Remember me
▼ Content

Do CO2 Emissions Create More Clouds?



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Do CO2 Emissions Create More Clouds?15-12-2019 20:54
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
If there are more clouds, it warms up a frigid climate, because it blankets the land, and traps in the very little heat gotten from the sun

But in a hot climate where the land is getting blasted by the sun, more clouds block the sun and helps cool temps.

Thus I'm wondering if CO2 emissions are to blame for the record ice melt I've been hearing about in the Arctic ?

This must be harmful for Polar bears who lose hunting ground...

What are some more harmful effects of increased clouds?
16-12-2019 02:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
Spongy Iris wrote: If there are more clouds, it warms up a frigid climate, because it blankets the land, and traps in the very little heat gotten from the sun

Nope. I counted eight major errors in the above statement.

Spongy Iris wrote: But in a hot climate where the land is getting blasted by the sun, more clouds block the sun and helps cool temps.

There aren't as many egregious errors in this one, but it is nonetheless critically flawed.

Spongy Iris wrote:Thus I'm wondering if CO2 emissions are to blame for the record ice melt I've been hearing about in the Arctic ?

There's no record ice melt in the Arctic.

Spongy Iris wrote:This must be harmful for Polar bears who lose hunting ground...

Nope. It would be beneficial to polar bears if it were happening ... which it's not.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-12-2019 02:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
I have a theory. Tell me what you think.

I believe that you should see a correlation between colder air flowing into a region and a decrease in the average temperature for that region.

I believe that you should see a correlation between warmer air flowing into a region and an increase in the average temperature for that region.

I firmly believe that if colder air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and colder temperatures in that region.

I firmly believe that if warmer air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and warmer temperatures in that region.

Do you agree or disagree?

.
16-12-2019 02:56
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Hey IBDM

I did read about record temps in the Arctic circle in 2019 just now. But what do I know...
16-12-2019 03:11
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Hey IBDM,

Say dry air (no clouds) blows onto San Francisco from the North in December.

Night time temps will probably drop down to almost freezing.

Now say wet air (saturated clouds) blows onto San Francisco from the same angle of North in December.

Night time temps will probably be well above freezing.

Is this not an example of clouds warming up a frigid climate?

Now say clouds (probably fog) blows in from the same angle North in June. Temps will be pretty moderate.

Now say no clouds or fog blow in from the same angle North in June. Temps could get scorching.

Is this not example of clouds cooling off a hot climate?

Please advise of any critical flaws. Thank you in advance.
16-12-2019 03:13
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Hey IBDM

You also didn't speak to the title question.

Does CO2 create clouds? Is it a key catalyst?
16-12-2019 03:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1641)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey IBDM

You also didn't speak to the title question.

Does CO2 create clouds? Is it a key catalyst?


Clouds form because warmer moist air is lifted (through several different mechanisms) into cooler air and the moisture condenses out, changing the gas to liquid. You take it from there.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
16-12-2019 03:45
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Hey Gas Guzzler,

It seems to me there needs to be something in the air other than water to form the clouds. Otherwise it's just steam.

If you drop a dry ice cube (frozen CO2) into a bucket of water, it sure looks like what forms is clouds.

So I'm gonna say CO2 in the atmosphere is the catalyst to form clouds.

Thanks.
16-12-2019 05:00
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1741)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey Gas Guzzler,

It seems to me there needs to be something in the air other than water to form the clouds. Otherwise it's just steam.

If you drop a dry ice cube (frozen CO2) into a bucket of water, it sure looks like what forms is clouds.

So I'm gonna say CO2 in the atmosphere is the catalyst to form clouds.

Thanks.


You do realize that CO2 is a trace gas, makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is in the 1-4% range. Pretty sure it never drops to 0%, anywhere... About 80% of the earth's surface, is water, liquid or frozen... CO2 has nothing to do with weather, just not a lot of it.
16-12-2019 07:34
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Hi Harvey,

Do you have a theory you'd like to share for how clouds form?

Cause to me clouds look like more than just water vapor.

Thanks
16-12-2019 09:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
If there are more clouds, it warms up a frigid climate, because it blankets the land, and traps in the very little heat gotten from the sun

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm anything. You can't create energy out of nothing. It can't cool anything. You can't destroy energy into nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But in a hot climate where the land is getting blasted by the sun, more clouds block the sun and helps cool temps.

You cannot create or destroy energy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Thus I'm wondering if CO2 emissions are to blame for the record ice melt I've been hearing about in the Arctic ?

There is no 'record ice melt' in the Arctic. The last three years the winter ice extent has been larger in the Arctic. The last record for either the Arctic or Antarctic was the record MAXIMUM winter ice extent in the Antarctic in 2014, the largest ever measured since record keeping began.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This must be harmful for Polar bears who lose hunting ground...
Ice is not ground. Polar bears generally hibernate through the winter like any bear. Polar bears are excellent swimmers and will swim quite far out to sea in search of seals and walruses out on ice floes to try to escape the bears.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What are some more harmful effects of increased clouds?

More fresh water?


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2019 09:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey IBDM

You also didn't speak to the title question.

Does CO2 create clouds? Is it a key catalyst?


CO2 will form a cloud only at very cold temperatures. You can make a dry ice mist yourself by simply releasing compressed CO2 from a tank into atmospheric pressure. It is not a catalyst. It's more of a mist of dry ice.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-12-2019 09:20
16-12-2019 21:22
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
If there are more clouds, it warms up a frigid climate, because it blankets the land, and traps in the very little heat gotten from the sun

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm anything. You can't create energy out of nothing. It can't cool anything. You can't destroy energy into nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But in a hot climate where the land is getting blasted by the sun, more clouds block the sun and helps cool temps.

You cannot create or destroy energy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Thus I'm wondering if CO2 emissions are to blame for the record ice melt I've been hearing about in the Arctic ?

There is no 'record ice melt' in the Arctic. The last three years the winter ice extent has been larger in the Arctic. The last record for either the Arctic or Antarctic was the record MAXIMUM winter ice extent in the Antarctic in 2014, the largest ever measured since record keeping began.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This must be harmful for Polar bears who lose hunting ground...
Ice is not ground. Polar bears generally hibernate through the winter like any bear. Polar bears are excellent swimmers and will swim quite far out to sea in search of seals and walruses out on ice floes to try to escape the bears.
Spongy Iris wrote:
What are some more harmful effects of increased clouds?

More fresh water?


Hey dude,

Please see my comment to IBDM above time stamped
16-12-2019 03:11 and advise.

Thanks
16-12-2019 21:30
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey IBDM

You also didn't speak to the title question.

Does CO2 create clouds? Is it a key catalyst?


CO2 will form a cloud only at very cold temperatures. You can make a dry ice mist yourself by simply releasing compressed CO2 from a tank into atmospheric pressure. It is not a catalyst. It's more of a mist of dry ice.


At around 50 miles alttude, surrounding the world, it is cold enough to sublimate CO2 into dry ice.

Isn't this wall of dry ice all around the world , along with the water vapor all around the world, what makes clouds?
16-12-2019 22:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey IBDM

You also didn't speak to the title question.

Does CO2 create clouds? Is it a key catalyst?


CO2 will form a cloud only at very cold temperatures. You can make a dry ice mist yourself by simply releasing compressed CO2 from a tank into atmospheric pressure. It is not a catalyst. It's more of a mist of dry ice.


At around 50 miles alttude, surrounding the world, it is cold enough to sublimate CO2 into dry ice.

Nothing sublimates into any ice. Sublimation is the direct conversion of a solid to vapor.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Isn't this wall of dry ice all around the world,

Ice clouds are not a wall.
Spongy Iris wrote:
along with the water vapor all around the world,

Water vapor is not a cloud.
Spongy Iris wrote:
what makes clouds?

Many things. First, let's narrow the context. Which planet are you discussing and what material are you discussing?


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 03:13
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey IBDM

You also didn't speak to the title question.

Does CO2 create clouds? Is it a key catalyst?


CO2 will form a cloud only at very cold temperatures. You can make a dry ice mist yourself by simply releasing compressed CO2 from a tank into atmospheric pressure. It is not a catalyst. It's more of a mist of dry ice.


At around 50 miles alttude, surrounding the world, it is cold enough to sublimate CO2 into dry ice.

Nothing sublimates into any ice. Sublimation is the direct conversion of a solid to vapor.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Isn't this wall of dry ice all around the world,

Ice clouds are not a wall.
Spongy Iris wrote:
along with the water vapor all around the world,

Water vapor is not a cloud.
Spongy Iris wrote:
what makes clouds?

Many things. First, let's narrow the context. Which planet are you discussing and what material are you discussing?


Ok dude. We're talking 50 miles altitude of Earth. There's CO2 in the air. And the temp is -90 degrees Celsius. Is this not cold enough to sublimate CO2 into dry ice?

The freezing point (or sublimation point) of CO2 is -78.5 degrees Celsius.

Are you saying CO2 doesn't freeze at 50 miles altitude?
17-12-2019 03:20
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Oh I guess I meant to say CO2 desublimates. Freezes, from a vapor to solid.
17-12-2019 05:33
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Oh hello.

I came across an article on Forbes which seems to match the general assumption I have made here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

Compared to the 1980s, today's end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent is about half. Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness, with nearly three-quarters of Arctic sea ice forming and melting each year.

In millions per square kilometer, on a chart, from 1980 to today, the average September extent of sea ice has decreased from around 8 to 5.

While the ice is increasing in winter months it is more than offset by the melting in summer months.

And btw Into the night, I hope you're not seriously making an argument that polar bears can hunt seals by swimming after them! They need to wait on the ice for the seals to come up for breath.
Edited on 17-12-2019 05:34
17-12-2019 05:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Spongy Iris wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

There are some buttons under the posting window that let you link in your post.
[ url][/url]

The video in that article is pretty scary: https://youtu.be/Vj1G9gqhkYA

"Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness"
17-12-2019 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Oh I guess I meant to say CO2 desublimates. Freezes, from a vapor to solid.


That's just freezing.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 19:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Oh hello.

I came across an article on Forbes which seems to match the general assumption I have made here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

Compared to the 1980s, today's end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent is about half. Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness, with nearly three-quarters of Arctic sea ice forming and melting each year.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
In millions per square kilometer, on a chart, from 1980 to today, the average September extent of sea ice has decreased from around 8 to 5.

While the ice is increasing in winter months it is more than offset by the melting in summer months.

You're pretty desperate to try to say the ice is melting more and more every year, aren't you?
Winter ice extent is increasing. That's all. It really doesn't make much difference either way.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And btw Into the night, I hope you're not seriously making an argument that polar bears can hunt seals by swimming after them!

That's exactly what they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They need to wait on the ice for the seals to come up for breath.

No. The seals are sitting on the ice. The bears swim out and eat them (if they can catch one that's a little slow getting off the ice!).


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

There are some buttons under the posting window that let you link in your post.
[ url][/url]

The video in that article is pretty scary: https://youtu.be/Vj1G9gqhkYA

"Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness"


Argument from randU. It is not possible to measure the thickness of ice on a regional scale.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 20:24
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Oh hello.

I came across an article on Forbes which seems to match the general assumption I have made here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

Compared to the 1980s, today's end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent is about half. Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness, with nearly three-quarters of Arctic sea ice forming and melting each year.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
In millions per square kilometer, on a chart, from 1980 to today, the average September extent of sea ice has decreased from around 8 to 5.

While the ice is increasing in winter months it is more than offset by the melting in summer months.

You're pretty desperate to try to say the ice is melting more and more every year, aren't you?
Winter ice extent is increasing. That's all. It really doesn't make much difference either way.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And btw Into the night, I hope you're not seriously making an argument that polar bears can hunt seals by swimming after them!

That's exactly what they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They need to wait on the ice for the seals to come up for breath.

No. The seals are sitting on the ice. The bears swim out and eat them (if they can catch one that's a little slow getting off the ice!).


Hey dude, well polar bears and seals both need the ice.

Anyway I'm trying to support that more CO2 makes more clouds.

Thus more clouds over a frigid region like the Arctic would warm it up.

The tracking of decreasing sea ice over the years in the melt months appears to be a confirmation of this.

Aside from warmer poles, wonder what other risks there are from increasing clouds globally...
17-12-2019 20:31
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

There are some buttons under the posting window that let you link in your post.
[ url][/url]

The video in that article is pretty scary: https://youtu.be/Vj1G9gqhkYA

"Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness"


Argument from randU. It is not possible to measure the thickness of ice on a regional scale.


Can satellites not get a sense of this?
17-12-2019 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Oh hello.

I came across an article on Forbes which seems to match the general assumption I have made here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

Compared to the 1980s, today's end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent is about half. Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness, with nearly three-quarters of Arctic sea ice forming and melting each year.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
In millions per square kilometer, on a chart, from 1980 to today, the average September extent of sea ice has decreased from around 8 to 5.

While the ice is increasing in winter months it is more than offset by the melting in summer months.

You're pretty desperate to try to say the ice is melting more and more every year, aren't you?
Winter ice extent is increasing. That's all. It really doesn't make much difference either way.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And btw Into the night, I hope you're not seriously making an argument that polar bears can hunt seals by swimming after them!

That's exactly what they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They need to wait on the ice for the seals to come up for breath.

No. The seals are sitting on the ice. The bears swim out and eat them (if they can catch one that's a little slow getting off the ice!).


Hey dude, well polar bears and seals both need the ice.

They have it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anyway I'm trying to support that more CO2 makes more clouds.

Nope. Not enough CO2 and not cold enough. Earth has no naturally occurring CO2 clouds.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Thus more clouds over a frigid region like the Arctic would warm it up.

The Arctic is a naturally occurring high pressure area, because it's so cold. This tends to blow clouds away. Clouds will tend to form along the jetstreams. That is where cold air meets up with warmer air to the south. That warmer air often contains sufficient humidity to form clouds at the boundary as that air is cooled.

Clouds form when warm moist air is cooled to a point where humidity becomes 100%. As air rises, it is cooled. The point where it forms clouds (if it's going to!) tends to occur at the same altitude. That's why the bottom of clouds tend to look flat. That's the point where the air has cooled enough for water vapor to condense out and become liquid water. That point is always at 100% humidity.


Spongy Iris wrote:
The tracking of decreasing sea ice over the years in the melt months appears to be a confirmation of this.

Summer's melt means nothing. Neither bears nor seals are at sea in the summer.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Aside from warmer poles, wonder what other risks there are from increasing clouds globally...

The temperature of the Arctic is unknown. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth by absorbing infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-faster-than-before-but-theres-a-catch/

There are some buttons under the posting window that let you link in your post.
[ url][/url]

The video in that article is pretty scary: https://youtu.be/Vj1G9gqhkYA

"Since 1958, Arctic sea ice lost about two-thirds of its thickness"


Argument from randU. It is not possible to measure the thickness of ice on a regional scale.


Can satellites not get a sense of this?

No. Satellites can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. No satellite is capable of measuring an absolute temperature. To measure the emissivity of a surface, you MUST first accurately know it's temperature.

Even if you DID know the emissivity, you can't calculate temperature. You don't know how much of that light is due to reflections or refractions from something else...something you are not interested in measuring.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r=C*e*t^4

C and e and both constants. C is a constant of nature (essentially converting the relation to our units of measurement), and e is a measure constant (emissivity).

t is in deg K, and r =s radiance in watts/sq meter.

t is known as an independent variable. r is known as a dependent variable. It is totally dependent on t and the two constants. You cannot use r to calculate t using algebra however because there are other things radiating that you are not accounting for, and are reflecting or refracting off the thing you are trying to measure.

In other words, you don't know how much of that 'r' is due to the 't'.

Satellites CAN get a rough idea of relative temperatures of the same emissivity surface by comparing the radiance from those surfaces, but that's all. Emissivity varies radically in as little as the space of an inch or so, so a lot of this is guesswork.

We use such relative temperature satellites to find the Gulf Stream from space, locate and measure the strength of the equatorial counter-current that year (what governs El Nino and Las Nina events). They can also see things like lightning strikes, which are hot temperatures indeed, but not by measuring their temperature. They can see the locations of storms forming. They can take pictures of the area covered by a sheet of ice (but not measure its depth).

There are some things satellites can do and some things they can't do. Getting an absolute temperature reading is one of the things a satellite cannot do. Even getting a rough idea of temperature relative to another makes use of certain rash assumptions.

There is a tendency by the public to treat satellites as magickal, mostly because the public is unaware of what a satellite can and cannot do, and they are high tech devices of the modern era placed there by modern rocketry.

A weather satellite is essentially a camera that can take images in various wavelengths. Using infrared wavelengths, they can see to a degree how dense a cloud is. The denser the cloud, the more likely rain or snow will fall.

Similar tricks can be done using radar tuned to the resonant frequency of water (the same frequency your microwave uses). This is what 'weather' radar actually is. Yes...this means we are 'microwaving' the clouds. The short pulses used, however, heats these clouds very little. It takes a LOT of energy to use microwaves to heat a cloud so it becomes water vapor again. Even then, shutting off the beam would allow the air to cool again, and the cloud returns.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 21:15
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
Thanks for the book itn. This is where you being a philosopher I can understand why you don't understand science. When different frequencies are reflected off of the Earth's surface, it's temperature can be inferred. These temperatures can also be verified locally.
You make the same mistake that everybody else makes, data is just that, it's data. What does it mean? That's where people need to know enough to consider it. Since glaciers are melting, that doesn't mean that CO2 is causing it. And we're back to no warming or CO2 is causing warming.
I don't agree with either group.
17-12-2019 21:22
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
James___ wrote:
Thanks for the book itn. This is where you being a philosopher I can understand why you don't understand science. When different frequencies are reflected off of the Earth's surface, it's temperature can be inferred. These temperatures can also be verified locally.
You make the same mistake that everybody else makes, data is just that, it's data. What does it mean? That's where people need to know enough to consider it. Since glaciers are melting, that doesn't mean that CO2 is causing it. And we're back to no warming or CO2 is causing warming.
I don't agree with either group.


What do you say is causing more glacier ice melt?
17-12-2019 22:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
James___ wrote:
Thanks for the book itn. This is where you being a philosopher I can understand why you don't understand science.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a theory of science, dumbass.
James___ wrote:
When different frequencies are reflected off of the Earth's surface, it's temperature can be inferred.

Nope. A red surface can be the same temperature as a blue or green one.
James___ wrote:
These temperatures can also be verified locally.

Nothing to 'verify'. A measurement is simply a measurement. A thermometer only indicates temperature of the immediately surrounding area (the bulb of the thermometer). As you move further away from the thermometer, the less accurate the temperature it indicates. By the time you get a single mile away from the thermometer, it's value might be as much as +-20 deg F from the temperature at your location.
James___ wrote:
You make the same mistake that everybody else makes, data is just that, it's data.

Nope. Data is the result of an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
James___ wrote:
What does it mean?

Just what I described. Data is the result of an observation.
James___ wrote:
That's where people need to know enough to consider it.

It's not about what people 'know'. It's about phenomenology, a branch of philosophy. Each person interprets the data in their own way. No way is 'correct'.

The data is still there. The observation was still made. How valid is the data? Was an observation made at all? Is the 'data' just someone's random numbers they thought up (or that someone else thought up?)

Since we are talking about a global temperature, you run into some rather big problems with the mathematics. Such a value is necessarily the result of a statistical summary. In statistics, you MUST use raw data (no cooked data allowed). That data MUST be free of biasing influences (and demonstrated to be so). For temperature, those influences are time and location grouping. Thermometers must be read at the same time and must be uniformly distributed.

The margin of error value MUST accompany the summary. An average without the margin of error value is meaningless. This is NOT instrument tolerance. That seems to be a big confusion here. Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. A thermometer reading might be +-20 deg F off for a location just a single mile away. It doesn't have to be, but it MIGHT be. Putting two or three thermometers at the same location changes none of this. It is treated statistically as a single measurement.

There are no thermometers over most of the Earth. We simply don't know the temperature over most of the Earth.

We don't have enough thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth.


James___ wrote:
Since glaciers are melting,

Glaciers are also building.
James___ wrote:
that doesn't mean that CO2 is causing it.

No gas or vapor can cause it.
James___ wrote:
And we're back to no warming or CO2 is causing warming.

No warming, at least not by CO2. Since the temperature of Earth is unknown, we really don't know if it's warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
James___ wrote:
I don't agree with either group.


Actually, you HAVE agreed with the magick properties of CO2 in the past. Make up your mind.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Thanks for the book itn. This is where you being a philosopher I can understand why you don't understand science. When different frequencies are reflected off of the Earth's surface, it's temperature can be inferred. These temperatures can also be verified locally.
You make the same mistake that everybody else makes, data is just that, it's data. What does it mean? That's where people need to know enough to consider it. Since glaciers are melting, that doesn't mean that CO2 is causing it. And we're back to no warming or CO2 is causing warming.
I don't agree with either group.


What do you say is causing more glacier ice melt?


Glaciers are essentially just slow moving rivers. Instead of liquid water, it's solid water.

They melt when they meet the sea.

Some glaciers are receding, others are building. Meh.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-12-2019 22:12
17-12-2019 23:41
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Hey ITN,

I don't believe you that clouds are just water vapor cooling as it rises.

They would not be so opaque in appearance, or even visible in the sky, if it was just invisible steam freezing.

I'm continuing to posit that clouds are made as a result of Earth being surrounded by dry ice around 50 miles altitude.

I understand clouds and fog form around 0 to 6 miles altitude.

But have a look at this video.

https://youtu.be/1uUFI0w5Tj0

The first 30 seconds will suffice.

200 lbs of dry ice into 12000 lbs of water. dry ice / water = 1.67%.

They put 1000 lbs of dry ice later, but I think they made their point with the first 200 lbs.

The first 200 lbs forms great clouds. The clouds form on the surface of the water and the dry ice sinks to the bottom. The clouds form far away from the location of the dry ice.
Edited on 17-12-2019 23:44
17-12-2019 23:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey ITN,

I don't believe you that clouds are just water vapor cooling as it rises.

They aren't. They are liquid water.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They would not be so opaque in appearance, or even visible in the sky, if it was just invisible steam freezing.

They are liquid water (or ice).
Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm continuing to posit that clouds are made as a result of Earth being surrounded by dry ice around 50 miles altitude.

Insufficient CO2 and not cold enough.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I understand clouds and fog form around 0 to 6 miles altitude.

That's about right. Cloud formation generally stops at the stratopause, since there is a temperature inversion that begins there.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But have a look at this video.

https://youtu.be/1uUFI0w5Tj0

The first 30 seconds will suffice.

200 lbs of dry ice into 12000 lbs of water. dry ice / water = 1.67%.

They put 1000 lbs of dry ice later, but I think they made their point with the first 200 lbs.

The first 200 lbs forms great clouds. The clouds form on the surface of the water and the dry ice sinks to the bottom. The clouds form far away from the location of the dry ice.

No dry ice naturally occurs.

The clouds you see in the sky are liquid water or water ice.


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2019 00:19
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Hey ITN,

Liquid and/or ice water is not as opaque, nor as white and/or grey as clouds.

At 50 miles altitude, all around the world, it is cold enough freeze carbon dioxide into dry ice.

Are these not facts which negate much of what you have stated?
18-12-2019 00:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
Spongy Iris wrote: Please advise of any critical flaws. Thank you in advance.


Sure, do you agree or disagree?

I believe that you should see a correlation between colder air flowing into a region and a decrease in the average temperature for that region.

I believe that you should see a correlation between warmer air flowing into a region and an increase in the average temperature for that region.

I firmly believe that if colder air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and colder temperatures in that region.

I firmly believe that if warmer air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and warmer temperatures in that region.

Do you agree or disagree?


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-12-2019 01:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey ITN,

Liquid and/or ice water is not as opaque, nor as white and/or grey as clouds.
Yes it is.
Spongy Iris wrote:
At 50 miles altitude, all around the world, it is cold enough freeze carbon dioxide into dry ice.
Not enough CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Are these not facts which negate much of what you have stated?

Not facts at all. Arguments.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2019 21:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
No dry ice naturally occurs.
The clouds you see in the sky are liquid water or water ice.
The upper atmosphere of Venus is cold enough for CO2 ice to form:
https://www.space.com/17850-venus-atmosphere-cold-layer.html
20-12-2019 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No dry ice naturally occurs.
The clouds you see in the sky are liquid water or water ice.
The upper atmosphere of Venus is cold enough for CO2 ice to form:
https://www.space.com/17850-venus-atmosphere-cold-layer.html

So?


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2019 19:46
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey ITN,

Liquid and/or ice water is not as opaque, nor as white and/or grey as clouds.
Yes it is.
Spongy Iris wrote:
At 50 miles altitude, all around the world, it is cold enough freeze carbon dioxide into dry ice.
Not enough CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Are these not facts which negate much of what you have stated?

Not facts at all. Arguments.


Dude have you ever tried to take a picture of falling rain or snow? It can't be captured on camera. It is spread too thin. It is certainly not opaque like clouds.

There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make clouds:

A quick fact check about the composition of the atmosphere:

0.04% CO2 ÷ 1% H2O vapor = 4% ratio.

Sure sounds like enough CO2 to make clouds.

200 lbs of dry ice thrown into 12000 lbs of water is a lower ratio, 2%, and that made a thick cloud.
21-12-2019 19:58
Spongy Iris
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Please advise of any critical flaws. Thank you in advance.


Sure, do you agree or disagree?

I believe that you should see a correlation between colder air flowing into a region and a decrease in the average temperature for that region.

I believe that you should see a correlation between warmer air flowing into a region and an increase in the average temperature for that region.

I firmly believe that if colder air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and colder temperatures in that region.

I firmly believe that if warmer air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and warmer temperatures in that region.

Do you agree or disagree?


I already answered this deflection of a question you posed earlier.

Have you ever lived in a frigid climate where it snows in the winter time and lakes freeze over?

I once heard a farmer from Iowa say, you pray for snow in the winter.

Why? Because when it snows, it's cloudy, and it almost gets to freezing. On a clear winter day it is way below freezing.

That is my point. A cloud cover will consistently warm up a frigid climate. It is observed by anyone who pays attention to weather.
21-12-2019 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hey ITN,

Liquid and/or ice water is not as opaque, nor as white and/or grey as clouds.
Yes it is.
Spongy Iris wrote:
At 50 miles altitude, all around the world, it is cold enough freeze carbon dioxide into dry ice.
Not enough CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Are these not facts which negate much of what you have stated?

Not facts at all. Arguments.


Dude have you ever tried to take a picture of falling rain or snow?

I live in Seattle. People take pictures of rain (and snow) fairly often.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It can't be captured on camera.
Yes it can.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is spread too thin. It is certainly not opaque like clouds.
It is opaque like clouds.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make clouds:
No there isn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A quick fact check about the composition of the atmosphere:

0.04% CO2 ÷ 1% H2O vapor = 4% ratio.
0.04 divided by 1 is not 4. There is no global ratio in the atmosphere for water vapor. It varies from place to place. Observations have noted anywhere from just above 0% to 4% of the atmosphere. CO2 is also not distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. The global density of CO2 is unknown. You seem to be using the Mauna Loa data. That station doesn't measure global CO2 and has also been shown to be fudging the data. It's useless.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Sure sounds like enough CO2 to make clouds.
No. Bad math and rash assumptions.
Spongy Iris wrote:
200 lbs of dry ice thrown into 12000 lbs of water is a lower ratio, 2%, and that made a thick cloud.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers to satisfy a wrong explanation of what happened.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Do CO2 Emissions Create More Clouds?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Prevention of Climate Change Through CO2 Removal2328-03-2020 22:32
Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs21416-03-2020 18:58
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)23024-02-2020 23:13
Co2A (Co2 Atmosphere) = SUM(SOURCES)-SUM(SINKS)913-02-2020 18:05
How to create a hypothesis for Global Climate Change?5613-02-2020 01:01
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact