The Fraudulent Keeling Curve

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that clouds are warmer than the ground below them? Have you ever climbed a mountain?

Most of the time no, but it happens....it's called a thermal inversion. Example would be a warm front pushing up and over a cold wedge. Very typical in a freezing rain event.

Sure, thermal inversions occur occasionally, but, as you say, temperature usually falls with height (it has a name - the lapse rate) and clouds are generally colder than the land that are above. But they still emit IR, and some of that IR reaches the ground. Hence they still reduce the net rate of heat loss by the ground. That's why cloudy nights are generally milder than clear nights.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that clouds are warmer than the ground below them? Have you ever climbed a mountain?

Most of the time no, but it happens....it's called a thermal inversion. Example would be a warm front pushing up and over a cold wedge. Very typical in a freezing rain event.

Sure, thermal inversions occur occasionally, but, as you say, temperature usually falls with height (it has a name - the lapse rate) and clouds are generally colder than the land that are above. But they still emit IR, and some of that IR reaches the ground. Hence they still reduce the net rate of heat loss by the ground. That's why cloudy nights are generally milder than clear nights.

Is that more of your high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Cloudy nights may not be generally milder than clear nights. No one can really know.

"AGW denier liar whiner stickman" stuttered: Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

StarMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cloudy nights may not be generally milder than clear nights. No one can really know.

Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights, ceteris paribus.

StarMan wrote:
Everyone knows.

StarMan wrote:
It's quite elementary.

StarMan wrote:
Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

StarMan wrote:
CO2 is quite constant and therefore has no impact on clouds or fog insulating the ground layer.
...deleted Holy Link...

litesong wrote:

"AGW denier liar whiner stickman" stuttered: Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

The god that stickman worships...Giaever says:
"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2....."
/////////
Of course, both Giaever & his latter day dying disciple, "AGW denier liar whiner stickman", don't know:
Increasing quantities of man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (including CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) control any increasing amounts of phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor.

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:

"AGW denier liar whiner stickman" stuttered: Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

The god that stickman worships...Giaever says:
"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2....."
/////////
Of course, both Giaever & his latter day dying disciple, "AGW denier liar whiner stickman", don't know:
Increasing quantities of man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (including CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) control any increasing amounts of phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor.

Ooooo. The 'phase change' technobabble. I haven't seen you use that one in quite awhile.

Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.

What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.

What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.

What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.

I notice that you didn't tell us what you think that "potential energy" is. I also notice that you didn't tell us what you think that difference between conduction and convection is.

Into the Night wrote:

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

StarMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

Heavy clothing retains body heat.
Blankets and comforters retain (hold, trap) heat.
Insulation in every home in America hold or trap heat.
Potholders hold or trap heat, to prevent your fingers being burned.

Stop blathering nonsense. You discredit yourself.

All of these insulators do not trap heat. You cannot trap heat. Insulators reduce heat.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

Insulators also do not trap thermal energy. They can't. There will always be heat flowing. No insulator is perfect.

If you could somehow find a perfect insulator, there would be no heat and no thermal energy lost (or gained).

Insulators also work both ways. There is no such thing as a one way insulator. Insulation can not only reduce thermal energy loss, they also reduce thermal energy gain.

If you wrapped the Earth in a blanket, it would get cold, not hot. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.

The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I would like to hear from Surface Detail or Spot on this....how does CO2 allow heat from one side but not from the other? In other words, how does CO2 allow heat in but not out? The "blanket effect" if true, would not let thermal energy in in th first place.

Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.

What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.

I notice that you didn't tell us what you think that "potential energy" is. I also notice that you didn't tell us what you think that difference between conduction and convection is.

Nor do I need to. Your lame attempt at redirection is obvious. Anyone that wants to know the difference can easily look it up.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.

I know you and Wake went back and forth on the spectrum argument some time ago, but I can't remember where or when....sure would like to see those arguments again. After all, nearly the entire global warming argument is right here in the question of if and how does CO2 insulate.....ITN I said insulate, not trap.

Surface Detail wrote: Yes, that's the fundamental reason for the existence of the greenhouse effect. Gases like CO2 tend to block outgoing IR radiation. They're called greenhouse gases because, like a greenhouse (glasshouse in the US?), they allow the sunlight to shine in but stop the heat escaping (albeit in different ways). There was already a greenhouse effect keeping the Earth warm before people came along, but the extra CO2 that humans have put in the atmosphere is making the effect stronger, i.e. making the blanket thicker.

StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

Surface Detail wrote:

StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

That's a passionate and heartfelt eulogy to the properties of metals, but I don't see what it's got to to with the the existence (or otherwise) of the greenhouse effect.

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

Well you need a little nickel so that it maintains it's entire structural integrity from absolute zero to the melting point of the alloy.

The world is a wonderful place and the True Believers deny it.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

That's a passionate and heartfelt eulogy to the properties of metals, but I don't see what it's got to to with the the existence (or otherwise) of the greenhouse effect.

There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect as depicted via CO2. As usual you blather on as if you had a clue.

GasGuzzler wrote:

If you wrapped the Earth in a blanket, it would get cold, not hot. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.

Bad analogy. A rock is not a heat source and a human body is.

GasGuzzler wrote:

The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work.

I would like to hear from Surface Detail or Spot on this....how does CO2 allow heat from one side but not from the other? In other words, how does CO2 allow heat in but not out? The "blanket effect" if true, would not let thermal energy in in th first place.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I would like to hear from Surface Detail or Spot on this....how does CO2 allow heat from one side but not from the other? In other words, how does CO2 allow heat in but not out? The "blanket effect" if true, would not let thermal energy in in th first place.

The reason that CO2 lets thermal energy in but not (all of it) out is because the incoming and outgoing radiation are of different types. The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.

StarMan wrote:
Note to rational, reasonable people:

Word games are played by dishonest people. This nonsense above is one clear example.
We say lights "burn." That means they are electrified and produce light. They're not "on fire" burning.

StarMan wrote:
Similarly, "holding heat" is what we say when some material has good insulation properties.

StarMan wrote:
I am not interested in playing word games.
It wastes time and accomplishes nothing.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.

I know you and Wake went back and forth on the spectrum argument some time ago, but I can't remember where or when....sure would like to see those arguments again. After all, nearly the entire global warming argument is right here in the question of if and how does CO2 insulate.....ITN I said insulate, not trap.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.

What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.

I notice that you didn't tell us what you think that "potential energy" is. I also notice that you didn't tell us what you think that difference between conduction and convection is.

Nor do I need to. Your lame attempt at redirection is obvious. Anyone that wants to know the difference can easily look it up.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

I love it when you contradict yourself and then realize it too late to take it back.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.

I know you and Wake went back and forth on the spectrum argument some time ago, but I can't remember where or when....sure would like to see those arguments again. After all, nearly the entire global warming argument is right here in the question of if and how does CO2 insulate.....ITN I said insulate, not trap.

Yes, that's the fundamental reason for the existence of the greenhouse effect. Gases like CO2 tend to block outgoing IR radiation. They're called greenhouse gases because, like a greenhouse (glasshouse in the US?), they allow the sunlight to shine in but stop the heat escaping (albeit in different ways). There was already a greenhouse effect keeping the Earth warm before people came along, but the extra CO2 that humans have put in the atmosphere is making the effect stronger, i.e. making the blanket thicker.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Yes, that's the fundamental reason for the existence of the greenhouse effect. Gases like CO2 tend to block outgoing IR radiation. They're called greenhouse gases because, like a greenhouse (glasshouse in the US?), they allow the sunlight to shine in but stop the heat escaping (albeit in different ways). There was already a greenhouse effect keeping the Earth warm before people came along, but the extra CO2 that humans have put in the atmosphere is making the effect stronger, i.e. making the blanket thicker.

From the mouths of morons grow ignorance.

StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

That's a passionate and heartfelt eulogy to the properties of metals, but I don't see what it's got to to with the the existence (or otherwise) of the greenhouse effect.

There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect as depicted via CO2. As usual you blather on as if you had a clue.

I presume you mean "exemplified by CO2" otherwise your post doesn't make sense. Anyway, there is, of course, such a thing as the greenhouse effect, and it's a consequence of the same laws of quantum physics that give metals their different properties. Isn't physics a wonderful thing!

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:Logging companies didn't replant forests.
Gifford Pinchot brought the forest conservation techniques developed in the colleges of europe. He hammered his way into the U.S. gov't, developing enough power to lead, teach, cojole, & beg U.S. & private forestries to implement such practices.
Without Gifford Pinchot, the United States would have been a score or two years late(too late?) to good forest management.

He didn't plant any forests either. His idea of conservation was simply not to cut trees in the first place.
Fortunately, we have places like Weyerhaeuser to replant trees...