Remember me
▼ Content

Vapour is not a greenhouse gas



Page 2 of 2<12
26-06-2017 18:35
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.


How a compromise? I mean, what is the source of the heat of the sun? Gravity! Yes it is gravity which is providing heat and pressure to make a star. And accordingly the more mass a star has, the more gravity, the more heat, the more pressure, the higher the burning rate, the shorter the life span of a star and so on..

Planets however are not stars, and atmospheres do not heat with pressure because it would facilitate fusion. It is just the adiabatic lapse rate. And yet, it is way too simple to blame it all on gravity.

Venus is a way colder (100K or so?) than it should be according to the adiabatic lapse rate, which is somewhat funny. As the adiabatic lapse rate is out of question, should CO2 not add the greenhouse of Venus beyond that? How can it then be, that Venus is even colder than it should be in theory.

I think the reason is, that the adiabatic lapse rate can only be achieved, if the atmosphere is perfectly opaque. Otherwise we also have radial exchange, or emissions. Clouds or dust, possibly greenhouse gases too, might provide such "opaqueness".
Looking at the temperature profile of Venus, we can see how temperatures largely follow the lapse rate in the higher levels of the atmosphere, where there is a lot of dust and clouds. But it definitely falls short of it in the lower levels, where the atmosphere is relatively clear but incredibly rich in CO2.



So, once more, we see how clouds heat a planet, while CO2 does not live up its promise. One could reason, that temperatures would fall off sharply on Venus, if we could remove the cloud layer.
That of course would contradict both, the CO2 theory, as well as the gravitational theory. But I am afraid that is just how it goes.

Btw. I find it odd it has not been mentioned in the context. At pressure levels of 92 bar (like on the surface of Venus), temperatures are about 550K (Jupiter), 500K (Saturn) and 400-450K (Uranus and Neptune).
26-06-2017 20:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Leitwolf wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.


How a compromise? I mean, what is the source of the heat of the sun? Gravity! Yes it is gravity which is providing heat and pressure to make a star. And accordingly the more mass a star has, the more gravity, the more heat, the more pressure, the higher the burning rate, the shorter the life span of a star and so on..

Planets however are not stars, and atmospheres do not heat with pressure because it would facilitate fusion. It is just the adiabatic lapse rate. And yet, it is way too simple to blame it all on gravity.

Venus is a way colder (100K or so?) than it should be according to the adiabatic lapse rate, which is somewhat funny. As the adiabatic lapse rate is out of question, should CO2 not add the greenhouse of Venus beyond that? How can it then be, that Venus is even colder than it should be in theory.

I think the reason is, that the adiabatic lapse rate can only be achieved, if the atmosphere is perfectly opaque. Otherwise we also have radial exchange, or emissions. Clouds or dust, possibly greenhouse gases too, might provide such "opaqueness".
Looking at the temperature profile of Venus, we can see how temperatures largely follow the lapse rate in the higher levels of the atmosphere, where there is a lot of dust and clouds. But it definitely falls short of it in the lower levels, where the atmosphere is relatively clear but incredibly rich in CO2.



So, once more, we see how clouds heat a planet, while CO2 does not live up its promise. One could reason, that temperatures would fall off sharply on Venus, if we could remove the cloud layer.
That of course would contradict both, the CO2 theory, as well as the gravitational theory. But I am afraid that is just how it goes.

Btw. I find it odd it has not been mentioned in the context. At pressure levels of 92 bar (like on the surface of Venus), temperatures are about 550K (Jupiter), 500K (Saturn) and 400-450K (Uranus and Neptune).


Essentially what you're saying is that clouds of whatever source act like a blanket. I would simply say that the density of the atmosphere is more the contributing factor.

If you read this paper you can note that all of the planets have the same effects at the same pressures regardless of the contents of their atmospheres:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

All this means is that the thicker the atmosphere the warmer the surface will be because the more of a blanketing effect you get - convection works less efficiently if the temperature differences in the atmosphere are less with changes in altitude.

They had a program on the TV last night about "Watson" which is an IBM artificial intelligence. It has shown itself to be able to match the majority of oncologists. My wife and I got into an argument because she doesn't understand that artificial intelligence doesn't have a conscience. That a doctor cares about the quality of life whereas the AI knows the research that's out there and can suggest special treatments that seem to be successful in research. Taking all of a person's money away to give them POSSIBLY another six months so that there is not one ounce of quality of life simply doesn't count to AI. It is tasked with matching prognosis with the largest number of oncologists.

What's more - all of the easy research has been completed. Perhaps as high as half of all research papers are now wrong. We are to the point where advances are calculated in percentages and since the source numbers are low pure chance often operates in a research line's favor.

This is now climate science. The easy stuff has been done. We no longer can make dramatically pro or con statements. We can make measurements here and there but the Earth is a very large place and research simply cannot make positive or negative statements about things anymore.

Does CO2 effect climate? Absolutely not - and that was shown in the 1900's.

The word "trace" should have been noticed by anyone pretending to be an AGW True Believer. Being merely 0.04% of the atmosphere makes is too rare to have effects on climate though a great deal better for photosynthesis than half that amount.

The growing population of man could be reduced but that's not in the purview of other human's. Seeing what has happened from the AGW religion I do think that there are some people that could have been eliminated early to prevent these things. But it's too late now and all we can do is laugh at people that believed Al Gore. Or Bill Nye.
26-06-2017 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.


Contextomy. The Sun warms the surface of the Earth. The surface of the Earth is primarily what warms the atmosphere.

We are talking about how the atmosphere is warmed.

Now do you want to try to change context yet again?


The Parrot Killer
26-06-2017 20:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.


Contextomy. The Sun warms the surface of the Earth. The surface of the Earth is primarily what warms the atmosphere.

We are talking about how the atmosphere is warmed.

Now do you want to try to change context yet again?


What do you think that Rayleigh scattering is doing? What do you propose the upper IR is doing when it strikes lower level clouds?
26-06-2017 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.


Contextomy. The Sun warms the surface of the Earth. The surface of the Earth is primarily what warms the atmosphere.

We are talking about how the atmosphere is warmed.

Now do you want to try to change context yet again?


What do you think that Rayleigh scattering is doing?

Scattering.
Wake wrote:
What do you propose the upper IR is doing when it strikes lower level clouds?

Very slightly warming them. Mostly it just passes right on through or is reflected.

Still trying for the contextomy, aren't you? The atmosphere is primarily heated by the surface.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-06-2017 21:31
27-06-2017 01:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.


Contextomy. The Sun warms the surface of the Earth. The surface of the Earth is primarily what warms the atmosphere.

We are talking about how the atmosphere is warmed.

Now do you want to try to change context yet again?


What do you think that Rayleigh scattering is doing?

Scattering.
Wake wrote:
What do you propose the upper IR is doing when it strikes lower level clouds?

Very slightly warming them. Mostly it just passes right on through or is reflected.

Still trying for the contextomy, aren't you? The atmosphere is primarily heated by the surface.


Inventing words and making dumb statements doesn't impress anyone.

Rayleigh scattering leaves energy in the atmosphere. The reason that low level clouds block MOST of the sunlight is because they absorb most of the energy. As does the higher level water vapor.

Your inability to understand science is reaching the stage of nauseous. Pretending that you do understand by repeating some formula you took blindly from a book and saying things so outstandingly stupid about it is just that - stupid.

What's your next trick - telling us that if we have an error of 1/3% that everything is totally wrong?

You've already shown that you cannot even envision what a consensus is or what it means to have one. While one man being correct negates a consensus no matter how large, the larger the consensus the smaller the chance that anyone will find a hole in a theory. But then you won't understand that either.
27-06-2017 02:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.


Contextomy. The Sun warms the surface of the Earth. The surface of the Earth is primarily what warms the atmosphere.

We are talking about how the atmosphere is warmed.

Now do you want to try to change context yet again?


What do you think that Rayleigh scattering is doing?

Scattering.
Wake wrote:
What do you propose the upper IR is doing when it strikes lower level clouds?

Very slightly warming them. Mostly it just passes right on through or is reflected.

Still trying for the contextomy, aren't you? The atmosphere is primarily heated by the surface.


Inventing words and making dumb statements doesn't impress anyone.

Inversion fallacy. YOU are the one trying to redefine words.
Wake wrote:
Rayleigh scattering leaves energy in the atmosphere.
Some. Not a lot. Most of the heating of the atmosphere comes from the surface. Why do you keep attempting false dichotomies?
Wake wrote:
The reason that low level clouds block MOST of the sunlight is because they absorb most of the energy.

Wrong. They REFLECT most of the energy. Reflection is not absorption.
Wake wrote:
As does the higher level water vapor.
Water vapor does not reflect or absorb much. It is mostly transparent.
Wake wrote:
You've already shown that you cannot even envision what a consensus is or what it means to have one.
Are you going to try to redefine 'consensus' now?
Wake wrote:
While one man being correct negates a consensus no matter how large,
A consensus is still a consensus even if one man leaves the consensus.

Attempted redefinition of 'consensus' as 'fact'.

Wake wrote:
the larger the consensus the smaller the chance that anyone will find a hole in a theory.
Only because the larger the consensus, the more people won't be looking for a hole in the theory. That doesn't make the theory proven, sanctified, blessed, or otherwise more legitimate.
Wake wrote:
But then you won't understand that either.

Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.


The Parrot Killer
27-06-2017 02:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.


On your best day you are marked by a host of cognitive, psychological, and physical disabilities. You presence on this group demonstrates that you cannot understand anything and hence make pretense to do so. Is your mommy telling you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
27-06-2017 02:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.

...deleted insults...


No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
27-06-2017 03:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.

...deleted insults...


No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy.


Again you demonstrate the inability to understand anything. Let's try that little child's toy YOU originally presented as proof of something until someone posed a question on it to you that you couldn't answer so now you do not use references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Looking at it NASA tells us that about the same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere as is reflected by it. Please show us more of your stupidity. It is getting funnier and funnier.

Fall back on your idiotic claim that "consensus" means nothing.
27-06-2017 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.

...deleted insults...


No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy.


Again you demonstrate the inability to understand anything. Let's try that little child's toy YOU originally presented as proof of something until someone posed a question on it to you that you couldn't answer so now you do not use references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Looking at it NASA tells us that about the same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere as is reflected by it. Please show us more of your stupidity. It is getting funnier and funnier.

Fall back on your idiotic claim that "consensus" means nothing.


...insults...use of government propaganda as Universal Truth to build a strawman...attempt to justify consensus in science...

No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy. False authority is a fallacy. Strawman arguments are a fallacy. Arguments of the Stone are a fallacy.

Consensus means nothing in science. Science does not use supporting evidence.

Science isn't politics. It isn't government agencies. It isn't universities. It isn't research programs. It isn't peer reviews. It isn't credentials. No one 'owns' science. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is just a collection of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Anything can inspire a new theory. All theories begin as circular arguments. What makes a theory a scientific one is the test for falsifiability. It is that, and only that, which brings a theory out of the realm of the circular argument.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

The circular argument isn't by itself a fallacy. Only failing to recognize it for what it is makes the fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
27-06-2017 19:14
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.

...deleted insults...


No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy.


Again you demonstrate the inability to understand anything. Let's try that little child's toy YOU originally presented as proof of something until someone posed a question on it to you that you couldn't answer so now you do not use references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Looking at it NASA tells us that about the same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere as is reflected by it. Please show us more of your stupidity. It is getting funnier and funnier.

Fall back on your idiotic claim that "consensus" means nothing.


Well that NASA chart may have one or two flaws in it. But it is certainly entertaining. Like GHGs now account for 340.3W/m2? 150W/m2 would roughly correspond the a GHE of 33K. 340.3W however would slightly increase the GHE to ... 288 - ((398.2 - 340.3)/398.2)^0.25 * 288 = 110K(!!!)
I call that innovative
27-06-2017 20:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.

...deleted insults...


No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy.


Again you demonstrate the inability to understand anything. Let's try that little child's toy YOU originally presented as proof of something until someone posed a question on it to you that you couldn't answer so now you do not use references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Looking at it NASA tells us that about the same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere as is reflected by it. Please show us more of your stupidity. It is getting funnier and funnier.

Fall back on your idiotic claim that "consensus" means nothing.


...insults...use of government propaganda as Universal Truth to build a strawman...attempt to justify consensus in science...

No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy. False authority is a fallacy. Strawman arguments are a fallacy. Arguments of the Stone are a fallacy.

Consensus means nothing in science. Science does not use supporting evidence.

Science isn't politics. It isn't government agencies. It isn't universities. It isn't research programs. It isn't peer reviews. It isn't credentials. No one 'owns' science. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is just a collection of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Anything can inspire a new theory. All theories begin as circular arguments. What makes a theory a scientific one is the test for falsifiability. It is that, and only that, which brings a theory out of the realm of the circular argument.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

The circular argument isn't by itself a fallacy. Only failing to recognize it for what it is makes the fallacy.


Yeah, yeah, we've heard all of your sniveling because you don't understand what you're talking about.
27-06-2017 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Leitwolf wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Consensus is not used in science. Not at all. It is purely a political or religious term.

...deleted insults...


No counter-argument presented. Insults are a fallacy.


Again you demonstrate the inability to understand anything. Let's try that little child's toy YOU originally presented as proof of something until someone posed a question on it to you that you couldn't answer so now you do not use references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Looking at it NASA tells us that about the same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere as is reflected by it. Please show us more of your stupidity. It is getting funnier and funnier.

Fall back on your idiotic claim that "consensus" means nothing.


Well that NASA chart may have one or two flaws in it. But it is certainly entertaining. Like GHGs now account for 340.3W/m2? 150W/m2 would roughly correspond the a GHE of 33K. 340.3W however would slightly increase the GHE to ... 288 - ((398.2 - 340.3)/398.2)^0.25 * 288 = 110K(!!!)
I call that innovative


I call it junk.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Vapour is not a greenhouse gas:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ 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