Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- G W Smith on There Is No Climate Crisis
- Gerald Machnee on Forest Fires 145 Years Ago
- TeaPartyGeezer on There Is No Climate Crisis
- Peter Carroll on BBC : “Researchers Say”
- Tomsa on There Is No Climate Crisis
Archives
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Methane in the atmosphere is oxidized by OH not O2 which is present in limited quantities and also reacts with other species, consequently methane lifetime in the atmosphere is several years.
The spectrum you show to show the overlap between CO2 and H2O is deceptive because of its low resolution, in fact the H2O spectral lines corresponding to the CO2 15 micron band are very dispersed compared with the CO2 lines. Also the CO2 band is located near the maximum in the energy emission spectrum of the Earth’s surface whereas the extensive absorption by H2O shown on that graph is towards the tail of the energy distribution.
https://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2H2O.gif
The RRTM line by line model of course takes all of that into account.
It does but the graph you discussed doesn’t. Off course the scenario you portray in your RRTM graph does not take into account the impossibility of increasing the water vapor concentration by 10 times. Water vapor is not a permanent gas so the vapor pressure depends on temperature. To increase the water vapor pressure from 20ºC (17.5 torr) by a factor of 10 requires the temperature be increased to 64ºC! An increase of 2ºC would lead to an increase of vapor pressure from 17.5 torr to 19.8 torr (13% increase) which be a more realistic scenario.
Similarly your data point at 10% would require a temperature below freezing (v.p. at 0ºC is 4.5 torr).
I’d suggest that you repeat the plot with the range of the H2O variation reduced to +/- 10%, it would be a more realistic approach.
The right quadrant of the graph is irrelevant to my discussion of H2O
The offended purists can use a vertically oriented index card to hold over the right quadrant in your graph, if they so desire.
I have found this to be actually quite an effective method, especially when you are looking at climate model temperature projections (eg CMIP5) past, say, the year 2020. And by changing the orientation to horizontal, you can use the same card to obscure the first three quadrants depicting the temperature hindcasts.
Thus, this simple and inexpensive technique eliminates most of the similarly impossible scenarios that might come up in discussions of the actual science.
Your discussion of H2O and the red line graph are meaningless as I pointed out because they describe an impossible situation.
are meaningless as I pointed out because they describe an impossible situation.
So what is stopping you from criticizing climate models that describe impossible feedbacks?
Why do you defend alarmists BS and attack the truth Phail?
Even the IPCC freely admits that it does not fully understand the methane cycle. When I was a climatology student, everyone agreed that CO2 residency was about 7 years, but that did not satisfy the fear mongers so they lengthened it to ridiculously long time spans. Those same fear mongers and ruiners of science are now playing the same games with methane.
Hey Phil, you know what? … an object cannot heat itself!
The surface of Earth cannot heat itself with it’s own IR … FACT !!!
That should be Fake Fact.
No, but a warmer atmosphere can cause it to cool down more slowly.
(Not that I’m even slightly worried about that. But the clear night tonight where I am portends a frosty morning. Brrr.)
@phil .. Please describe for us exactly how an object can heat itself. Please be specific. I want to implement this so I can generate my own energy, for free.
@Simon .. Slowed cooling is NOT “heating” .. you cannot increase the surface by “slowing cooling” .. “heat” cannot pile!
Does your coffee get hotter if you slow the cooling? .. just beyond stupid. It’s like you two morons were just dropped onto this planet this morning.
“The surface of Earth cannot heat itself with it’s own IR … ”
Squidly… where are you saying the downwelling Watts go, then? I’m just trying to follow along…. thanks
Regarding your coffee example, try putting some water in a stainless steel beaker and heating it with an immersion heater (control the voltage to achieve a steady temperature). Then put the same amount of water in a similarly dimensioned Dewar flask, heat it with the same heater at the same setting, you’ll find the temperature will be higher. At least that’s what happens on this planet.
I still don’t see where the problem is with methan.
Half life time of methan is supposed to be 8 years in our atmosphere.
This means:Within 24 years the currently existing methane would be reduced by ca. 85%.
How can something that looses almost 99% of its substance within half a century be such a threat?
Man made climate change has killed exactly nobody.
Leftist ideology has killed hundreds of millions.
So why would we want to establish leftist policies to combat a harmless hypothesis?
Very well said Gator !! .. and sadly the truth.
Hundreds of millions of dead people is not enough for Socialists. They won’t be happen until the number is near 8 billion.
Tony can you delete that photobucket link, they seem to have changed things and the link is full of adverts and lots of trash, not just the graph? Thanks.
It is obvious to see why we are doomed. Just think of all the methane emitted by cattle that are raised to produce McDonald’s hamburgers. Then think of all the methane emitted by humans that eat their 3rd rate hamburgers. That is an obvious feedback loop that will no doubt result in lethal amounts of methane in atmosphere!
We are all going to die! If not from the smell of all the noxious methane emitted into atmosphere by cattle and humans, certainly from runaway global warming. Or if not from runaway global warming, from runaway global cooling that is a direct result of global warming, like the -20F temperatures is afternoon in the Midwest. It is all settled science!
What nobody ever mentions is that a vegetarian diet is a recipe for methane.
Methane is odorless, of course I would expect the pro AGW crowd does no know that either.
I think one just need to take a look at this co2/methan nonsense to realise
that these people have no clue(or no coherent lie) what they are talking about.
They are so cocksure about how co2 and methane work inside our atmosphere
and promise that they will do incredible things with the climate(they never did
at much higher concentrations during millions of years)
while they are obviously so incompetent that they can not even correctly measure the co2/methan ratio.
Going from 21* more powerfull to 28* more powerfull is an increase by 33.3%.
That’s an incredibly huge margin of error and if they can fail so hard with the most basic simple stuff how can they predict such supercomplex stuff as climate?-well,they can’t.That’s why all their predictions are BS.
The good thing in return is that this increase of the co2/ch4 ratio in return ends the global warming fear.
As a ratio increase from 1:21 to 1:28 does not mean by default that
ch4 are 33.3% more powerful(than in 1995)
It can also mean that co2 got 25% weaker compared to CH4.
25% weaker co2 means.
400ppm co2 in our atmosphere are as weak/strong
as 300ppm co2 were supposed to be in 1995.
So everything is fine.
arn, they cannot even figure out clouds. The cloud error in modeling is 114 times the size of the signal they are trying to detect.
FUBAR.
Whoever claims to know how our atmosphere will react to increased CO2, is a liar of the highest order.
just 114 times.
With such a tiny error margin about the the most dominant/monopolistic greenhouse gas
one can make up any climate model he wants-
from ultimate hot hellhole to supercool snowball.
My theory about climate is:
If we were able to cause some global amnesia about AGW ,
no (wo)man or scientist on this planet would (re)discover global warming for centuries.
And if they ever would AGA would only return in combination with a global tax.
When is Trump going to get rid of all these incredible ignorant “Warmist Scientists” in NASA and NOAA?
There are warmist scientists? And here I thought they were all activists… silly me…
x=0?
you can’t push people off the vast cattle ranches in the US west if you don’t first cut the population’s meat consumption.
Potholer’s idea is tipsy from the start. He provides plots (at the 21 sec. point here) arguing that climate change occurs suddenly, over tens of thousands of years. Fair enough.
But he totally misses the obvious fact that nearly all the sudden changes are onsets of ice ages, i.e., COOLINGS. Granted, it may be sensible to speculate whether some ISOLATED phenomenon might cause this type of “tipping point”. But before going too far down this road, you do have to rule out the possibility that climate cooling might be part of some SYSTEMIC mechanism that causes ice ages as a type of relaxation oscillation of the earth as a whole. Potholer no doubt regards this and similar competing hypotheses as pesky nuisances.
But the WARMING phases occur gradually, over hundred thousand year time scales, in multiple fits and starts. The trends are stable and robust, and the sudden blips in warming are generally short-lived, and revert to the overral slower trend after they happen. There’s no evidence whatsoever to think that warming is caused by some trigger.
Potholer could make a better video about how tipping points might cause global cooling. There’s a lot better reason to be alarmed about that direction.
I’ve realized that I read the time axis from left to right, whereas it actually goes right to left. Somewhat embarrassed. Nevertheless, the idea that some individual event causes warming remains to be shown, along with the assumption that such a trigger, now occurring at a time when the earth is no longer in an ice age, can cause uber-warming when we’re already at a warming peak. Potholer doesn’t address that.
I’ve realized that I read the time axis from left to right, whereas it actually goes right to left. Somewhat embarrassed. Nevertheless, the idea that some triggering event causes warming remains to be shown, along with the assumption that such a trigger, now occurring at a time when the earth is at a warming peak, can cause further warming under non-ice age conditions. Potholer doesn’t address that.
@ Phil………
re: your Dewar flask comment..
Try this: https://principia-scientific.org/hydro-flask-challenge-anthropogenic-climate-change/
Another frustrating article that starts out fine, and when it gets to the money-paragraph breaks down into a bunch of cynicism and doesn’t explain the concept in a thorough manner. Can some one (Squidly?) link to something that explains the concept – which if true, would be pretty convincing
I know how Dewars work, that link doesn’t have any relevance to my comment.
Everybody is afraid of cattle produced methane. Did bison, giraffes, water buffalo, mammoths, giant sloths, rhinos, wildebeests, brontosaurus, blue whales, hippos, etc. not produce methane? what ridiculous reasoning.