapor does anything then you have to increase it in your equation.

Quote:

At a higher average earth temperatures, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. As it increases, the amount of precipitation of mixed water vapor and carbon dioxide will increase at night and nearer the poles, causing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to decrease.

Maybe, if the sun never rises again and if half the earth isn't always day. Rolling Eyes

Assuming your claim is true...
The sun will rise the next day and water will evaporate and the CO2 trapped in that water will be released.

Quote:

The net effect of that will lead to a decrease in the CO2 heating of both the atmosphere and the earth. I perceive such decrease in CO2 heating to be equivalent to cooling.

When you leave heating out of your equation, I guess you get to declare it's cooling. Too bad your equations are faulty and too bad reality isn't the way you wish it was. The sun rises and more green house gases mean more IR radiated by the earth is blocked

Quote:

Now you argue that with an increase in average surface temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, there will be less precipitation,

I never said there would be less precipitation.

Quote:

not more, despite the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere. What you overlook is the fact that the earth does not warm uniformly. Not only is that cooling and heating variable over the surface of the globe, it is variable by time of day, and seasons of the year. Infact, we note that ice nearer the south pole area is increasing now, while ice nearer the north pole area is decreasing now. That increase in ice nearer the south pole comes from increased precipitation. That decrease in ice nearer the north pole comes from increased temperatures of north polar ocean currents. While the earth's average temperature is alleged to be increasing due to the CO2 in the atmosphere, the south pole area is cooling even while the north pole area is warming.

Except the south pole area isn't cooling. I posted that earlier here from the scientist who's work has been coopted and bastardized by the RW.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Now you argue that with an increase in average surface temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, there will be less precipitation

parados wrote:

I never said there would be less precipitation.

Parados, then what did you say about that?

Your analysis of my equations does not logically relate to what those equations illustrate.

My equations were directed at illustrating that the heat absorbtion of specific amounts of H2O and CO2 is different depending on whether these molecules are mixed or unmixed. Under specific conditions, the total heat absorbtion of unmixed specific molecule quantities is greater than the total heat absorbtion of mixed same specific quantities. The magnitude of that difference is related to the amount of common spectral bands of H2O and CO2, as well as the specific quantities of H2O and CO2 molecules being measured.

Do you agree or disagree?

Currently, the global temperature increase over the last 100 years is estimated by many weather scientists to be 0.5C. But double that, if you believe that, and we still know that mixing one arbitrary amount of CO2 with another arbitrary amount of H2O reduces the heat absorbtion of that mixture to less than what the sum of the heat absorbtions of each of those amounts when not mixed with the other.

Do you agree or disagree?

Increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase the amount of precipitation of mixtures of H2O and CO2 from the atmosphere, thereby decreasing the amount the earth's temperature would otherwise rise.

Do you agree or disagree?

Almost all the earth's rain forests and jungles-are in the tropical zone! Even though its much warmer in the tropical zone, precipitation in parts of that zone are nonetheless great enough to promote rain forests!

Do you agree or disagree?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Now you argue that with an increase in average surface temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, there will be less precipitation

parados wrote:
I never said there would be less precipitation.

Parados, then what did you say about that?

What am I supposed to say about it? There is no evidence what precipitation would do. The only thing we do know for certain is that air temperature dictates what kind of precipitation it would be. If the air over the Antarctic warms from -30c degrees to -10c, the precipitation would still not be rain.

Quote:

Your analysis of my equations does not logically relate to what those equations illustrate.

My equations were directed at illustrating that the heat absorbtion of specific amounts of H2O and CO2 is different depending on whether these molecules are mixed or unmixed.

Nothing new there.

Quote:

Under specific conditions, the total heat absorbtion of unmixed specific molecule quantities is greater than the total heat absorbtion of mixed same specific quantities. The magnitude of that difference is related to the amount of common spectral bands of H2O and CO2, as well as the specific quantities of H2O and CO2 molecules being measured.

Do you agree or disagree?

Yes that is all well and good, but you claimed there would be more water vapor and that more water vapor would mean more cooling. How can you increase water vapor but have less IR be absorbed even using the simple equations you used let alone the scientific one contained in one of my links?

Quote:

Currently, the global temperature increase over the last 100 years is estimated by many weather scientists to be 0.5C. But double that, if you believe that, and we still know that mixing one arbitrary amount of CO2 with another arbitrary amount of H2O reduces the heat absorbtion of that mixture to less than what the sum of the heat absorbtions of each of those amounts when not mixed with the other.

Do you agree or disagree?

Yes, depending on the quantities. It is a differential equation. But increasing either of the molecules in the mixture increases the heat absorbtion of the whole and does NOT cause it to absorb less. It MUST cause it to absorb MORE. When it absorbs more it means there is more heat.

Quote:

Increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase the amount of precipitation of mixtures of H2O and CO2 from the atmosphere, thereby decreasing the amount the earth's temperature would otherwise rise.

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree.
1. You have not shown that rain reduces the CO2 in the atmosphere by any substantional amount. It doesn't, otherwise the amount of CO2 would be measurably different after a rainstorm. The Mauna Lau readings actually show an INCREASE in the amount of CO2 during the rainy season. (They suggest this is because of the change in wind patterns. If you were correct it should show a decrease since the ENTIRE area is rainy.)
2. Precipitation reduces the amount of water vapor in the air which means that the amount of water vapor is no longer increasing but is decreasing. Your argument is that ONE rain storm would have to drive down the amount of CO2. This is impossible and not shown to be true.
3. It ignores HOW water vapor gets into the air in the first place. If all the water vapor in the atmosphere captures all the CO2 and it all precipitates then when the rain stops and the water starts to evaporate in order to get back to the same amount of water vapor the same amount of CO2 would probably be released back into the atmosphere.
4. With more heating from the extra water vapor it would cause more evaporation which in turn causes more heating. You continue to ignore the fact that green house gases cause heating when their quantities increase. The heat has to go somewhere. Since it is trapped, it stays here and does not radiate to space. The second law of thermodynamics says the heat doesn't just dissappear. The sun then continues to add more energy that is trapped by the increased green house gases. Even if it rains at night and cools down the next day the sun will come up and warm the earth causing evaporation and more water vapor to go back in the atmosphere.

5. Your statement is completely illogical and doesn't follow known science. If rain takes so much CO2 out of the atmosphere then as we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would there not be more taken out in present rains? Wouldn't this mean that we would NOT have an increase in atmospheric CO2?

Quote:

Almost all the earth's rain forests and jungles-are in the tropical zone! Even though its much warmer in the tropical zone, precipitation in parts of that zone are nonetheless great enough to promote rain forests!

Do you agree or disagree?

Yes, assuming the land is not being used for anything else. But that really has nothing to do with your argument that more water vapor reduces the amount of CO2 and causes cooling.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...

If rain takes so much CO2 out of the atmosphere then as we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would there not be more taken out in present rains?

Yes! And even more in subsequent rains.

Wouldn't this mean that we would NOT have an increase in atmospheric CO2?

No! It would mean we would have less CO2 in the atmosphere than we otherwise would if it didn't rain.

The big question to be answered is: How is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere being measured? If it is being measured by direct CO2 measurements aloft, then we have problem #1. If it is being measured by direct measurement of the CO2 in surface polar ice, then we have problem #2.

PROBLEM#1
The direct measurements of CO2 aloft in the atmosphere have been taken since when? 100 years ago? 70 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago? Although I bet it was since less than 70 years ago, let's say it was since 100 years ago. How were the measurements of CO2 taken for the years prior to 100 years ago? I understand those measurements taken for the years prior to 100 years ago, were not taken aloft in the atmosphere, but were taken within the last 100 years from the surface down to various levels (alleged to be equivalent to various ages) of polar ice--the deeper the level, the older the ice. Consequently the older measurements were made of the CO2 that had precipitated in mixtures with H2O and were not actual measurements of CO2 aloft in the atmosphere.

PROBLEM#2
Because past precipitations did not remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere, the CO2 in the polar ice levels at various times in the past cannot be the same as would direct measurements of CO2 aloft in the atmosphere at those same times in the past. So if we are seeking to measure actual CO2 increases in the atmosphere over a great many millennia, we must establish a correlation between the density of CO2 in polar ice at various times and the density of CO2 in the atmosphere at those same times. I'm currently unaware of any such correlation having been scientifically established. Thus, until such correlation is scientifically established, we are in no position to say what is the actual trend of CO2 density in the atmosphere. For all we know more or less CO2 is being washed out of the atmosphere now by higher or lower amounts of precipitation of H2O-CO2-mixture than was true previously due to, respectively, increases or decreases in H2O-CO2-mixtures in the atmosphere.

CONCLUSION
We do not really know whether there has been discovered a scientific cause-and-effect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years and the alleged global warming over the same time period. In fact the increases or decreases in global temperature may have far more to do with amount of H2O evaporated into the atmosphere from surface water because of variations in the intensity of the sun's radiation than they have to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, we know that the amount of heat absorbtion by the CO2-H2O-mixture in the atmosphere is smaller than if there were no CO2 in the atmospheric H2O. Consequently, the CO2 does not enhance the net heat absorbtion by the atmosphere. It reduces it from what it would be if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere.

0 Replies

Re:
To those claiming they just got snow storms, please read up on the subject before making a comment like that, because it only makes you sound more ignorant. The overall world temperature is supposed to go down. That does not mean places will not get colder. In fact, New Jersey is supposed to get colder. With that in mind, please read the subject before discussing it.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

CONCLUSION
We do not really know whether there has been discovered a scientific cause-and-effect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years and the alleged global warming over the same time period. In fact the increases or decreases in global temperature may have far more to do with amount of H2O evaporated into the atmosphere from surface water because of variations in the intensity of the sun's radiation than they have to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, we know that the amount of heat absorbtion by the CO2-H2O-mixture in the atmosphere is smaller than if there were no CO2 in the atmospheric H2O. Consequently, the CO2 does not enhance the net heat absorbtion by the atmosphere. It reduces it from what it would be if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere.

I have been following this argument, but not really knowing where it was going, but ican, what are your qualifications in terms of professional background to make these assertions? And given the conclusion you present, what exactly is the cause of CO2 rising, and when will it plateau out and begin to trend the other way?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...

If rain takes so much CO2 out of the atmosphere then as we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would there not be more taken out in present rains?

Yes! And even more in subsequent rains.

Oh? and how and why does this water vapor get into the atmosphere to create the rain?

Quote:

Wouldn't this mean that we would NOT have an increase in atmospheric CO2?

No! It would mean we would have less CO2 in the atmosphere than we otherwise would if it didn't rain.

LOL.. so then your claim that more water vapor in the air would reduce CO2 is complete hogwash. Your argument is that more CO2 is required to put enough water vapor in the air to reduce the CO2 but if CO2 is reduced then LESS water vapor would be in the air. Your argument defeats itself.

Quote:

The big question to be answered is: How is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere being measured? If it is being measured by direct CO2 measurements aloft, then we have problem #1. If it is being measured by direct measurement of the CO2 in surface polar ice, then we have problem #2.

PROBLEM#1
The direct measurements of CO2 aloft in the atmosphere have been taken since when? 100 years ago? 70 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago? Although I bet it was since less than 70 years ago, let's say it was since 100 years ago. How were the measurements of CO2 taken for the years prior to 100 years ago? I understand those measurements taken for the years prior to 100 years ago, were not taken aloft in the atmosphere, but were taken within the last 100 years from the surface down to various levels (alleged to be equivalent to various ages) of polar ice--the deeper the level, the older the ice. Consequently the older measurements were made of the CO2 that had precipitated in mixtures with H2O and were not actual measurements of CO2 aloft in the atmosphere.

Problem # 1 is you don't seem to understand the mixing of gases in the atmosphere. Measurements at 11,000' are not much different from those at sea level when it comes to CO2 levels.

Quote:

PROBLEM#2
Because past precipitations did not remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere, the CO2 in the polar ice levels at various times in the past cannot be the same as would direct measurements of CO2 aloft in the atmosphere at those same times in the past. So if we are seeking to measure actual CO2 increases in the atmosphere over a great many millennia, we must establish a correlation between the density of CO2 in polar ice at various times and the density of CO2 in the atmosphere at those same times. I'm currently unaware of any such correlation having been scientifically established. Thus, until such correlation is scientifically established, we are in no position to say what is the actual trend of CO2 density in the atmosphere. For all we know more or less CO2 is being washed out of the atmosphere now by higher or lower amounts of precipitation of H2O-CO2-mixture than was true previously due to, respectively, increases or decreases in H2O-CO2-mixtures in the atmosphere.

Problem # 2 is you don't understand how they test for CO2 in the ice core samples.

Quote:

CONCLUSION
We do not really know whether there has been discovered a scientific cause-and-effect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years and the alleged global warming over the same time period.

We know that CO2 will absorb IR. We know an increase in CO2 will absorb MORE IR. We know that not all the IR from the surface is presently absorbed by the atmosphere

Quote:

In fact the increases or decreases in global temperature may have far more to do with amount of H2O evaporated into the atmosphere from surface water because of variations in the intensity of the sun's radiation than they have to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Really? And your evidence that the amount of water vapor has increases is what? We have a 50 year record to show an increase in CO2. Where is your evidence of an increase in water vapor?

Quote:

Also, we know that the amount of heat absorbtion by the CO2-H2O-mixture in the atmosphere is smaller than if there were no CO2 in the atmospheric H2O.

You keep repeating this in spite of the math. Your claim is complete bunk since the bands of IR that CO2 absorbs is in areas that H20 does NOT absorb.

Quote:

Consequently, the CO2 does not enhance the net heat absorbtion by the atmosphere. It reduces it from what it would be if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere.

Bull crap. Your own silly formula showed the opposite. A+ B + M is larger than A+M. The REAL formula shows the opposite.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

...

I have been following this argument, but not really knowing where it was going, but ican, what are your qualifications in terms of professional background to make these assertions? And given the conclusion you present, what exactly is the cause of CO2 rising, and when will it plateau out and begin to trend the other way?

Professional background = graduate degrees in engineering and business administration, more than 30 years in computer systems research and development, and more than 20 years in aviation piloting, flight instructing, chartering, and weather forecasting.

I don't know for certain the answer to your second set of questions, and I believe, neither does anyone else. For example: I don't know whether or not CO2 is actually rising or falling more or less than it has from time to time in past milennia or centuries. Past causes for the releases of CO2 into the atmosphere have been volcanoes, meterorites, earthquakes, fires and other combustions (human and lighting caused), and human and other animal exhalations.

Note: CO2 = Carbon Dioxide molecule(s); H2O = water molecule(s); O2 = Oxygen molecule(s); N2 = Nitrogen molecule(s).

From personal experience, I do know a lot about our atmosphere under various conditions.

(1) In any region of the atmosphere at any given temperature and pressure, the density of molecules whose molecular weight is greater than that of H2O, is strongly dependent on the density of H2O in that region. For example, the density of O2 is decreased by increases of H2O and is increased by decreases of H2O.

These O2 variations at various atmospheric pressures and temperatures have been repeatedly demonstrated to me by the lower performance of my aircraft engines--jet, turbine, and piston--in regions of high humidity (i.e., high H2O density), and their higher performance in regions of low humidity (i.e., low H2O density). Probably the densities of CO2 and N2 in the atmosphere are similarly affected by humidity.

(2) At a given altitude and humidity, the density of O2 is decreased when the temperature is increased, causing the performance of my aircraft engines to be reduced.

(3) At any given humidity and temperature, the density of O2 is decreased when increasing altitude, causing the performance of my aircraft engines to be reduced.

(4) Increases in any two out of three, or all three--humidity, temperature and altitude--cause the performance of my engines to be reduced greater amounts.

I conclude that the higher the humidity in a given region of the atmosphere the lower is the density of O2 molecules in that region. So I further conclude the same is true for the density of CO2 (or any of the other heavier molecules like N2) in such a region.

When the earth warms, more H2O is evaporated from surface water into various regions of the atmosphere, thereby decreasing the density of CO2 and O2 in those regions. Furthermore, the greater the humidity in a given region, the greater is the likelihood of precipitation of that H2O, and the CO2 mixed with it, back to the surface. When the density of CO2 in those regions is reduced, the effect of CO2 in those regions on the average temperature of the earth, is reduced. It appears to me that the actual amount of CO2 in the various regions of the atmosphere at any given time of year, is influenced more by the density of H2O in those regions at those times than it is by human caused combustion.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know