No. I agree that more CO2 will trap more heat. Big difference. Okay, I know you'll ask what the difference is, so I'll tell you. It's possible increased water vapor, which is far and away the major greenhouse gas, may reflect more heat away than CO2 will trap. And that's just one possibility.
Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?
- Thread starter toubab
- Start date
No. I agree that more CO2 will trap more heat. Big difference. Okay, I know you'll ask what the difference is, so I'll tell you. It's possible increased water vapor, which is far and away the major greenhouse gas, may reflect more heat away than CO2 will trap. And that's just one possibility.
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,264
The way you're explaining it water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect is letting energy in, but not letting it escape. What you might mean to say is that the water vapor will deflect the energy away from Earth.
Do you have any cites to show that water vapor will deflect energy away from Earth?
You need citations for the effect of clouds?
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,264
I'd like a cite that shows energy can't pass through clouds, yes.
You know what, this is getting ridiculous. If you don't realize that clouds reflect energy back into space instead of letting it reach the surface of the planet, your education is seriously lacking.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Oh no, it's the dreaded water cycle feedback loop.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so more in the atmosphere means more surface warming. More surface warming means more evaporation and more water vapor. More water vapor means more clouds, which reflect sunlight and reduce surface warming. Less surface warming means less water vapor and fewer clouds. But fewer clouds means more surface warming. Where will it end?
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so more in the atmosphere means more surface warming. More surface warming means more evaporation and more water vapor. More water vapor means more clouds, which reflect sunlight and reduce surface warming. Less surface warming means less water vapor and fewer clouds. But fewer clouds means more surface warming. Where will it end?
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Posts
- 66,713
When we work to eliminate water from the environment.
It won't end. At least not for billions of years, most likely.
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,264
If that's the case they would also reflect energy that was trying to leave Earth back to Earth, correct?
OK. I'll drink a vodka based cocktail tonight.
Always glad to do my part for global warming/cooling/change (whatever makes algore the most money.)
Correct. But they reflect more energy trying to get in than they do energy trying to get out.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Dear god. Where does one start with something like that?
Son, I've got better things to do than to try to give you a remedial course in reading comprehension AND a science education.
Homework Assignment:
Albedo
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,264
I think that depends on the type of cloud, & its contents, but ok. So what I really should be asking for is a cite showing there will be more clouds?
I understand you're saying that less energy will reach Earth, but with the increase of C02, more energy will still be kept here. I'm not really sure that balances things out.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
That happened on Venus. There's hardly any water any more. But their CO2 is still causing greenhouse effects.
Venus has lots of clouds, too.
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,264
Wow, you used "reading comprehension" twice. Way to double down on the ignorance. Again, another topic.
So now that the energy has been reflected off the surface of the Earth, and the C02 is preventing it from leaving back into space, where is it going?
ps If you really had better things to do, you would just answer the questions the first time. Based on the frequency of your posts, you don't have anything to do.
Read what phrodeau wrote. It's a pretty good explanation, in a nutshell. I'm bailing. All of you AGW believers can keep on believing. It's clear you're going to, no matter what.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Your first mistake is thinking the earth's climate system is a greenhouse. It's all downhill after that.
Then, there's the matter of physics, mistaking computer models for actual science and failing to comprehend the fundamental errors incorporated therein.
All that, before we even broach the subject of the "C" in the CAGW conjecture.
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,761
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,264
Just to be clear, you're saying C02 doesn't trap heat here on Earth?
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
#AscriptionAgain
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,761
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
So, to be clear- Your position is that if I place a qualifier in front of my ascription, it is not an ascription?
Mushroom asks for clarification for EVERYTHING in an endless circle of illogical locutions.
Just to be clear- Since you are still using hashtags you think this site is twitter enabled?
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,761
Thank you for asking for clarification instead of outright ascribing positions to me. Baby steps....
The answer to your first question is yes.
Your opinion that "Mushroom" (whoever that is) asks for continual clarification could most likely be resolved by you not attempting to pass your opinions off as "fact".
Insofar as hashtags go, I use them for aggregation purposes. I can, for example, do a query on "#AscriptionAgain AND Query" to quickly locate your 200 most recent ascription attempts.
This is a tremendous efficiency aid when pointing out your various lies, fallacies and other intellectual shortcomings.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
And your mistake is in thinking that he thinks much at all.............he doesn't. He doesn't have the first clue about hysteresis, amplification, damping, or feedback. If he had the first clue about what was presented in the videos he'd be asking halfway intelligent questions.
Any third year EE undergrad understands the consequences of open ended, or positive, feedback. The system becomes unstable and runs away with itself. And the graph of that process is Hansen's "Hockey Stick." If that 3x amplification factor that they apply to the model is correct the Earth would have burned up eons ago. Obviously that factor is wrong, and the proof is that we didn't burn up eons ago. As a matter of fact ANY amplification factor, or an open ended process, will drive the system into instability and a runaway state. The curve of such a process is ALWAYS exponential and the only variable is the scale of the X axis, ie. time.
Because the Earth DIDN'T burn up long ago (and from CO2 concentration to boot) is that there has to be a negative feedback component to the system. Without that negative feedback component we wouldn't be here to run around in circles, wringing our hands, screaming "the world is ending soon", because the world would have ended long before we ever evolved.
And in the end it comes down to the fact that if the model supporting a thesis does not match reality, the the thesis itself is flawed. And the further the model diverges from reality, the more fatally flawed the thesis is. But for more than a few here making such declarations is tantamount to declaring, "there is no God." Because to them it IS a religion and they are the followers of the cult.
Ishmael
