GOP, businesses torched AOC for doubting existence of smash-and-grab robberies
- Thread starter AndrewX
- Start date
actually no
the radiation emitted by the planet is illustrated below (blue / black/ pink lines) and the 15 micron wavelength is clearly under the upgoing Thermal Radiation curve
water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas , Co2 is a bit play and the absorption is saturated @ the 15 micron wavelength
The IPCC and the climate models treat water vapor as a secondary feedback only...... that is the primary reason why these climate model are constantly wrong
Last edited:
they are smart enough to recognize the path of least resistance
That's deeply unlikely.
What?!
I LOVE that quote.
It's a great quote.
It's just hilarious that you use it when it describes your problem so well.
That you follow it up with your new "high school" one just compounds the comedy.
Tell me "I don't understand the heliocentric controversy" without saying "I don't understand the heliocentric controversy".
No, I didn't.
I wanted to see a source on the antarctic ice and it turns out it wasn't about that at all.
More importantly, I wanted to see how the piece had been reported in the public press, but that was irrelevant since it wasn't about what he said it was about.
You really should try to keep up instead of just rote repetition of things.
White house breaks with AOC, Lightfoot on smash-and-grab robberies: 'We don't agree'
www.foxnews.com
Psaki breaks with AOC, Lightfoot on smash-and-grab robberies: 'We don't agree'
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday distanced the Biden administration from recent comments made by progressives Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot over their responses to the uptick in organized smash-and-grab robberies in big cities.
www.foxnews.com
From the study…
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Yeah OK
when i read the words might, could, maybe, perhaps, one day, possibly..... etc, then I know it is a guess
A guess which goes against the current trend
A guess 20 or 30 years out in the future.
40 years ago, the guess was we were heading into an ice age
The objective of sound OBJECTIIVE scientific discovery is to eliminate the guesswork
Antarctica ice mass is growing despite the increases in atmospheric Co2 .
That is the relevant conclusion from experimental observations.
That conclusion does not support the AGW hypothesis.
Last edited:
tell yourself
Galileo has been called the "father of observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of the scientific method"
So he conducted very rigorous experiments and maintained detailed records of observations
so he had much more to offer than just a theory
And he died under house arrest , because of an incorrect politically driven consensus view
Last edited:
Very likely given what you have shownThat's deeply unlikely.
I have no problem understanding the message
science is not determined by courts or consensus
Yet there are some who think a court or an opinion pool settles the issue
It does not
so instead of worrying about me. look elsewhere to see who has a problem here
Hmmm. It was the articles author who interjected "might".
The quoted author of the study was very clear on the trend.
yeah, the tend is opposite of melting
Antarctica ice mass is growing despite the increases in atmospheric Co2 .
That is the relevant conclusion from experimental observations.
That conclusion does not support the AGW hypothesis.
"might "........... 20-39 years into the future
that is a guess
guessing is not scientific discovery
The current trend of ice mass growth "might continue" for the foreseeable future as well
Its a coin toss
a coin toss is not scientific discovery
Explaining the probable actions of the pil industries lawyers is far more than a guess.
it is simply a meter of apply pragmatic logic
any competent Lawyer would advise his client of the risks related to possible legal strategies
Company executives are always seeking to minimize risk and taking the path of least resistance in a court proceedings minimizes risks
Oh Boy
You try to pick the conclusion apart and when that fails you attack the source and claim cherry picking?
There were two sources (one from NASA) one from Japan, both stating the fact
"Antarctica ice mass is growing" despite the increases in atmospheric Co2 .
That is the relevant conclusion from experimental observations.
That conclusion does not support the AGW hypothesis.
Please take a science course
You first. It appears you have been erroneously using the 15 micron wavelength arguement... great theory, just not applied correctly.
Also, the math in the source you posted clearly says the the rate the glaciers decrease each year is increasing. That's yearly. That's not a guess.
It's like doubling a penny every day for month. The sum gets bigger and bigger, and after 30 days, your in the millions.
If the ice melt continues melting at it current pace... well, you read the article.
Last edited:
A Note On Saturation of the Carbon Dioxide 15-micron Bandactually no
the radiation emitted by the planet is illustrated below (blue / black/ pink lines) and the 15 micron wavelength is clearly under the upgoing Thermal Radiation curve
water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas , Co2 is a bit play and the absorption is saturated @ the 15 micron wavelength
The IPCC and the climate models treat water vapor as a secondary feedback only...... that is the primary reason why these climate model are constantly wrong
.
.
.
.
....Considerations along these lines have sometimes been used erroneously to imply that carbon dioxide increase is not a concern for global warming. The sophisticated reader should immediately see the problem with such an analysis. The atmosphere is not a single-layer system. The temperature and pressure of the atmosphere change significantly with altitude. One might naively think that simply taking the average pressure and temperature would address this issue, but that is not the case. Unfortunately, it is necessary to understand the atmosphere and atmospheric processes at a more detailed level.
Before we congratulate ourselves too much in this realization, it is worth noting that no less of a scientist than Knut Ångström made this error when considering the pioneering work of Svante Arrhenius.
The most important consideration here is that layers of the atmosphere do not just absorb radiation; they also emit radiation. The emission of radiation from a layer in the atmosphere depends on its temperature. When I introduced Beer's Law, I treated the transmittance as a simple ratio between the spectral radiance of the sample and the spectral radiance of a source or radiation (Is/I0). This assumption was based upon the source of radiation being much hotter than the sample (as would be expected under laboratory conditions.). Once this assumption no longer holds, the transmittance is no longer equal to the indicated ratio. We have to take into account each layer in the model and its thermal radiance.
A Note On Saturation of the Carbon Dioxide 15-micron Band
This post is part of a primer on infrared spectroscopy and global warming . The previous post discusses Beer's Law, and is a necess...
how-it-looks.blogspot.com
Last edited:
HA HAA Note On Saturation of the Carbon Dioxide 15-micron Band
.
.
.
.
....Considerations along these lines have sometimes been used erroneously to imply that carbon dioxide increase is not a concern for global warming. The sophisticated reader should immediately see the problem with such an analysis. The atmosphere is not a single-layer system. The temperature and pressure of the atmosphere change significantly with altitude. One might naively think that simply taking the average pressure and temperature would address this issue, but that is not the case. Unfortunately, it is necessary to understand the atmosphere and atmospheric processes at a more detailed level.
Before we congratulate ourselves too much in this realization, it is worth noting that no less of a scientist than Knut Ångström made this error when considering the pioneering work of Svante Arrhenius.
The most important consideration here is that layers of the atmosphere do not just absorb radiation; they also emit radiation. The emission of radiation from a layer in the atmosphere depends on its temperature. When I introduced Beer's Law, I treated the transmittance as a simple ratio between the spectral radiance of the sample and the spectral radiance of a source or radiation (Is/I0). This assumption was based upon the source of radiation being much hotter than the sample (as would be expected under laboratory conditions.). Once this assumption no longer holds, the transmittance is no longer equal to the indicated ratio. We have to take into account each layer in the model and its thermal radiance.
A Note On Saturation of the Carbon Dioxide 15-micron Band
This post is part of a primer on infrared spectroscopy and global warming . The previous post discusses Beer's Law, and is a necess...
Yeah as you go up in elevation the temperature drops But guess what?
The energy Absorbance/ Emmission decreases as per the Stefan -Boltzman Law
and the temperature dependence is to the fourth power, so the radiation energy decreases dramatically as one move higher in elevation
The Troposphere (where the IPCC claims the incremental absorbance takes place) is -50 C
That is quite a drop in Temp and thus a significant drop in absorption /emission energy
Go ahead and integrate the energy over layers as you climb in elevation
Opps whats that you ran into some clouds of .... (water vapor) ?
Here are a number of recent papers which verify the saturation and point to a very low CO2 sensitivity
2004.00708.pdf (arxiv.org)
SATURATION OF THE INFRARED ABSORPTION BY CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE DIETER SCHILDKNECHT Fakult¨at f¨ur Physik, Universit¨at Bielefeld D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany schild@physik.uni-bielefeld.de
Stallinga et al.,
2020, Ollila,
2019, Smirnov,
2017, Smirnov, 2020,
Harde, 2016,
Bates, 2016,
Kissin, 2015,
Abbot and Marohasy, 2017,
Gervais, 2016).
This is likely more your speed
Science Under Attack
How Near-Saturation of CO2 Limits Future Global Warming
Yeah so saturation is
