Login

MalabarJag · 06-19-2019, 09:21 AM

(06-19-2019, 06:57 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(06-18-2019, 10:32 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: I'm not exactly sure of your point in this rambling screed, but let me set you straight.

There is no "experiment." In theory, the doubling of CO2 concentration will result in a planetary (not laboratory) temperature increase of 1.1 kelvins. That's the temperature difference between a bedroom and living room. This is not a problem.

The temperature change for a doubling of CO2 concentration in the real world is not even theoretically possible, since there are many confounding factors. The Climastrologists (who receive much more money per year than the skeptics have since the founding of Global Warming) have chosen to claim that there is a net positive feedback from those confounding factors (mostly from more water vapor) that triples the warming. Note that this number was chosen to be the maximum possible positive feedback without a runaway warming. Common sense says that the planet doesn't do positive feedbacks. Common sense says that more water vapor creates more clouds which means more sunlight is reflected, creating a negative feedback. But common sense doesn't rake in billions of research dollars year after year.

As far as the slick marketing goes, that's completely on the side of the Climastrologists. They have the political backing of the left wing press (95% of the mainstream media) and don't need to spend a cent for the massive marketing they receive gratis. The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scheme is a means (with by far the strongest likelihood of success) to setting up a global socialist government. Some advocates have actually admitted that this is their goal.

You can choose to believe the Climastrology priests. But you should at least admit that you are a religious believer in this case. Their claim that sea level rise is accelerating is a verified lie. I've shown you the proof many times (NOAA.gov tide gauge data). You still choose to believe the liars.

the amount of heat that CO2 absorbs rises linearly with the concentration of CO2.

The temperature of the atmosphere rises linearly with the amount of heat it absorbs.

However, the tendency of water molecules to be in vapor form (the vapor form is invisible to the human eye and absorbs solar radiation, while clouds are liquid water and reflect it) rises exponentially with increasing temperature. Consult an ASHRAE manual, look up the Buck equations... or, hey, don't. You do you. The ASHRAE manuals could have been written to help design air conditioning systems, or they could be part of a vast conspiracy to help scientists topple limited governments and institute their form of communism. Next time you enjoy an air-conditioned or heated interior space, you can smugly think to yourself how much better it would work if the designers were using real math instead of conspiracy math.

This is wrong in so many ways. CO2 absorbs and re-releases IR photons, it doesn't absorb heat. Roughly half of those are directed downward. The absorption of those adds to the temperature of the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by contact with the surface, not by CO2 absorption. The temperature effect of CO2 on the planet is logarithmic, not linear, because the effect decreases as the CO2 absorption bands are filled.

And if you read my post, I said that there was more water vapor. More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds. Or maybe you think that clouds mostly form over deserts? Note also that water vapor absorption bands overlap those of CO2, so the effect of more water vapor is partially negated.

An A/C manual? Really? As if what effects interior air in a closed room is applicable in any way.

There is actual evidence of negative feedback in the tropics, where it has been measured that clouds form earlier on warm days. But like I said Climastrologists need positive feedback to create scary scenarios that justify the billions in annual funding. Without research funding a scientist will not keep a job, and scientists are not some special breed of humans. They have families to feed and mortgages to pay just like everyone else. Note that you were the one who brought up funding, so you'll have to live with the real world truths about funding and scientists.

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"