what is the physics of carbon that suggest that 0,01% increase can be a significant GHG?
chazwin
greenhouse gas.
According to radiometric dating of Carbon isotopes it is thought the
the amount of CO2 has increased from 0.028% - 0,038% in the last 100
years.
Unless Carbon has some magical properties is seems unlikely that such
tiny concentrations should cause any significant increase in
temperature, even-though it is a greenhouse gas.
Can any one help me find the scientific evidence?
I don't want to the political answer, nor the circumstantial answer,
nor any sceptic/denier/doubter information as I have heard it all.
What I want is the basic physical science of carbon that suggests that
a 0,01% increase can be held responsible for a proposed 1 degree
increase in temperature.
1Z
> I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
> greenhouse gas.
"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and
is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere"
university of Michigan
Bert Hyman
news:9dd5f728-1d6a-498e...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
1Z <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere"
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
Of course, people would scoff at the idea of limiting water vapor
emissions, so CO2 will have to do, won't it?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
chazwin
That is argumentum ad verecundium - a species of fallacy. It merely
begs the question that I raised, above.
It might be the most prominent because of all the hype and hysteria.
So tell me what is their evidence?
Arnold Broese
news:ce6a12e8-bcf6-4e45...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 20, 4:21 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Dec, 10:45, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
>> > greenhouse gas.
I have heard the argument that the CO2 has an effect on cloud cover, which
indirectly leads to warming. I don't know if this is any more accurate than
claiming that cloud cover is is responsive to sun storms.
--
Arnold
1Z
> On Dec 20, 4:21�pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 20 Dec, 10:45, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
> > > greenhouse gas.
>
> > "Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and
> > is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere"
>
> > university of Michigan
>
> That is argumentum ad verecundium - a species of fallacy.
It's only a fallacy if the authority is inappropriate. Appropriate
authority is the basis of refernce works, education, expertise, etc.
>It merely
> begs the question that I raised, above.
If you want to study physics, study physics. But don't
say that out of everything physics says, there is one
thing that cannot be accepted because it conflicts with
your prevailing ideology.
> It might be the most prominent because of all the hype and hysteria.
> So tell me what is their evidence?
DIfferent substances absorb different wavelengths, and CO2 absorbs
IR.
It's ultimately
explained by the Schrodinger Equation
1Z
wrote:
> "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ce6a12e8-bcf6-4e45...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 20, 4:21 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 20 Dec, 10:45, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
> >> > greenhouse gas.
>
> I have heard the argument that the CO2 has an effect on cloud cover, which
> indirectly leads to warming.
What;'s that supposed to mean? We already know it absorbs IR
chazwin
> On 20 Dec, 23:27, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 4:21�pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Dec, 10:45, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
> > > > greenhouse gas.
>
> > > "Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and
> > > is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere"
>
> > > university of Michigan
>
> > That is argumentum ad verecundium - a species of fallacy.
>
> It's only a fallacy if the authority is inappropriate. Appropriate
> authority is the basis of refernce works, education, expertise, etc.
Not really. It's a fallacy if it is not accompanied by any facts.
As I said they could mean it is 'most prominent' due to the political
attention it has received.
>
> >It merely
> > begs the question that I raised, above.
>
> If you want to study physics, study physics. But don't
> say that out of everything physics says, there is one
> thing that cannot be accepted because it conflicts with
> your prevailing ideology.
If there was a consensus I would be less worried. The point is that I
do know enough
physics for me to question to voracity of the idea than CO2 might be a
significant GHG.
That is why I am asking the question.
>
> > It might be the most prominent because of all the hype and hysteria.
> > So tell me what is their evidence?
>
> DIfferent substances absorb different wavelengths, and CO2 absorbs
> IR.
I already said that. I am asking HOW MUCH. DO you have difficulty
reading?
1Z
> On Dec 21, 9:21 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 Dec, 23:27, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 4:21 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and
> > > > is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere"
> > > > university of Michigan
> > > That is argumentum ad verecundium - a species of fallacy.
> > It's only a fallacy if the authority is inappropriate. Appropriate
> > authority is the basis of refernce works, education, expertise, etc.
> Not really. It's a fallacy if it is not accompanied by any facts.
What would a fact be in this case? I mean, if I quoted
an encylopedia, is that a fact or a further appeal to authority?
Maybe I could perform Tyndall's experiemnt right in front of
your very eyes. But you've already seen it and refuse to beleive.
> As I said they could mean it is 'most prominent' due to the political
> attention it has received.
That';s a strained interpretation.
> > >It merely
> > > begs the question that I raised, above.
>
> > If you want to study physics, study physics. But don't
> > say that out of everything physics says, there is one
> > thing that cannot be accepted because it conflicts with
> > your prevailing ideology.
>
> If there was a consensus
There is
>I would be less worried.
> The point is that I
> do know enough
> physics for me to question to voracity
veracity
>of the idea than CO2 might be a
> significant GHG.
> That is why I am asking the question.
Knowing no phsyics whatsever is a great basis
of qeustioning anything and eveything.
> I already said that. I am asking HOW MUCH. DO you have difficulty
> reading?
I've already quoted material on that point. you have
dismissed it as "irrelevant". I am not going to waste
any more time like this: you have go to demonstrate
that you are a reasonable person, and not a brick wall,
by saying what kind of proof, evidecne, or facts you do accept.
Otherwise I will ignroe you as I do Creationists.
chazwin
Oi 1Z
> > > > That is argumentum ad verecundium - a species of fallacy.
> > > It's only a fallacy if the authority is inappropriate. Appropriate
> > > authority is the basis of refernce works, education, expertise, etc.
> > Not really. It's a fallacy if it is not accompanied by any facts.
>
> What would a fact be in this case? I mean, if I quoted
> an encylopedia, is that a fact or a further appeal to authority?
Encyclopaedias are usually too brief and often wrong.
> Maybe I could perform Tyndall's experiemnt right in front of
> your very eyes. But you've already seen it and refuse to beleive.
>
> > As I said they could mean it is 'most prominent' due to the political
> > attention it has received.
>
> That';s a strained interpretation.
It is a possible one. What is meant by prominent. They did not say
most potent, nor most effective, nor strongest, nor most dangerous.
They might only have implied that it was the highest in concentration.
none of this points the the quantitative question I have asked and
that you seem unable to address in the slightest way
>
> > > >It merely
> > > > begs the question that I raised, above.
>
> > > If you want to study physics, study physics. But don't
> > > say that out of everything physics says, there is one
> > > thing that cannot be accepted because it conflicts with
> > > your prevailing ideology.
>
> > If there was a consensus
>
> There is
>
> >I would be less worried.
> > The point is that I
> > do know enough
> > physics for me to question to voracity
>
> veracity
oops yes.
>
> >of the idea than CO2 might be a
> > significant GHG.
> > That is why I am asking the question.
>
> Knowing no phsyics whatsever is a great basis
> of qeustioning anything and eveything.
Well that is YOUR problem evidently.
>
> > I already said that. I am asking HOW MUCH. DO you have difficulty
> > reading?
>
> I've already quoted material on that point. you have
> dismissed it as "irrelevant". I am not going to waste
> any more time like this: you have go to demonstrate
> that you are a reasonable person, and not a brick wall,
> by saying what kind of proof, evidecne, or facts you do accept.
>
> Otherwise I will ignroe you as I do Creationists.
Creationists are not sceptics.
You are the creationist because you believe a thing for which you have
no understanding of the evidence or facts. All the shit you quoted did
not begin to address the question i asked. My question was to you
about as good as 'does god exist.' You responded like a true christian
quoting from scripture - Scripture that you do not understand and in
response to a question you do not understand.
If you want me to take you seriously then respond to the question I
asked and not to the question you want me to have asked.
You are like a religious nut. You have accepted the authority of those
you deem wiser and are following like a little lamb.
Jim Klein
> You are like a religious nut. You have accepted the authority of those
> you deem wiser and are following like a little lamb.
While that may be true of him, I don't think it's the
problem here. I think he doesn't understand the question
and its quantatative nature.
Personally I think the question mixes levels to a
degree that renders it nearly incomprehensible.
There doesn't have to be a special nature or
magical quality to a carbon atom in order
that a systemic buildup of CO2 prevents
the redirection of light, and hence heat,
beyond the atmosphere.
In any event, I'd guess that the details of what
greenhouse gasses do, is fairly well established.
Which of course has nothing to do with the sum
total of all effects of all energy interactions on
Earth presently, and what diff the CO2 could make
and which way in toto it might make it. "In toto"
is not a context that is available to us currently
with regard to every detail of how the Earth will
react to every given force.
The funny thing is, even if we stipulated a gargantuan
problem that would cause the end of the Earth before
the end of the current Communist Frenzy, we /still/
wouldn't know exactly what to do because the scale
of /all/ the relevant factors is far, far beyond any of
our understanding currently.
Well yes, we would know what to do, but it'd have
nothing to do with global warming. We'd finally
let people be people and figure out how the fuck
to get us out of this quagmire.
And the people to whom folks would freely turn,
in order to work together and get things done,
wouldn't look (or act or be) anything like the
people to whom those folks have turned now.
Nope, not this country. This country's too busy
outlawing and regulating and taxing every single
thing that even /might/ help things out, in every
single respect...while huge majorities clamor that
they want even more of it yet.
So now we get to sit back and see if maybe
contradictions do exist in reality.
jk
chazwin
> On Dec 21, 6:33 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You are like a religious nut. You have accepted the authority of those
> > you deem wiser and are following like a little lamb.
>
> While that may be true of him, I don't think it's the
> problem here. �I think he doesn't understand the question
> and its quantatative nature.
That is an understatement.
>
> Personally I think the question mixes levels to a
> degree that renders it nearly incomprehensible.
The basic question is still sensible and important to ask.
>
> There doesn't have to be a special nature or
> magical quality to a carbon atom �in order
> that a systemic buildup of CO2 prevents
> the redirection of light, and hence heat,
> beyond the atmosphere.
WHilst I might regret the use of the word 'magical', without
a clear answer to the question it might actually be fair to suggest
that
an appeal to unknown forces is currently being made by those that are
pushing the seemingly hysterical debate.
>
> In any event, I'd guess that the details of what
> greenhouse gasses do, is fairly well established.
By by how much is more of an important question.
>
> Which of course has nothing to do �with the sum
> total of all effects of all energy interactions on
> Earth presently, and what diff the CO2 could make
> and which way in toto it might make it. �"In toto"
> is not a context that is available to us currently
> with regard to every detail of how the Earth will
> react to every given force.
Indeed
>
> The funny thing is, even if we stipulated a gargantuan
> problem that would cause the end of the Earth before
> the end of the current Communist Frenzy, we /still/
> wouldn't know exactly what to do because the scale
> of /all/ the relevant factors is far, far beyond any of
> our understanding currently.
I don't recognise a 'communist Frenzy'. The right wing resistance to
in in the USA was not based on science, anymore than the cross-party
frenzy is based on science. And is was Thatcher who started this whole
mass in the first place. Political issues rather cloud the real issue,
as I suggested in my first post.
1Z
> Which of course has nothing to do with the sum
> total of all effects of all energy interactions on
> Earth presently, and what diff the CO2 could make
> and which way in toto it might make it. "In toto"
> is not a context that is available to us currently
> with regard to every detail of how the Earth will
> react to every given force.
>
We never know all the details of everything. Howerver,
inaction has consequences as well as action.
chazwin
Here's what action will do: slow down industry and the recovery;
increase the demand for more nuclear power world-wide including
countries that have lower safety standards than the West (which are
dubious); increase the pressure to find sustainable bio-fuels which
are currently replacing rain forests and taking land previously used
to supply the third world with food.
And this against what? A possible increase in global temperatures
which is highly speculative and might be caused more by some other
unforeseen factor other than CO2.
The world will never agree anyway. Copenhagen is more of a joke than
Kyoto, and underlying it all is the doubt of scepticism, and the urge
to grow.
Fred Weiss
> We never know all the details of everything. Howerver,
> inaction has consequences as well as action.
Absolutely. Inaction in this instance prevents us from wasting a lot
of time and energy on an utterly useless and worthless effort.
But I don't believe in inaction here. First of all we need to jail the
ClimateGaters. Then we should all make a conscious effort to totally
ignore more AGW baloney.
Fred Weiss
Jim Klein
> I don't recognise a 'communist Frenzy'.
Nobody ever does, until it's too late.
Past performance may not reflect future events,
but it's not like the path we're on hasn't been
tried before, for pretty much the same reasons
and in pretty much the same fashion. I see every
reason to anticipate pretty much the same results.
Here's a wild prediction. Don't invest in yarmulkes
and don't get sick.
jk
Jim Klein
> > Which of course has nothing to do with the sum
> > total of all effects of all energy interactions on
> > Earth presently, and what diff the CO2 could make
> > and which way in toto it might make it. "In toto"
> > is not a context that is available to us currently
> > with regard to every detail of how the Earth will
> > react to every given force.
>
> We never know all the details of everything.
Right. This is why the best approach is always
freedom for individuals to choose what /they/
decide is the most rational way to go.
> Howerver,
> inaction has consequences as well as action.
That's fine. This is why the best approach is always
freedom for individuals to choose what /they/
decide is the most rational way to go.
jk
chazwin
> On Dec 21, 8:44 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't recognise a 'communist Frenzy'.
>
> Nobody ever does, until it's too late.
I do not recognise it because it is a figment of your imagination.
The world leaders at Copenhagen are from a broad church and fill the
entire political spectrum. They are all operating under their own
unique interests.
I do not see a move to share the wealth, and empower the proletariat
Nor do I see the workers being encouraged to break the chains of their
oppression, because they have nothing else to loose. There is no move
to egalitarianise the masses.
Nor do I see the will to do philosophy not to understand the world but
to change it.
What I see is the same old same old.
At the top of the thread I asked not for the politics, nor the same
old worn out stuff we always get. I want to know the science upon
which our future is now being decided.
>
> Past performance may not reflect future events,
> but it's not like the path we're on hasn't been
> tried before, for pretty much the same reasons
> and in pretty much the same fashion. �I see every
> reason to anticipate pretty much the same results.
>
> Here's a wild prediction. �Don't invest in yarmulkes
I do not know what one of those is.
Jim Klein
> > > I don't recognise a 'communist Frenzy'.
>
> > Nobody ever does, until it's too late.
>
> I do not recognise it because it is a figment of your imagination.
> The world leaders at Copenhagen are from a broad church and fill the
> entire political spectrum.
That's nice. So who are the capitalists?
> They are all operating under their own
> unique interests.
I don't know what's so unique about "strengthen
the power of Govco," or are there some delegates
who don't believe that?
> I do not see a move to share the wealth,
What do you think carbon trading and all that
other bullshit is about?
> and empower the proletariat
I guess it's the bourgeoise who elected Obama
and are pushing this nonsense forward. Is that it?
> Nor do I see the workers being encouraged to break the chains of their
> oppression,
You mean the oppression of having to go to work?
From what I can tell, they've done a pretty good
job already of breaking that chain!
> because they have nothing else to loose. There is no move
> to egalitarianise the masses.
Wow...did you miss the vote the other night?
> Nor do I see the will to do philosophy not to understand the world but
> to change it.
> What I see is the same old same old.
>
> At the top of the thread I asked not for the politics, nor the same
> old worn out stuff we always get. I want to know the science upon
> which our future is now being decided.
Well, that much is my fault. I wasn't speaking particularly
of Copenhagen, but rather generally. My point still stands
though---regardless of the nature of the carbon atom and
regardless of the effect of greenhouse gasses, the only
moral and practical approach is to encourage (allow)
the freedom of rational men. Yes, that means to allow the
freedom of irrational men as well. Tough shit; the market
and reality will sort it all out.
jk
Puppet_Sock
> I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
> greenhouse gas.
That's because you have not been reading the right research journals.
There are complexities. Clouds for example. But, the clear-air,
no-feedback estimate of the warming due to a doubling of CO2
is round about 0.5 C degrees. This is based on radiation transport
theory, and it's just about something I can understand since I do
that sort of thing for neutrons in reactors. And no, I'm not going
to post it up here any more than I'm going to try to teach you
radiation transport theory.
Clouds are the big wild card. Not knowing how clouds will change,
plus other feedbacks, makes the estimate of the net temperature
change very difficult. But, to date, it looks like it is not very
different
from the effect of the CO2 directly.
> According to radiometric dating of Carbon isotopes it is thought the
> the amount of CO2 has increased from 0.028% - 0,038% in the last 100
> years.
It's got nothing to do with "radiometric dating." This is one of the
more error packed paragraphs I've seen in a while.
CO2 has been measured directly in the last 100 years. No need to
do any indirect methods.
Radiometric dating does not measure the concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere. It deals with the relative concentrations of different
isotopes of Carbon, not absolute concentration. Also, it's not easy
to apply it for things in the range of less than 100 years old for
technical reasons that you are unlikely to be able to comprehend.
So, not the right method, and wouldn't work on the time scale anyway.
> Can any one help me find the scientific evidence?
The radiation transport paper is referenced in one of the Monckton
youtube vids, the long one with the slides.
> What I want is the basic physical science of carbon that suggests that
> a 0,01% increase can be held responsible for a proposed 1 degree
> increase in temperature.
The basic idea is that CO2 is a polar molecule. Thus it can interact
with long wavelength radiation. It will tend to scatter infrared and
keep it from going into space. This warms the surface. This effect
is quite real, and as I said, round about 0.5 C for a doubling of CO2,
not accounting for clouds and feedback. Nearly nobody really
disputes this part.
Clouds and feedback could in fact do anything from make this a
lot bigger to making it negative. Those are the parts we don't
understand. This is the part that people get upset about.
Socks
chazwin
> On Dec 20, 2:45�am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
> > greenhouse gas.
>
> That's because you have not been reading the right research journals.
>
> There are complexities. Clouds for example. But, the clear-air,
> no-feedback estimate of the warming due to a doubling of CO2
> is round about 0.5 C degrees. This is based on radiation transport
> theory, and it's just about something I can understand since I do
> that sort of thing for neutrons in reactors. And no, I'm not going
> to post �it up here any more than I'm going to try to teach you
> radiation transport theory.
>
> Clouds are the big wild card. Not knowing how clouds will change,
> plus other feedbacks, makes the estimate of the net temperature
> change very difficult. But, to date, it looks like it is not very
> different
> from the effect of the CO2 directly.
>
> > According to radiometric dating of Carbon isotopes it is thought the
> > the amount of CO2 has increased from 0.028% - 0,038% in the last 100
> > years.
>
> It's got nothing to do with "radiometric dating." This is one of the
> more error packed paragraphs I've seen in a while.
>
> CO2 has been measured directly in the last 100 years. No need to
> do any indirect methods.
Directly how?
You are not so bright as you make out.
CO2 has been estimated using the ratios of carbon isotopes.
I could explain radiocarbon dating but I think I might be wasting my
time.
>
> Radiometric dating does not measure the concentration of CO2 in
> the atmosphere. It deals with the relative concentrations of different
> isotopes of Carbon, not absolute concentration.
Yes, and that is exactly how CO2 concentrations have been estimated
from biological material from the past. Keep up!
Also, it's not easy
> to apply it for things in the range of less than 100 years old for
> technical reasons that you are unlikely to be able to comprehend.
> So, not the right method, and wouldn't work on the time scale anyway.
Among other things I have bee an archaeologist so I know the story. If
you keep being so holier than thou, it's pointless continuing the
discussion.
>
> > Can any one help me find the scientific evidence?
>
> The radiation transport paper is referenced in one of the Monckton
> youtube vids, the long one with the slides.
Ohh technical - youtube! What about real evidence?
>
> > What I want is the basic physical science of carbon that suggests that
> > a 0,01% increase can be held responsible for a proposed 1 degree
> > increase in temperature.
>
> The basic idea is that CO2 is a polar molecule. Thus it can interact
> with long wavelength radiation. It will tend to scatter infrared and
> keep it from going into space. This warms the surface. This effect
> is quite real, and as I said, round about 0.5 C for a doubling of CO2,
> not accounting for clouds and feedback. Nearly nobody really
> disputes this part.
Let's hear that again; ONLY half a degree in temperature for a
doubling of of CO2?
Are you sure you want to say that? We are a very long way way from CO2
doubling - maybe another century if the oil lasts that long, and the
GW guys are estimating more than a 2degree increase. In fact
Copenhagen is trying to aim for 2 degrees as some kind of solution,
involving massive carbon trading and taxation.
chazwin
PS
Did you get your values from this paper?
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Conclusions
It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR
absorption at the 15 �m edges by 0.17% can cause any significant
global warming or even a climate catastrophe.
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this
figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180�
steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed
from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a
standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is
0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 (as
asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The
Global Climate [14]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is
0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from
Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m2, we get a
similar value of 0.015 degC.
Kondratjew and Moskalenko are referring to their own work [15] - but
when we checked their Russian book on that page, it turned out that
this was nothing but an index of terms and nowhere else a deduction of
this broadly referred 7.2 K figure [16] could be found. It should be
mentioned that the radiative forcing for the present CO2 concentration
varies considerably among references. K.P. Shine [17] specifies a
value of 12 K whereas according to R. Lindzen CO2 only accounts for
about 5% of the natural 33 degC greenhouse effect. This 1.65 degC is
less than a quarter of the value used by IPCC and leads to a doubling
sensitivity of 0.3 to 0.5 degC only [18].
What is really true? Is there anybody to present a scientific
derivation or a reference where this figure is not copied or just
stated from assumptions, but properly calculated?
Ray
news:06f4e672-36fd-4cc3...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The basic idea is that CO2 is a polar molecule. Thus it can interact
> with long wavelength radiation. It will tend to scatter infrared and
> keep it from going into space. This warms the surface. This effect
> is quite real, and as I said, round about 0.5 C for a doubling of CO2,
> not accounting for clouds and feedback. Nearly nobody really
> disputes this part.
>
What about water vapor, which is supposed to make up most of GHG?
Do water molecules behave the same as CO2?
Ray
Matt Barrow
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:06f4e672-36fd-4cc3...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>> I have searched in vain for any evidence that CO2 is a significant
>> greenhouse gas.
>
> That's because you have not been reading the right research journals.
>
> There are complexities. Clouds for example. But, the clear-air,
> no-feedback estimate of the warming due to a doubling of CO2
> is round about 0.5 C degrees.
In what ppm range? At what temperature?
It's not linear.
Matt
Puppet_Sock
> On Dec 22, 4:12�pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > CO2 has been measured directly in the last 100 years. No need to
> > do any indirect methods.
>
> Directly how?
Yeah, remedial science help is in order. But you can't afford me.
> You are not so bright as you make out.
> CO2 has been estimated using the ratios of carbon isotopes.
> I could explain radiocarbon dating but I think I might be wasting my
> time.
You certainly would, since you don't understand the first thing about
it.
> > Radiometric dating does not measure the concentration of CO2 in
> > the atmosphere. It deals with the relative concentrations of different
> > isotopes of Carbon, not absolute concentration.
>
> Yes, and that is exactly how CO2 concentrations have been estimated
> from biological material from the past. Keep up!
I am keeping up dude. You are a little child demanding to be taken
seriously by adults. Now go play with your dollies, the grown ups
are talking.
> Among other things I have bee an archaeologist so I know the story. If
> you keep being so holier than thou, it's pointless continuing the
> discussion.
You say that, but you don't mean it.
> > The radiation transport paper is referenced in one of the Monckton
> > youtube vids, the long one with the slides.
>
> Ohh technical - youtube! What about real evidence?
Mayhap too technical for you. Read the paragraph all the way
through. Get somebody to help you with the big words.
> Let's hear that again; ONLY half a degree in temperature for a
> doubling of of CO2?
Yes. That's also pretty much what the alarmists predict.
But, you are a child. You didn't look at the entire paragraph.
It's about 0.5 for a doubling, absent any of the feedback effects.
Again, get somebody to help you with the big words. Here is
the relevant text, which you quoted but clearly didn't read.