Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases



Page 1 of 3123>
Greenhouse Gases15-09-2017 23:02
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Part of the Confusion when it comes to global warming is due to the fact that there are major misconceptions when it comes to the source of the global greenhouse effect.


If you go to the EPA web site (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html) you will see that nitrous oxide makes up 5% of the Total Global Greenhouse Gases. At 298 times the Greenhouse Effect of CO2, this makes the contribution of carbon dioxide toward Global Warming approximately 1%, as a conservative figure. That is, 99% of the Global Warming due to greenhouse gases is the result of that 5% nitrous oxide, and only 1% (actually 0.7%) of the Global Warming Effect is the result of CO2.

This means, with Animal Agriculture, all of the CO2 contribution to Global Warming of all of the fossil fuel usage on Earth combined contributes about 1% of the Global Warming effect. If we turned off the world fossil fuel machine today we would observe no effect. Furthermore, the damage already done by nitrous oxide will require 150 years to recover. Carbon dioxide is turned over back into oxygen by plants and plankton, nitrous oxide has no such mechanism built into nature for repair, but takes 1,000 years for this cycle to occur. That is, CO2 requires 1,000 years to clear. That is one of the reasons 'turning off the global machine' will have no effect.

- Industrial CO2 is projected to increase by 20% by the year 2040. (Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014)

-Animal Agriculture emissions are expected to increase by 80% by the year 2050. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html)

At this rate, the nitrous oxide contribution of AA will exceed the current 100% total global output and increase the total global output by about 15% of its current total value, both industrial and AA combined. The industrial contribution will be negligible, perhaps as low as 5% to 10% at best, taking into account the 20% increase in industrial contribution in that time frame. Thus, the CO2 contribution to total Global Warming becomes a non-issue in the wake of mega production of nitrous oxide by Animal Agriculture, assuming there is any fresh water left for AA. Therefore, empowering you by changing your light bulbs is a bizarre misdirection in focus.

Nevertheless, according to the "Food Disparagement Law" under the current "Patriot Act" it is illegal to say so. As for Earth, we cannot save the world at this point, it is too late for that, but we can salvage as much as we can. Thousands of species have gone extinct, the fresh water supply and viable land are nearly gone, the rainforest is nearly gone, the oceans have dead zones the size of Michigan, and a billion people are starving to death; that is already done.

The figure from documentaries such as 'cowspiracy' is that 51% of Global Greenhouse Emissions are Animal Agriculture.

However, this number is only based on primarily CO2 production and does not include methane or nitrous oxide on a global basis but uses unreferenced local data, and therefore the value is grossly incorrect. Since nitrous oxide accounts for almost all of the Total Greenhouse Effect, nitrous oxide becomes the only relevant number worth reporting, methane and CO2 just making up, together, just a few percent of the problem. Although the film reports methane has 100 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, the actual methane load is a smaller number than carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide. The nitrous oxide emissions on a global basis. This 65% value is based on one source, which upon careful examination does not report the means by which the 35% 'human activities' has been determined. In addition, the paper in itself is not well referenced, so the sources of all of the information presented in the paper come into question. (See http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm)

I am therefore dismissing this value of 51% and although finding the actual human contribution of methane and nitrous oxide is exhaustive, I am confident the Animal Agriculture contribution to the Total Global Warming Greenhouse Effect is significantly higher than 65% of the FAO's reported, albeit unreferenced number. In general, when scientists can't get an exact figure, we use the most conservative values available and make an educated guess. That appears to be the case in the listed FAO report.

Animal Agriculture occupies 45% of the Earth's total land. In addition, another reported value in the film 'cowspiracy' is that AA occupies 1/3 of the Earth's ice free land. *Think, most of that corn you see growing when you drive in the country is feed for Animal Agriculture. Go onto google earth and zoom in on any given region and the majority of the land you observe will be covered in agriculture, the majority of it being used as feed for AA.


Since Homo Sapiens appeared the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 ppm. At 350 ppm the carbon dioxide begins shielding the long wavelengths of light, heat transfer, from escaping back into space as rapidly as heat is being transferred into the atmosphere by sunlight. Thus, more heat is being transferred via sunlight into the atmosphere than is escaping back out into space. Typically, the wide range of light frequencies from sunlight interact with all of the solid stuff, causing the solid stuff to 'jiggle,' which is the definition for heat, and that solid stuff re-emits longer wavelengths of light that ordinarily would radiate back into space, but these longer wavelengths of light cannot pass through carbon dioxide gas, and thus the long wavelength light, which is heat, is trapped. That is the global Warming mechanism. Other gases also block this long wavelength light that is trying to bleed back off into space, the primary culprits are methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 turns out to be less than 1% of the greenhouse problem.


-2 0C is the maximum sustainable increase in temperature change the ecosystem can support. Currently that value is about 1.90C. This maximum temperature tolerance has taken two decades for scientists from many disciplines to collect data and agree upon. The number is solid, and so far, the predictions of these various disciplines have been correct, and the changes are presently being observed.

- According to the United Nations News Center, livestock produces more greenhouse gas than all transportation (cars, planes, trains, ships, etc.) combined. ("Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gas than driving cars, UN report warns." 29 Nov 2006)
-Animal Agriculture is the number one source of greenhouse gases on a global scale (See "Global Greenhouse Emissions" UN Food and Agricultural Organization 2006 FAO 2013)
-Methane's effect as a greenhouse gas is 86 times that of carbon dioxide. (See EPA "Overview of Greenhouse Gases – methane")
-Livestock is the number one cause of fresh water depletion and pollution on a global scale. (See FAO document "Livestock's Role in Water Depletion and Pollution")
- The FAO and other sources have determined that Animal Agriculture (AA) is the number one environmental degradant on a global scale, including species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction. (Ocean 'dead zones' are areas where fish and plankton life cannot live due to degraded environmental factors.)

If you disagree with these figures, you have to present compelling evidence that is significant enough to persuade the 97% of scientists who unanimously agree on the reality of climate change.
Edited on 15-09-2017 23:24
16-09-2017 00:07
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
L8112 wrote:
....major misconceptions...

.... 99% of the Global Warming due to greenhouse gases is the result of that 5% nitrous oxide, and only 1% (actually 0.7%) of the Global Warming Effect is the result of CO2.

... the 97% of scientists who unanimously agree on the reality of climate change.


Major misconception, yes.

While nitrous oxide does have an outsize effect per gram compared to carbon dioxide, there is much less of it in the atmosphere. About 1/1000 as much, about 330 parts per billion versus 400 parts per million.
See this NOAA website: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Need to take into account the total amount in the atmosphere, not just annual anthropogenic emissions.

That 97% that doesn't necessarily mean that any accept your view. Show me some.
16-09-2017 00:21
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
no, it doesn't necessarily mean they have the same view as to the cause. Their view which is that CO2 and methane are causing the runaway greenhouse effects, is mostly false. Our conclusions however are the same.

The scales in terms of ppm and the overall contributions of nitrous oxide, CO2, and methane/.

The 'recovery rates' of the different greenhouse gases are based on several factors. CO2 has a natural source of recovery, photosynthesis, whereas the rates at which methane and nitrous oxide are eliminated from the atmosphere are dependent on the properties of the gas and their interaction with atmospheric and other environmental factors in order to deplete them from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, CO2 has other problems with elimination due to its chemistry, giving it a massive turnover time.

CO2 is 8 times as abundant as methane, 16 times as abundant as nitrous oxide.

Shutting off methane and nitrous oxide simply means shutting down the cows, which requires no technology or anything else we do not already have other than the will to do so.
Edited on 16-09-2017 00:56
16-09-2017 00:48
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
L8112 wrote:

.....CO2 is 8 times as abundant as methane, 16 times as abundant as nitrous oxide. Therefore, we will adjust the graph, taking both abundance and Greenhouse Effect Contribution Factor.....



So you don't accept the information at the NOAA website that I linked to earlier? It shows that the nitrous oxide concentration is about 330 parts per billion and that carbon dioxide is about 400 parts per billion? Looks to me like the concentration of CO2 is about 1000 times as much as N2O.
16-09-2017 00:55
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Sorry for the confusion, rereading what I wrote, did not specify. I was referring to greenhouse gas emissions, which are approx 82% CO2 10% methane 5% nitrous oxide.

The numbers in terms of ppm you reference are mostly accurate. The concept that CO2 contributes the most to overall human caused greenhouse gas emissions is false. Many of these scientists have been raised on the narrative that CO2 is the culprit, to the extent that they are ill informed on the other greenhouse gases, and their total contributions.

I am not looking at the overall atmospheric % of CO2, I am looking at Total Greenhouse Gases emissions of which CO2 is about 82% and nitrous oxide 5%. Nitrous oxide has 298 times the greenhouse effect of CO2, this makes the contribution of carbon dioxide toward Global Warming approximately 1%.
Edited on 16-09-2017 01:19
16-09-2017 02:39
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]still learning wrote:...nitrous oxide concentration is about 330 parts per billion and that carbon dioxide is about 400 parts per billion? Looks to me like the concentration of CO2 is about 1000 times as much as N2O.

Without looking up exact atmospheric percentages, did you make a mistake, that should correct your statement to:
...nitrous oxide concentration is about 330 parts per ( b)illion and that carbon dioxide is about 400 parts per (m)illion? Looks to me like the concentration of CO2 is about 1000 times as much as N2O.
Edited on 16-09-2017 02:40
16-09-2017 02:50
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
read my recent reply, you aren't understanding what I am saying. I am talking about human contributions to greenhouse gases. Of course there is a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it naturally occurs in greater quantities.
Edited on 16-09-2017 02:54
16-09-2017 05:30
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
litesong wrote:
Looks to me like the concentration of CO2 is about 1000 times as much as N2O.


Yup. Typing error. Not the first. Or the last.
16-09-2017 06:09
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
L8112 wrote:
read my recent reply,.....it naturally occurs in greater quantities.


Going back to your original post, you wrote " you will see that nitrous oxide makes up 5% of the Total Global Greenhouse Gases. " You referred to an EPA web page.

Five percent is outlandish, if you think about it. Five percent by weight or by volume or by mole. Carbon dioxide is an inescapable product of fossil fuel combustion. High-school chemistry stuff. We burn lots of tons of fossil fuels, get even more tons of CO2. Nitrous oxide though...very different. Burning fossil fuels is an energy yielding reaction, an exothermic reaction. Producing nitrous oxide from nitrogen and oxygen is a reaction that requires an input of energy to proceed, it is "endothermic." Basically, no N2O from combustion. Agricultural "fixed" nitrogen in the form of nitrates or ammonia/ammonium compounds or manure or compost is intended to be incorporated into plant biomass, but I guess some soil bacteria does use a fair amount of fertilizer nitrogen and a little of it ends up as nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Really hard to imagine the five percent though.

Looking at an EPA webpage not far from the one you linked to there is a graph, shows that nitrous oxide is about 5% of the greenhouse gasses produced in CO2 equivalents. See https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (Look at the graph entitled "US greenhouse gas emissions by gas, 1990-2015." at the Y axis label.)

The IPCC5 report has a page that has information that supports the notion that N2O, while important, is nowhere as important to climate change as CO2. See figure SPM.5 of http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Edited on 16-09-2017 06:11
16-09-2017 07:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
L8112 wrote:
Part of the Confusion when it comes to global warming is due to the fact that there are major misconceptions when it comes to the source of the global greenhouse effect.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. 'Greenhouse effect' is referenced back to 'global warming', so you can't use that.

L8112 wrote:
If you go to the EPA web site ...deleted Holy Link... you will see that nitrous oxide makes up 5% of the Total Global Greenhouse Gases.
...deleted remaining very lengthy redundant argument...

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Nitrous oxide has no special properties to add energy to the Earth. It is a gas like any other.
L8112 wrote:
Since Homo Sapiens appeared the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 ppm. At 350 ppm the carbon dioxide begins shielding the long wavelengths of light, heat transfer, from escaping back into space as rapidly as heat is being transferred into the atmosphere by sunlight.

Ah....the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

You can't stop light from escaping. You can't stop energy from escaping. You can't stop heat. You can't slow any of them down either.
L8112 wrote:
Thus, more heat is being transferred via sunlight into the atmosphere than is escaping back out into space.

This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot decrease entropy. Entropy always increases. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Never the reverse. You cannot use a colder gas to heat a hotter surface.

You cannot reduce radiance (by blocking light) and use that to increase temperature.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. The source of energy is the Sun, but you are using Holy Gas to increase the temperature of the Earth, even though it is not an energy source. To do so violates the 1st law of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy laws.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument you describe is describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

L8112 wrote:
Typically, the wide range of light frequencies from sunlight interact with all of the solid stuff, causing the solid stuff to 'jiggle,'

So...does that mean Jello is hot?
L8112 wrote:
which is the definition for heat,
Not the definition of heat. It is definition of thermal energy, which is measured as a temperature.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat can flow by conduction, convection, or radiance. It is never possible for heat to flow from cold to hot. You cannot use a colder gas to heat a hotter surface.

L8112 wrote:
and that solid stuff re-emits longer wavelengths of light that ordinarily would radiate back into space,

Earth emits all kinds of frequencies, including visible light, much of which is reflected. Planck emission from the Earth also covers a wide range of frequencies, all in the infrared band.
L8112 wrote:
but these longer wavelengths of light cannot pass through carbon dioxide gas, and thus the long wavelength light, which is heat, is trapped.

CO2 is able to absorb a very narrow range of the frequencies that Earth emits. Absorption if radiant is not trapping heat. It IS heat. It is a way for the surface to cool itself off, by heating CO2 in just the same way that the surface cools itself by conduction to the atmosphere. It's just using heat by radiance (as well as conduction) to do it.

You cannot trap heat.

L8112 wrote:
That is the global Warming mechanism.

This is the usual bullshit scripture from the Church of Global Warming.

L8112 wrote:
Other gases also block this long wavelength light that is trying to bleed back off into space, the primary culprits are methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 turns out to be less than 1% of the greenhouse problem.

Absorption is not blocking light. The effect of absorption is a slightly warming gas, which dissipates into the surrounding atmosphere, and is also just part of the radiance of Earth.
L8112 wrote:
-2 0C is the maximum sustainable increase in temperature change the ecosystem can support.
Really??? I guess winter is going to kill us all then! What about the spring and summer down south? Are they gonna die too??
L8112 wrote:
Currently that value is about 1.90C.
Aaaaaaa! Tell everyone in the southern hemisphere to RUN FOR THE NORTH!
L8112 wrote:
This maximum temperature tolerance has taken two decades for scientists from many disciplines to collect data and agree upon.

1) Data is not science.
2) Consensus is not used in science. It is used only in religion and politics.
3) You have no data. Only manufactured numbers.
L8112 wrote:
The number is solid,
BULL
L8112 wrote:
and so far, the predictions of these various disciplines have been correct,
BULL
L8112 wrote:
and the changes are presently being observed.
BULL. There is such a thing as SEASONAL CHANGE, dumbass.
L8112 wrote:
...deleted more random numbers and more of the above redundant argument...
If you disagree with these figures, you have to present compelling evidence that is significant enough to persuade the 97% of scientists who unanimously agree on the reality of climate change.

Just falsified. Done. Your <insert large random number here> 'scientists' are WRONG.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 07:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
L8112 wrote:
Shutting off methane and nitrous oxide simply means shutting down the cows, which requires no technology or anything else we do not already have other than the will to do so.


Cows are a living thing. 'Shutting them down' means to kill them. Let's be honest with what you are seriously suggesting here.

All to prevent Holy Magick Gas from entering the atmosphere.

Your religion is sick.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 07:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
still learning wrote:
L8112 wrote:

.....CO2 is 8 times as abundant as methane, 16 times as abundant as nitrous oxide. Therefore, we will adjust the graph, taking both abundance and Greenhouse Effect Contribution Factor.....



So you don't accept the information at the NOAA website that I linked to earlier? It shows that the nitrous oxide concentration is about 330 parts per billion and that carbon dioxide is about 400 parts per billion? Looks to me like the concentration of CO2 is about 1000 times as much as N2O.


It really doesn't matter, since neither gas can warm the planet.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 17:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.

AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.
16-09-2017 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.

AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.


That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2017 07:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.
AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.
That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Of course, it doesn't. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" says GHGs can't generate energy. Such by the case. But such be the case also, that energy flow can be INCREASED TO one region, while energy flow is DECREASED TO to another region.
Edited on 17-09-2017 08:03
17-09-2017 15:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.
AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.
That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Of course, it doesn't. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" says GHGs can't generate energy. Such by the case. But such be the case also, that energy flow can be INCREASED TO one region, while energy flow is DECREASED TO to another region.


And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.
17-09-2017 18:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
L8112 wrote:
Part of the Confusion when it comes to global warming is due to the fact that there are major misconceptions when it comes to the source of the global greenhouse effect.


If you go to the EPA web site (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html) you will see that nitrous oxide makes up 5% of the Total Global Greenhouse Gases. At 298 times the Greenhouse Effect of CO2, this makes the contribution of carbon dioxide toward Global Warming approximately 1%, as a conservative figure. That is, 99% of the Global Warming due to greenhouse gases is the result of that 5% nitrous oxide, and only 1% (actually 0.7%) of the Global Warming Effect is the result of CO2.


Firstly only a moron uses that 97% of scientists BS. That was a lie from the first and every day that goes by shows it to be more of a lie. Who are NOAA using as part of that 97%? The American Medical Association - you know, those surgeons that are so knowledgeable about climate.

Secondly let's talk about nitrous oxide - only 0.00003% of the atmosphere is that molecule.

To make it plainer - out of 2.5 x 10^25 molecules in one cubic meter of atmosphere at sea level only 7.5 x 10^18 molecules are nitrous oxide.

So then you have to know that NOx also absorbs in the same bands as H2O. Since H2O composes some 2% or so of normal air that means that the ratio is 67,000 to 1.

But as we have covered elsewhere, virtually the entire heat transfer in the troposphere is through conduction and not radiation. In this case the specific heat index of the gas is more important than the radiation absorption bands.

And NOx has virtually identical characteristics of any other atmospheric gas.

So what difference does NOx make? None whatsoever.

But of course that won't make the slightest difference to the True Believers in the Church of Global Warming whose greatest wish is the end to humanity. They are so adamant about this that the IPCC standards would kill approximately one third of the human race mostly in India and China. But that isn't enough for people like the L-man. He wants people in the USA to die in large numbers.

Too bad that Trump was elected. L-man will never see his greatest wishes fulfilled.
17-09-2017 19:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.
AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.
That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Of course, it doesn't. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" says GHGs can't generate energy. Such by the case. But such be the case also, that energy flow can be INCREASED TO one region, while energy flow is DECREASED TO to another region.


Learning to speak non-English jibberish like litebeer now? Is he your hero???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No matter how you cut it, you can't decrease entropy.

Warming the surface means MORE energy will flow to space, not less. No magick Holy Gas can stop that.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2017 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.
AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.
That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Of course, it doesn't. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" says GHGs can't generate energy. Such by the case. But such be the case also, that energy flow can be INCREASED TO one region, while energy flow is DECREASED TO to another region.


And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


No one knows the temperature of the mesosphere. We know the temperature profile, but not the temperature itself.

Who are 'they'?


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2017 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
L8112 wrote:
Part of the Confusion when it comes to global warming is due to the fact that there are major misconceptions when it comes to the source of the global greenhouse effect.


If you go to the EPA web site (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html) you will see that nitrous oxide makes up 5% of the Total Global Greenhouse Gases. At 298 times the Greenhouse Effect of CO2, this makes the contribution of carbon dioxide toward Global Warming approximately 1%, as a conservative figure. That is, 99% of the Global Warming due to greenhouse gases is the result of that 5% nitrous oxide, and only 1% (actually 0.7%) of the Global Warming Effect is the result of CO2.


Firstly only a moron uses that 97% of scientists BS.

True. It's amazing how often this particular fake number keeps coming up, despite the number of times it has specifically been falsified.

Nothing like bad math connected with religious fervor.

Wake wrote:
That was a lie from the first and every day that goes by shows it to be more of a lie.

Only needs to be shown once, and it has. It came from incredibly bad math.
Wake wrote:
Who are NOAA using as part of that 97%? The American Medical Association - you know, those surgeons that are so knowledgeable about climate.

Actually, NOAA is just quoting the same source as everybody else...which happens to include surgeons as you describe. It actually tries to include every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there if they happen to have PhD after their names. All of these are included ONLY in the conclusion, not the data source itself (which is never shown anyway...guess they don't want someone to actually do the real math on it!).
Wake wrote:
Secondly let's talk about nitrous oxide - only 0.00003% of the atmosphere is that molecule.

To make it plainer - out of 2.5 x 10^25 molecules in one cubic meter of atmosphere at sea level only 7.5 x 10^18 molecules are nitrous oxide.

So then you have to know that NOx also absorbs in the same bands as H2O. Since H2O composes some 2% or so of normal air that means that the ratio is 67,000 to 1.


Nitrous oxide is N2O, not any of the NOx compounds.

While nitrous oxide, rare as it is, does absorb infrared light, it is just the same as water, CO2, or any other Holy Gas.

Such absorption is just another way for the surface to cool off.

Wake wrote:
But as we have covered elsewhere, virtually the entire heat transfer in the troposphere is through conduction and not radiation. In this case the specific heat index of the gas is more important than the radiation absorption bands.

And NOx has virtually identical characteristics of any other atmospheric gas.

So what difference does NOx make? None whatsoever.

Nitrous oxide makes no difference. NOx compounds, however, are a problem.

These gases are emitted by combustion at too high a temperature in reciprocating engines (cars). Any combustion also produces ozone, which adds some to the already naturally occurring ozone in the lower troposphere (generated by UV light, electrical storms, etc.).

Cars also are not always perfect in the burn, sometimes releasing small amounts of unburned fuel (unburned hydrocarbons, for you emission control station types).

NOx, when combined with unburned fuel and ozone, produce smog. Fortunately, there is an easy fix for this, called an EGR system.

This system is simply a pipe that runs from the exhaust to the induction system through a valve to eliminate the negative pressure pulses in the exhaust system (often a simple reed valve is used). The effect is to lower peak temperatures in the cylinders. NOx only forms at high temperatures, so this effectively reduces NOx emissions.

The hydrocarbon aerosols are still there, the ozone is still there, but the key ingredient, NOx, is no longer a problem. Smog is nowhere near the problem it used to be.

All from a simple pipe and valve. CHEAP! And reliable! The only failure mode is the valve, where the reed breaks, or severe corrosion in the plumbing itself. (not likely).

Replacing the EGR valve is a simple repair. It's usually right on top of the engine and easy to get to. Almost any idiot that can use a socket wrench without difficulty can do it.

NOx does not absorb infrared light. N2O does.

Wake wrote:
But of course that won't make the slightest difference to the True Believers in the Church of Global Warming whose greatest wish is the end to humanity. They are so adamant about this that the IPCC standards would kill approximately one third of the human race mostly in India and China. But that isn't enough for people like the L-man. He wants people in the USA to die in large numbers.

Too bad that Trump was elected. L-man will never see his greatest wishes fulfilled.


Nitrous oxide is a manufactured gas, used in the production of azide explosives (air bags), as an anesthetic, and as an aerosol propellant (now that freon is banned). You will also see it (carefully!) used in auto racing circles as a means to increase engine power. Since these folks don't care how long their engines last, the use of this gas to win the race is common. The engine has to only last as long as the race.

Banning the use of this gas will mean no more airbags (azide is dangerous as it is!). It will mean a very useful anesthetic will go off the market. It will mean more low level ozone, since nitrous oxide helps to scavenge it. This is yet another Marxist attack on industry.

It also means, of course, that the liberals will have one less intoxicating recreational drug on the market.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2017 20:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.
AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.
That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Of course, it doesn't. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" says GHGs can't generate energy. Such by the case. But such be the case also, that energy flow can be INCREASED TO one region, while energy flow is DECREASED TO to another region.


And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


No one knows the temperature of the mesosphere. We know the temperature profile, but not the temperature itself.

Who are 'they'?


Good lord not again: "A thermal profile is a complex set of time-temperature data typically associated with the measurement of thermal temperatures"

So without knowing the temperature you cannot have a temperature profile. You are really a whack job.
17-09-2017 21:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...neither gas can warm the planet.
AGW theory never said GHGs warm the planet. AGW states that the bio-sphere (surface land, water, lower atmosphere) is warmed while the outer atmosphere cools. & such be the case.
That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Of course, it doesn't. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" says GHGs can't generate energy. Such by the case. But such be the case also, that energy flow can be INCREASED TO one region, while energy flow is DECREASED TO to another region.


And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


No one knows the temperature of the mesosphere. We know the temperature profile, but not the temperature itself.

Who are 'they'?


Good lord not again: "A thermal profile is a complex set of time-temperature data typically associated with the measurement of thermal temperatures"

So without knowing the temperature you cannot have a temperature profile. You are really a whack job.


A temperature profile is ASSOCIATED with the measurement of temperature (all temperatures are 'thermal' temperatures. It is a representation of a pattern in the temperature gradient, not the overall temperature of the object itself.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 01:25
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Into the Night wrote:Warming the surface means MORE energy will flow to space, not less.

When equilibrium is established. The 40% increase in GHGs in recent Earth history, indicates the Earth bio-sphere is NOT in equilibrium.
18-09-2017 01:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf
18-09-2017 01:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
litesong wrote:
[b]Into the Night wrote:Warming the surface means MORE energy will flow to space, not less.

When equilibrium is established. The 40% increase in GHGs in recent Earth history, indicates the Earth bio-sphere is NOT in equilibrium.


Because of the movement of energy in the troposphere being via conduction and not radiation equilibrium is instantaneous.
18-09-2017 17:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.
Attached image:


Edited on 18-09-2017 17:29
18-09-2017 18:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Or in other words you aren't interested in the science but only your suppositions. This is precisely why you disagree with other people.
18-09-2017 19:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
It also means, of course, that the liberals will have one less intoxicating recreational drug on the market.


Virtually ALL of the increase in nitrous oxide is from fertilizer. The True Believers think that making less food is better.
18-09-2017 20:17
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Or in other words you aren't interested in the science but only your suppositions. This is precisely why you disagree with other people.


Nah, only people who use a 5 year old boy to say they're credible.
18-09-2017 20:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Or in other words you aren't interested in the science but only your suppositions. This is precisely why you disagree with other people.


Nah, only people who use a 5 year old boy to say they're credible.


You got that incorrect like everything else - I said that even a 5 year old boy could see you are not credible.

And you just proved it again when you took a look at my reference paper and saw some calculations and ran for the hills. Rather than know anything just tell us all about the clever experiment you will do one of these days. After all, we've been hearing about it for six months and every time it becomes something different.
18-09-2017 20:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
With climate change, the graph I showed is the basis of CO2 trapping heat. What needs to be understood is how much that intensifies natural warming. This where understanding natural climate change and the various roles that atmospheric gases play is important.
The experiment that I am pursuing hopefully will help to better understand relationships between certain gases. And as with everything else these things do take time.
18-09-2017 21:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
litesong wrote:
[b]Into the Night wrote:Warming the surface means MORE energy will flow to space, not less.

When equilibrium is established. The 40% increase in GHGs in recent Earth history, indicates the Earth bio-sphere is NOT in equilibrium.


The only way to disturb the equilibrium is to change the power of the Sun, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


Non-sequitur. What has this to do with the claim that 'they' say the mesosphere is warming???


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
[b]Into the Night wrote:Warming the surface means MORE energy will flow to space, not less.

When equilibrium is established. The 40% increase in GHGs in recent Earth history, indicates the Earth bio-sphere is NOT in equilibrium.


Because of the movement of energy in the troposphere being via conduction and not radiation equilibrium is instantaneous.


WRONG.

There's this thing, you see, called specific heat. Maybe you've heard of it.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 21:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Earth is not absorbing heat. Heat is not absorbed.

The absorption of light by a substance IS heat. The effect of that absorption may be an increase in thermal energy, a chemical reaction, or direct ionization.

This graph only shows the absorption bands of some common materials as a composite. It does not show anything else. It does not show the Earth is absorbing more of anything.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what this graph actually is?


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 21:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Or in other words you aren't interested in the science but only your suppositions. This is precisely why you disagree with other people.


He doesn't seem interested in the graph either, other than to misrepresent what it shows and to use it as a pawn to support the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 21:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It also means, of course, that the liberals will have one less intoxicating recreational drug on the market.


Virtually ALL of the increase in nitrous oxide is from fertilizer. The True Believers think that making less food is better.


Nitrous oxide is not used in fertilizer.

The claim of this particular argument (which comes from the Church of Warming) is that fertilizing plants increases nitrous oxide by increasing the nitrogen in the soil (which is what a fertilizer does, among other things).

Plants do not produce nitrous oxide as part of their growth. They use the nitrogen to produce the proteins and sugars it needs. It does not emit the nitrogen again in any form. It becomes part of the plant's tissue.

This claim from the Church of Global Warming (along with it's associated graphs and other propaganda) is utterly false.

However, I do agree with your conclusion. Fertilizers represent the chemical industry in the United States. These idiots are convinced we must fertilize our plants with real shit, because it's 'natural' (even though real shit does the same thing as any fertilizer!).

It's all part of the Marxist underpinnings of the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
@All,
With climate change, the graph I showed is the basis of CO2 trapping heat.

You can't trap heat.
James_ wrote:
What needs to be understood is how much that intensifies natural warming.

It doesn't CO2 is helping the surface to cool.
James_ wrote:
This where understanding natural climate change and the various roles that atmospheric gases play is important.

Not really an important role. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Only about 1% of THAT actually absorbs anything. CO2 will NOT absorb light unless the molecule is aligned properly with the light source (it's gotta take it in the 'broadside' so to speak).

James_ wrote:
The experiment that I am pursuing hopefully will help to better understand relationships between certain gases. And as with everything else these things do take time.

Back to this again? Meh.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 23:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Earth is not absorbing heat. Heat is not absorbed.

The absorption of light by a substance IS heat. The effect of that absorption may be an increase in thermal energy, a chemical reaction, or direct ionization.

This graph only shows the absorption bands of some common materials as a composite. It does not show anything else. It does not show the Earth is absorbing more of anything.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what this graph actually is?


What happens to a pot of water placed on a stove?
19-09-2017 02:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Earth is not absorbing heat. Heat is not absorbed.

The absorption of light by a substance IS heat. The effect of that absorption may be an increase in thermal energy, a chemical reaction, or direct ionization.

This graph only shows the absorption bands of some common materials as a composite. It does not show anything else. It does not show the Earth is absorbing more of anything.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what this graph actually is?


What happens to a pot of water placed on a stove?


It eventually evaporates away. You might get some scum on it first.

Why do you ask?


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law29517-08-2019 16:29
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann815-04-2019 00:43
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact