In a disturbing development, scientists have discovered that Gaia produces 97% of CO2, and almost 100% of the most potent greenhouse gas (H2O)
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… saveenergy on What’s At Stake? willys36 on “The world began to end… Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Homophobic Gas Walter on Protecting Endangered Species Morgan Wright on Artificial Stupidity
Pfffttt … doesn’t matter, there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas” in the first place.
Ever work with IR Spectroscopy or no?
A cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still. You cannot get energy out of nothing. Not to mention the FACT that IR emitted from CO2 is in bandwidth that is below temperatures found on the earth for all but the extreme portions of Antarctica. So, exactly how can IR at temperature less than -80C cause the ground to heat? …
How can a winter coat keep you warm in the winter when you are 98.6 degrees and the coat colder than you?
re: squid2112 says May 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm
A cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still …
I don’t know what your point is; perhaps you are starting off assuming just waaaay to much.
.
In response to your “IR Spectroscopy”, let me repost a comment from a fellow that happens to know just a little bit about the topic at hand.
But I will include this FACT in contradiction to the quote above… Not even H2O is a “greenhouse gas” … There is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”, and aside from plant houses made of glass, there is no such thing as a “green house effect” (GHE). The only greenhouse effect, is precisely what Gator states below “Greenhouses have roofs, physical barriers that indeed trap heat…” … Because they restrict convection, not because of any IR “back radiation” … period
Earth’s gas is not trapped by glass, it’s trapped by gravity.
By the way, Mike Sanicola was a pseud I was thinking of using so I could stop using my real name, but now I’m just using my real name. I’m an optometrist and astronomical opticist.
re: squid2112 says May 6, 2014 at 12:54 pm
In response to your “IR Spectroscopy”, let me repost a comment from a fellow that happens to know just a little bit about the topic
And I don’t ?
Again, you appear to be assuming waaaay beyond acceptable bounds.
You are appearing now to be in the ‘crank’ category.
Yep! Greenhouses have roofs, physical barriers that indeed trap heat, and can have runaway heating without manual controls.
Gases have no such property.
We must make her pay!
Since the fanatic environmental movement and “climate experts” are Gaia’s representatives on earth, we should send them the bill.
Bingo! Been looking for those data for a long time.
So—speaking of IR spectroscopy—1) how do CO2 and Water Vapor compare in specific wavelengths at which energy is absorbed and 2) how does the total of energy absorbed compare between the two molecules? I have heard that water vapor absorbs at more wavelengths and more strongly in total than CO2.
For a first-pass look, may I recommend taking a gander at this:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.html
Graphically, here’s the spectra involved:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/spectrum.jpg
BowW, you should also understand that the “absorbtion” of that energy in those narrow IR bands is very fleeting and is quickly re-emitted. Some still have a perception that the IR absorption somehow keeps multiplying. That’s not so.
An understanding of EM absorption and radiation is the next step, but, one needs to start somewhere versus plunging deep into the intricacies of molecular vibration, stretching and torsional ‘vibration’ modes whose various vibrational frequencies ‘map’ to the EM spectrum …
Excellent information! This biologist thanks you!
You’re welcome BobW.
For a little more ‘in depth’ coverage of this subject, this on-line eBook text is accessible:
Title: Radiation in the atmosphere
http://books.google.com/books/about/Radiation_in_the_atmosphere.html?id=o6X0yI4LnNwC
Scroll about midway down that page and individual chapters can be accessed.
Chapter 3 page 94 lists the absorption bands in the atmosphere, for instance.
On-line calculator, allows you to change the composition of the atmosphere and take a look at the differences in transmission effects according to wavenumber (1/cm):
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
A more recent text (pdf format):
Here
“Radiation in the Atmosphere”, Zdunkowski, Trautmann, Bott.
Antarctica dissapoints.
“Spiegel On Antaractic Sea Ice: “Never Before Has There Been So Much Ice At This Time Of Year Since Measurements Began”!”
http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/02/spiegel-on-antaractic-sea-ice-never-before-has-there-been-so-much-ice-at-this-time-of-year-since-meaurements-began/
“Antarctic Sea Ice Blows Away Records In April”
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/antarctic-sea-ice-blows-away-records-in-april/
And, our president now appears to be ready to focus on climate change for his legacy. According to a Washington Post article (via Hot Air http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/05/domestically-the-white-house-turns-to-climate-change/ ), “After years of putting other policy priorities first — and dismaying many liberal allies in the process — Obama is now getting into the weeds on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy, according to aides and advisers.”
Hot Air also notes that, “As usual, he intends to proceed by using executive power, whether or not the people or their representatives agree and without any consideration of the cost to the consumer.”
Obama must love Gaia! Ain’t we got fun?
We’re going to love it!
Peggy Lee – Ain’t we got fun
Going to the Woods Hole site a chart is displayed which shows the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The chart show (and is explained by the “research” that it is a seasonal oscillation. Just wondering, knowing the location of the monitor (Mauna Loa, Hawaii) why would there be an oscillation i.e.. if we in the northern hemisphere are using more carbon based fuels to heat our house/work in the winter, wouldn’t it seemed that the souther hemisphere uses less and in the second half of the year the reverse is true, Thus there should be no oscillation based on time of the year and it should be a fairly straight line.
We’re only a minor contributor. The southern hemisphere has more ocean which is the largest contributor.
Look closer and you will see that it is seasonal and always has been – look at the historical records.
As the north has more land mass with more plants on it (compared to the SH), they ‘breath’ CO2 in over the spring and summer, and exhale more during the winter. This is in addition to the seas and ocean life that also blooms during the summer months taking up considerable CO2.
From the Conclusion of the paper ‘Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature’ by Ernest C. Njau,
I forgot the link –
http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41015298.pdf
Tax, cap and trade the southern hemispheric oceans! And any algae, too. Those little monsters have ruined the planet for half a billion years and more!
That diagram is not complete. For example, making lime by baking limestone in an oven produces CO2 which is required for all cement and concrete (i.e. useful things), but similar processes also happen naturally so there’s an inorganic carbon cycle that has been ignored above. I believe that CO2 is also absorbed by some inorganic reactions.
What’s more, every shell on the beach contains carbon, and the shells come from somewhere right? Coral reefs are continuing to grow, and they contain carbon too.
Are cow farts part of the red coming out of plants?
two comments about the Woods Hole block diagram:
It plays down the contribution of deforestation by using the old “greater than” + “asterisk” trick. Note that the contribution of deforestation is about a third as much as fossil fuel emissions (2 x 10^9 tonne compared to 6.5 x 10^9)
It completely omits to mention the carbon locked up in carbonate rocks such as limestone, chalk, coral/coral sand. I have not seen any estimates in units of tonnes but it would far exceed the “10,000 x 10^9 tonnes” they attribute to “Coal Oil & Gas”
Remember that, as the UN-IPCC agree the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources. With CO2 amounting to about 4 hundredths of 1% in the atmosphere, the human part of that is less that 1 hundredth of 1%, probably much less. Think of the whole atmosphere as $100, well CO2 is just 4¢, and the human derived part of that is less than 1¢. That OK because big government wants you to pay 20¢ in the dollar for a 4¢ problem they can’t fix.
But still the UN-IPCC propagandizes their own unproven theory that CO2, especially human derived CO2 causes “CAGW-Climate change”. Remember this is only a THEORY. There is NO definitive evidence that CO2 will, has, or may at future date cause any effects on our climate.
Or is it that we have we reached Peak Stupid? They are selling the invisible, natural, harm-reducing gas called CO2 as a visible smog “pollution”. This is deeply stupid. And yes CO2 is harm-reducing because it sustains all the carbon-based life on this planet, and at only 400 parts per million parts in the air we breath, it is currently at levels that only just sustains that life. Surely only the stupid could believe atmospheric CO2 is harmful?
Control the CO2 emissions and they (Big Government) control the mean and methods of production, distribution, and price of virtually all modern day commodities and conveniences. As energy prices ‘necessarily skyrocket’ so will prices; your home, your heating and cooling, clothing, food, the cost of owning and running your vehicle, your medical bills, to your vacation – they control it all and you must pay!