Another clueless Colorado organization displays their ignorance.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/26/MN4F1G291R.DTL
Redwoods and Sequoias have survived dozens of major drought cycles, huge fires, massive earthquakes. But a 0.0001 (100 ppm) increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to wipe them out.
I wonder if they are aware that Giant Sequoias used to grow in Colorado?
Wingnuts. Do they really believe nature should be static?
Do they really believe nature should be static?
No.
Thanks for checking for wingnuts.
Not only are the Giant Redwoods NOT likely to go extinct in California during the next 3-5 centuries; their range is actually expanding. At the beginning of the 20th century, public and private gardeners in the Willamette Valley began planting Sequoiadendron as ornamental trees, along roadways, driveways, and in parks and home gardens. Many of these specimens are over 100 years old, and the planting continues today. The only reason(s) these trees have not (yet) naturalized themselves in Western Oregon is that the places where they grow are so intensively manicured and/or frequently redesigned; and, possibly, because such long-lived trees have a lengthy growth period before reaching sexual maturity(?).
Expressing changes in GHGs relative to the total atmosphere is meaningless because ~999,600 of every million molecules of air are non-GHGs and have essentially nothing to do with keeping the planet warm.
The increase in CO2 is meaningfully expressed as ~25%, not 0.0001.
Suppose someone understood four articles out of a thousand, and the next year they understood five. They could say that their comprehension increased by 25%.
That may just be the worst analogy I’ve ever heard. Those other 999,600 per million molecules aren’t books that we don’t understand, they’re books that for all intents and purposes don’t exist.
Chris,
I’m hoping you aren’t as clueless as you claim. Water vapour is by far the dominant greenhouse gas and it makes up 2-3% of the atmosphere.
Chris:
Is there new information out proving that H2O is not a GHG?
Have all the other gasses that were refered to as GHGs been discarded also?
Still haven’t figured out the bit about how water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing agent?
As for the other GHGs, you might want to check their concentrations relative to CO2. It’s over 200x greater than methane, which is the next highest.
Thanks for the idea. Instead of turning on my furnace on and using a humidistat this winter to keep my house warm and comfortable, I will just let some dry ice loose, or better yet, open lots of beer bottles to get the CO2 concentration up about, oh 50 ppm. The back of the house faces south so I will just let the sunlight in and then I can turn down the thermostat and just let those re-radiating molecules keep us all warm. It’s like free energy from a runaway green house effect. If it gets to hot, in January, I will just open the window. Energy problem solved.
“Expressing changes in GHGs relative to the total atmosphere is meaningless because ~999,600 of every million molecules of air are non-GHGs and have essentially nothing to do with keeping the planet warm.”
You just left out………………,
CONDUCTION and CONVECTION.
Do you realize that O2 and N2 can absorb heat even from (drum roll) CO2 and anything else they come into direct contact with? That means heat is indeed being slowed down from leaving the atmosphere.
Did you forget something?
ROFLMAO!
Uh, convection and conduction just move heat around. They have nothing to do with keeping the Earth warm. So, ROFLMAO right back atcha.
CO2 moves heat around too,according to you guys.
Where do you think O2 and N2 get some of that heat from?
O2 and N2 does collide with CO2 too.That creates the possibility of heat (IR photons) being conducted from CO2 to N2 or O2.
That means heat (IR Photons) are indeed being slowed down from leaving the atmosphere.
How come you keep forgetting the other 99% of the atmosphere gases?
How come you keep forgetting the other 99% of the atmosphere gases?
They aren’t greenhouse gases. Try to understand the difference.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Chris you keep forgetting to wear your glasses.You are hurting yourself with dumb replies.
I never said that O2 and N2 (99% of the atmosphere) are greenhouse gases.NEVER! Unless you are prepared to claim they are not gases at all? Either way you are having serious hallucinations.Claiming I use words that never appear in the thread.
I said they can get some heat from CO2 via CONDUCTION.That is all I stated.You never contradicted it.Just reply with more dumb evasions.Maye your glasses are just rose tinted?
I stated correctly that yes even NON greenhouse gases can slow down outgoing IR photons from leaving the atmosphere.
What are you going to say about that?