Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Climate Change is a Hoax


FurriesRock

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Organic compounds, including CO2, interact with water vapor to affect the absorption spectrum of infrared energy

H2O does not "interact" with CO2 to effect its absorption of LWIR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Please quote anything from one of these Papers that supports your position. As far as I can tell these do not support what you are saying.

Then try reading them.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

H2O does not "interact" with CO2 to effect its absorption of LWIR.

H2O and CO2 have overlapping absorption bands.  That's how they do it.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Then try reading them.

I did. They are nonsequitor to anything you were saying.

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lost_shaman said:

I did. They are nonsequitor to anything you were saying.

Interfering absorption alters the amount of light available for re-emission, generally by reducing it.  That means less IR being emitted.  That means more energy retained in the local environment.  Read the papers.  That's what they're saying.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Interfering absorption alters the amount of light available for re-emission, generally by reducing it.  That means less IR being emitted.  That means more energy retained in the local environment.  Read the papers.  That's what they're saying.

Doug

That's not what they are saying nor is that what happens in the environment. CO2s main absorption band (15 um) lies mostly outside H2Os absorption band with only slight overlap at the shoulders. Neither CO2 or H2O starves the other of photons! That is what you are suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Interfering absorption alters the amount of light available for re-emission, generally by reducing it.  That means less IR being emitted.  That means more energy retained in the local environment.  Read the papers.  That's what they're saying.

Doug

"Collisions with the dominant gases of the atmosphere lead to a non-radiative decay. At sea level and T = 288 K, the collision rate of all gas molecules is approximately the inverse of the mean free time between collision. Its value is 7 x 109 s-1. The present CO2 concentration amounts to cco2 = 400 ppm. This leads to a non-radiative collision rate with the CO2 Rnon = 28 x 105 s-1 . The chances of radiative emission in this situation is given by Rrad / (Rrad + Rnon ) ≈ 0.06. In the troposphere, where most of the absorption takes place, most of the absorbed energy by the CO2 heats the dominant atmospheric gases. This is, however, no longer 5 the case in the stratosphere and even higher levels, where the collision rate is dramatically decreased." Rienhart (2017)

In the Troposphere where CO2 and H2O coexist, collisions are the major form of decay not re-emission of photons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

That's not what they are saying nor is that what happens in the environment. CO2s main absorption band (15 um) lies mostly outside H2Os absorption band with only slight overlap at the shoulders. Neither CO2 or H2O starves the other of photons! That is what you are suggesting.

Sorry.  Maybe I could say it b etter:  Water vapor on the surface of organic molecules inhibts the absorption/emission of IR by physically blocking collisions.  When the water freezes there are gaps between the crystals such that IR can penetrate.  "Collisions" is the word I was looking for.

At any rate, that is the global warming fingerprint, producing greater warming in dryer areas.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Sorry.  Maybe I could say it b etter:  Water vapor on the surface of organic molecules inhibts the absorption/emission of IR by physically blocking its transmission.  When the water freezes there are gaps between the crystals such that IR can access the molecule.

Right, but we are not talking about looking at organics on Slides under a microscope with IR lasers. This has no bearing on our discussions here.

What I was talking about was the shift in Black body radiation peak closer to CO2s main absorption band at colder below freezing temperatures. You can see this via Wien's Law.

WeinsLaw.gif.ccdf7af3c1cedfa0655735e235a8d572.gif

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

Right, but we are not talking about looking at organics on Slides under a microscope with IR lasers. This has no bearing on our discussions here.

We are looking at the atmosphere using lasers.  The articles are about laboratory results that demonstrate that such things are possible in the atmosphere.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

We are looking at the atmosphere using lasers.  The articles are about laboratory results that demonstrate that such things are possible in the atmosphere.

Again, that is not what we are talking about here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Again, that is not what we are talking about here.

You asked me to present evidence that the global warming fingerprint is real.  I did.  That's what I'm tlaking about.  What are you talkiing about?

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You asked me to present evidence that the global warming fingerprint is real.  I did.  That's what I'm tlaking about.  What are you talkiing about?

 

I was saying that colder temperatures mean more emissions near the 15 um band that is CO2s main absorption band making it more efficient. You thought this somehow proves a point of yours but it does no such thing.

Also you didn't evidence a GW fingerprint.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we were talking about the Sun and Solar effects on clouds and Climate in general here is the new Zharkova Paper.

Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale

And a presentation by Zharkova.

Zharkova and colleagues were one of only 2 out 150 models that predicted Solar Cycle 24 to be less active than Solar Cycle 23. Her model predicts a new grand Solar minima beginning next year and lasting through to 2055. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was an interesting debate. It was set up as pro vs. con but quickly devolved into a general agreement between the two Scientists that we don't have the data to be alarmed by CO2, they cover many of the issues we've been recently discussing including low cloud cover and Solar influences on cloud cover, also radiative forcings and feedbacks (clouds), Climate Sensitivity, and proxy data. 

Quite interesting and actually very cordial and frank debate. Too bad people on UM can't discuss the Topic without "drive by's" and Ad Hominem attacks. 

 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I was saying that colder temperatures mean more emissions near the 15 um band that is CO2s main absorption band making it more efficient. You thought this somehow proves a point of yours but it does no such thing.

Also you didn't evidence a GW fingerprint.

I've said many times that the global warming fingerprint is the greatest warming occurring in the driest places.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

This was an interesting debate. It was set up as pro vs. con but quickly devolved into a general agreement between the two Scientists that we don't have the data to be alarmed by CO2, they cover many of the issues we've been recently discussing including low cloud cover and Solar influences on cloud cover, also radiative forcings and feedbacks (clouds), Climate Sensitivity, and proxy data. 

As of right now, we have plenty of evidence condemming CO2.  What we lack is evidence we can do anything about it.  So far, there is no change in the Keeling curve.  That would be our best evidence that we are having an effect, but it's not there.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I did. They are nonsequitor to anything you were saying.

If you read them, then it's your reading comprehension that is the problem.  My appologies.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I've said many times that the global warming fingerprint is the greatest warming occurring in the driest places.

But that is not happening. The most warming has not been in Dry deserts, the most warming has occurred in the Arctic.

Edit: Before you come back and say it's so dry in the Arctic, the humidity in Utqiagvik, AK 82% today and not forecast to be below 74% during the next 7 days. In Anchorage, AK the humidity is 54% today and not forecast to drop below 60% during the next 7 days. 

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

But that is not happening. The most warming has not been in Dry deserts, the most warming has occurred in the Arctic.

Edit: Before you come back and say it's so dry in the Arctic, the humidity in Utqiagvik, AK 82% today and not forecast to be below 74% during the next 7 days. In Anchorage, AK the humidity is 54% today and not forecast to drop below 60% during the next 7 days. 

What happens in winter?  All that moisture freezes out of the air.  That is when the warming is occurring.  AND, it is occurring in the inland areas. Both your cities are coastal ones and it is SUMMER, not winter.  Good job of cherry-picking, there.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

What happens in winter?  All that moisture freezes out of the air.  That is when the warming is occurring.  AND, it is occurring in the inland areas. Both your cities are coastal ones and it is SUMMER, not winter.  Good job of cherry-picking, there.

Doug

McGrath Alaska currently at 53% humidity, that is the lowest forecast amount in the next 7 days, it is in middle AK not near the coast at all. 


Also this Paper GILL ET AL.: SUMMER TEMP AND HUMIDITY ANOMALIES shows heat waves occuring in the summer along with increased Relative Humidity not vise verse as you (Doug) would have us believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGrath is also in a coastal area (southwestern Alaska).  A friend of mine teaches high school there.  And it is summer.  Still cherry-picking.

If the summers are two degrees warmer than they were fifty years ago and the winters are four degrees warmer, in which season is warming occurring?

Doesn't matter what is happening this summer and doesn't matter what the coastal areas are doing.  Warming is greatest in dry deserts and the continental Arctic.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

McGrath is also in a coastal area (southwestern Alaska).  A friend of mine teaches high school there.  And it is summer.  Still cherry-picking.

If the summers are two degrees warmer than they were fifty years ago and the winters are four degrees warmer, in which season is warming occurring?

Doesn't matter what is happening this summer and doesn't matter what the coastal areas are doing.  Warming is greatest in dry deserts and the continental Arctic.

Doug

The closest open water is over 150 miles away from McGrath. Or look at Fairbanks, in the next 7 days 51% humidity is the lowest forecast. Are you going to say Fairbanks is coastal too?

At any rate your hypothesis is antithetical to the evidence. Temperatures are not rising due to decreased Humidity as you falsely believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To interrupt with some ignorance for a bit if you folks don't mind...

What's considered coastal? Like walking/quick drive to the shore kind of thing which can be just a couple/few miles... or more like hurricane coastal which can be more like 100 miles inland.

And what does open water mean? Growing up in the great lakes region, weather was what blew off the open waters of Minnesota and Wisconsin had and effect on how weather and beach eating/deposits built up on the East side of Lake Michigan. What rolled along Michigan then passed onto the lakes to the east of that and so on.

You folks often go over my head with the science in this thread, but I'm honestly trying to place into context what coastal and open waters mean here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although coastal versus non-coastal is fun, perhaps we should also all review where the Arctic Circle is.

Hint, neither Mcgrath, nor Fairbanks, nor Anchorage is within it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.