More of the same, explain how anything happening anywhere in, or under the world will stop the CO2 molecule from reflecting heat? Before we can talk about what clouds do, or what other stuff does, let's finish up with what we started, CO2. Before diving into modeling the planet, we have to accept the basics. You seem to not want to accept the facts that: CO2 reflects heat. The more CO2, the more heat that gets reflected. It's either true or false.
I am happy with that. I might say it a bit differently is all. Did you have a chance to look at the example I mentioned of desert versus versus meadow? Do you have any questions about it?
Guys, it's all over. If we do not stop producing Co2 and cow farts, the earth will die a painful death. Here's proof. Morons. All of you fuckers who believe the BS.
Earlier, I specifically referred to the system as being the Earth/Atmosphere, as a whole. Doing this negated concerns about different temperature measurements, and CO2 levels being measured at different locations on the planet, and in the air. It negated trying to track pockets of CO2 molecules through the air. It boiled down to: whatever is happening on the surface, increasing CO2 levels of the system, will lessen escaping heat from the system. The real questions are more like: Given a certain rate of increase of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, at what rate will the level of heat increase within the system; and how will that affect weather? But here we are. You've presented no evidence that CO2 decreases the amount of heat reflected back to Earth. I think we already came to an understanding as to what the CO2 molecule does. Actually, my position is that regardless as to what is "changing," it doesn't change the fact that increasing CO2 will trap more heat, in the system. The CO2 part doesn't have to do with partial pressures, imo. And I don't really see a problem. You're conflating what happens mostly at the edge of the differentially rotating atmosphere with respect to the total heat of a system, with the temperature measurement at a point on or near the surface. Are you saying that's always true? Of course you aren't. Many factors affect temperature measurements. CO2 doesn't generate heat, it reflects it. It's a molecule, not a sheet of aluminum foil. Mirrors reflect little light, in the dark. I'm not perplexed by any of the above at all. I don't think you have an understanding of the differences between temperature and heat, and how they relate. About how different surface materials absorb, store, and release heat. About the conduction of heat from surfaces via convection (wind). Etc.
I think there is a misunderstanding. I wasn't giving you an example of a case where CO2 concentration varied from one area of the planet to another (although in practice the CO2 concentration is not uniform but it doesn't vary a great deal (as measured in dry air!). Reported values are of course mean values, again in air that has had the water vapor removed from it! What I gave you to ponder was an example where the CO2 as measured and typically reported is virtually the same over the desert and over the meadow. However CO2 is always reported as ppm in dry air! The air over the desert approximates dry air; the air over the meadow does not. So how does that difference relates to the real concentrations of CO2 in these two fundamentally different climates existing simultaneously on the same planet at the same time. That's what I was hoping you would ponder. When you measure the real concentration of CO2 in the air over the desert and you don't bother to dry the air first, you get a value fairly close to the mean value of CO2 concentration as it's routinely reported for dry air. But when you measure the CO2 over the meadow, and don't dry the air first, you get a much lower concentration of CO2 than its value as measured in dry air would be at the same pressure! That has very much to do, I would think, with partial pressures. In other words, why, if CO2 as usually reported and measured, is virtually the same over the meadow or over the desert is the meadow so much warmer on a clear night? Well, I would think, it has to do with the partial pressure of CO2 in moist air being so much lower than its partial pressure in dry air for the same total pressure. The lower partial pressure of CO2 must be made up by a correspondingly higher partial pressure of water vapor. I am not trying to create a booby trap here. You are not a booby. In fact, it is obvious to me that you have an education in science. But what my illustration points out , and I would hope it's correct, though I am not infallible, is the importance of water vapor. That is by far the most important green house gas. And that is what makes for the difference in night temperature over the desert and over the meadow! And the meadow is very significantly warmer than the desert on a clear night, even though the real CO2 concentration, i.e. in air that has not been dried, over the meadow in a liter of air at S.T.P. is much lower than the real CO2 concentration over the desert; yet the meadow is much warmer. It's water!!! This simple illustration demonstrates the ridiculousness of those who run around saying CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If CO2 goes up the temperature goes up. That's it! Cut and dried! Well it obviously is not cut and dried. You must take into account water vapor pressure as well. This has real implications for Hansen's hypothesis. If Salby is correct, and Hansen has reversed independent and dependent variables, as Salby claims, who is of at least equal stature scientifically with Hansen, then we have to question all of Hansen's work and indeed all of the models that sprang from his work. The phase studies done later, following Hansen's laboratory's initial work, show temperature leads CO2 concentration.* This observation is consistent with Salby's claim. Hansen's Hypothesis can not be accepted as correct until this inconsistency can be explained. This is not to say that anyone thinks CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It most certainly is! Both water vapor and CO2 are photo-physically weak IR absorbers. Carbon dioxide has only one, IR-active vibrational mode, an asymmetric stretch, and only its gas phase is active in moderating temperature. Compare that to water. Water acts in all three physical phases, and is on average, present at much higher concentrations then CO2. (Dry air consists of only ~400 molecules of CO2 out of every million air molecules.) Because of water vapor's far higher concentration in air, its extraordinary heats of fusion and vaporization, and its extraordinary heat capacity, many of us scientists intuitively believe it must be by far the most important substance needed to moderate the Earths climate. But when it comes to science, intuition is not nearly good enough. It is only a starting point. Many of us believe that CO2 is not unimportant, and can't be ignored, but that it probably plays a minor role in determining the Earths surface temperature. We belief that trying to answer the question of how important anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are can not be accurately assessed using current models. None of these accurately predict future temperature beyond ~5-6 years without unacceptable error unless their parameters are periodically re-determined by fitting the model to past known temperatures. So far, these models have no useful predictive value. A prediction of next years mean temperature based on this years does as well, or better, than any model. This questions we have must be answered using other methods, including of course those yet to be discovered. That is precisely what Miskolczi did! He took an entirely different approach. And he reached conclusions that were at odds with Hansen's hypothesis. Sadly, he was forced to leave GISS to get his work published. That should not have happened and it's a rather disgraceful, and very regrettable, chapter in modern atmospheric science. I would also strongly encourage you to begin following Israeli Physicist Nir Shaviv's work. It is quite brilliant in my estimation. Again it breaks dramatically from conventional approaches. It has resulted in the first hypothesis that is consistent with the Paleo record of climate. ________________ *Unfortunately this, too, is not as simple as it might first appear.
You are one of my favorite posters here on ET. And I might add that your choice of that jerk on TV as your avatar is absolutely perfect. You have a finality about your posts that lays to rest, immediately, any issue. It reminds me a lot of one of my old Hockey coaches. He wasn't very bright, and he was an average coach, but there was nothing wishy-washy about him. And too, you have a great sense of humor! I hope some day we can meet, and I can buy you a beer. Keep up the good work of stamping out bullshit wherever you find it!
That is one more reason for the investors to learn more about renewable energy businesses. I really believe that the newcomers should pay attention to this sector of the market as it looks extremely promising even today. More than that, there are many niches for the scientific breakthroughs which you can invest in. Nowadays the most popular energy sources are considered to be crude oil and natural gas. Coal is no more popular as it is far from eco-friendly, nuclear power is also not so popular because of the risks associated with it (if I am not mistaken, European countries are doing their best to get rid of all the atomic stations that they have now). Angela Merkel claimed that the EU will not need natural gas from Russia after about 20 years. It means that Europe plans to switch to renewable energy in the not-too-distant future and I believe that it is high time we started thinking about this kind of energy. More than that, what I like this sector for is that there are still many alternative sources of energy like the wind power or solar power or many others else. There is a wide choice for us but it also implies that we've got to learn more in order to make successful investments.