• Re: OT: Climate Change Bullshit

    From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Jul 14 18:29:57 2022
    On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 5:29:27 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 08:21:37 -0800, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

    "Errors in the determination of CO2 by many methods reported in the literature are so large that they exceed its normal concentration in the atmosphere [2, 3]. The majority of methods are suitable only for the determination of increased concentrations of CO2 in air,
    e.g., for the estimation of the degree of gas contamination of rooms in plant workshops, the concentration of CO2 in vegetable stores, in fires, etc. "

    http://agmalygin.narod.ru/JAC16.pdf
    From the link you posted I read the following:-

    "The determination of carbon dioxide in air was
    always an important practical problem. It became par-
    ticularly important in recent decades because of the
    studies of the greenhouse effect."

    All you are doing is proving my point, though!
    Of course 'they' are going to attempt to debunk and undermine historical sources which quote the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere where they contradict the 'official narrative' that levels are skyrocketing due to
    the activities of man.
    The only way to get unbiased information on the subject is to consult the physical, hard-copy literature of 100+ years ago, because everything subsequent to that has to be regarded as potentially compromised for political reasons.

    Greenland and Antarctic ice core data is pretty reliable, but since we didn't pull out the ice ores until the 1990's, Cursitor Doom imagines that the people looking at the ice cores were fiddling the data as they extracted it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Jul 14 18:20:49 2022
    On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 2:16:43 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    According to the NASA site, atmospheric C02 is currently at 400ppm (0.04)
    and rising exponentially (and some)...

    https://tinyurl.com/y7afhl94

    However, according to 'A Compendium of Chemistry' by Arnold & Mandel (1914)...

    "The amount of carbon dioxide in the air amounts on average to 0.04
    volume percent [400ppm], but may rise to one or two percent in rooms
    occupied by many persons or by the burning of many gas flames; experience
    has shown that it is not advisable to have more than 0.1 volume percent
    in a room for habitation. The purity of the air can be determined by estimating the amount of carbon dioxide contained therein."

    What Arnold& Mandel don't mention explicity, but is clear from the context, is that they meant indoor air.

    If Cursitor Doom wasn't a complete idiot he's be aware that the air analysis techniques used in 1914 were wet way chemistry, and not all that sensitive, accurate or quick.

    When Charles Keeling started his work he got hold of a machine that measured the amount of narrow band infrared radiation absorbed by a sample of atmospheric air, which meant that he could take accurate measurements fast.

    Once he could do that he realised that he had to sample the air he looked at a long way from human activity if he wanted to get stable and consistent measurements, something that hadn't been noticed back in 1914.

    So despite NASA's rather alarming looking graph, the amount of atmospheric CO2 is the same today as it was over 100 years ago.


    It isn't.

    It's only by referring to very old books written before the climate change agenda was drawn up

    And ignoring the actual information they provide in favour of moronic misapprehensions about what that data actually means

    that we can see the 'man-made global warming' meme is based on nothing but LIES.

    If you are as dedicated to fooling yourself as Cursitor Doom you can see whatever you want to see, and lie to yourself about what your "evidence" means.

    If anyone I haven't plonked wants a scan of the original page from the 1914 volume I'm happy to supply it via email.

    Complete with his deluded ideas about it's imagined significance.

    This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol.

    You will look like a half-wit if you don't mention that it is deluded nonsense.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to newshound on Sat Jul 16 09:11:07 2022
    On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:39 AM UTC+11, newshound wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 18:49, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:58:51 +0000, newshound
    <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:

    On 25/11/2018 15:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

    <snip>

    The Hawaii data goes back to 1960 and is generally considered pretty good >>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#Mauna_Loa_measurements

    That data gives an increase of 2 ppm/a, so to reach the NASA alarmist figures of 1500 ppm takes 550 years.

    What NASA alarmist figure? Getting to just 500 ppm implies a couple of degrees Celcius of global warming which enough to screw our agriculture.

    Everyone seems to ignore the biofeedback effects, i.e. the increased biomass production with higher CO2.

    They don't, but plants don't reliably produce more biomass if you give them more CO2 - they need water and nitrate and phosphate as well. The direct effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is smaller stomata in leaves so the plants can get as much CO2 as
    they need while losing less water (which tends to be less accessible).

    The annual +/- 3 ppm variation is also interesting. It is measured in
    the middle of a nutrient poor deep ocean (thermocline) on a small
    island, Is the variation due to vegetation on the islands only ? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be long time measurements on continents.

    Because they vary all over the place,

    Cape Grim in Tasmania (about sixty miles west of where I grew up) hosts a second CO2 observatory

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    it shows smaller season variations in CO2 levels because the southern hemisphere has less seasonal vegetation. Like Manua Loa, it's down-wind of lot of ocean so it gets a fairly stable CO2 signal averaged out by a lot of mixing.

    No mystery. The uniformity of the variation means that this site is
    going a very good job of global averaging. There's more vegetation in
    the Northern Hemisphere than the South, hence the "summer" dip as it is growing.

    I agree with you that there are *lots* of feedback mechanisms that are not very well understood.

    Snort.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Jul 16 09:54:05 2022
    On Saturday, 16 July 2022 at 18:11:11 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:39 AM UTC+11, newshound wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 18:49, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:58:51 +0000, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:

    On 25/11/2018 15:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

    <snip>

    The Hawaii data goes back to 1960 and is generally considered pretty good

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#Mauna_Loa_measurements

    That data gives an increase of 2 ppm/a, so to reach the NASA alarmist figures of 1500 ppm takes 550 years.

    What NASA alarmist figure? Getting to just 500 ppm implies a couple of degrees Celcius of global warming which enough to screw our agriculture.

    Everyone seems to ignore the biofeedback effects, i.e. the increased biomass production with higher CO2.

    They don't, but plants don't reliably produce more biomass if you give them more CO2 - they need water and nitrate and phosphate as well. The direct effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is smaller stomata in leaves so the plants can get as much CO2 as
    they need while losing less water (which tends to be less accessible).

    The annual +/- 3 ppm variation is also interesting. It is measured in the middle of a nutrient poor deep ocean (thermocline) on a small island, Is the variation due to vegetation on the islands only ? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be long time measurements on continents.

    Because they vary all over the place,

    Cape Grim in Tasmania (about sixty miles west of where I grew up) hosts a second CO2 observatory

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    it shows smaller season variations in CO2 levels because the southern hemisphere has less seasonal vegetation. Like Manua Loa, it's down-wind of lot of ocean so it gets a fairly stable CO2 signal averaged out by a lot of mixing.

    No mystery. The uniformity of the variation means that this site is
    going a very good job of global averaging. There's more vegetation in
    the Northern Hemisphere than the South, hence the "summer" dip as it is growing.

    I agree with you that there are *lots* of feedback mechanisms that are not very well understood.

    Snort.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney
    CO2 is all bullshit and fake offered by the Greens, Al Gore, his IPCC team, UNFCC, Prof. Mann
    to self-promote fake science

    Climate Changes are clocked by fluctuations in solar activity.

    Call NASA Solar Lab one day to verify the above.
    Get latest data on solar fluctuations.

    2. If you deforest millions of acres of land, so you support albedo effect and more solar thermal energy is consumed by the Earth, since natural water retention cycles get destroyed.

    We all love Carbon


    --CO2 is welcome
    -CO2 is Plant Food
    -Plants are Animal Food
    -Animals are Human Food

    --More CO2 more Human Food
    -to end the world hunger

    --https://sci.electronics.design.narkive.com/eMVDUFoy/we-all-love-carbon-we-all-love-co2




    Water (H2O) in the gaseous state is the only greenhouse gas due to its high heat of phase shift: fluid > gas > fluid

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to a a on Sat Jul 16 19:26:33 2022
    On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 2:54:09 AM UTC+10, a a wrote:
    On Saturday, 16 July 2022 at 18:11:11 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:39 AM UTC+11, newshound wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 18:49, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:58:51 +0000, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 15:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

    <snip>

    Water (H2O) in the gaseous state is the only greenhouse gas due to its high heat of phase shift: fluid > gas > fluid

    A a does seem to love this particular lunacy. "Greenhouse gases" are gases which have strong infrared absorbtion lines.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with their latent heats of vaporisation. Methane is famously a more potent greenhouse gas than water vapour or carbon dioxide (though it gets oxidised to CO2 and water with a half life of 8.6 years in the earth's
    atmosphere at the moment).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a a@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Jul 17 08:55:42 2022
    On Sunday, 17 July 2022 at 04:26:36 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 2:54:09 AM UTC+10, a a wrote:
    On Saturday, 16 July 2022 at 18:11:11 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:39 AM UTC+11, newshound wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 18:49, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:58:51 +0000, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 15:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

    <snip>
    Water (H2O) in the gaseous state is the only greenhouse gas due to its high heat of phase shift: fluid > gas > fluid
    A a does seem to love this particular lunacy. "Greenhouse gases" are gases which have strong infrared absorbtion lines.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with their latent heats of vaporisation. Methane is famously a more potent greenhouse gas than water vapour or carbon dioxide (though it gets oxidised to CO2 and water with a half life of 8.6 years in the earth's
    atmosphere at the moment).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney
    don't be silly

    ==The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:[14][15]

    Water vapor (H
    2O)
    Carbon dioxide (CO
    2)
    Methane (CH
    4)
    Nitrous oxide (N
    2O)
    Ozone (O
    3)
    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs and HCFCs)
    Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
    Perfluorocarbons (CF
    4, C
    2F
    6, etc.), SF
    6, and NF


    -----

    Role of water vapor
    Increasing water vapor in the stratosphere at Boulder, Colorado

    Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[21] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not
    directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. Indirectly, human activity that increases global temperatures will increase water vapor concentrations, a process known as water vapor feedback.[22] The
    atmospheric concentration of vapor is highly variable and depends largely on temperature, from less than 0.01% in extremely cold regions up to 3% by mass in saturated air at about 32 °C.[23] (See Relative humidity#Other important facts.)

    The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH
    4 and CO2.[24] Water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius–Clapeyron relation establishes that more water vapor will be present per unit volume at elevated temperatures. This and other basic principles
    indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor (assuming that the relative humidity remains approximately constant; modeling and observational studies find
    that this is indeed so). Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming. Eventually other earth processes[which?] offset these positive feedbacks, stabilizing
    the global temperature at a new equilibrium and preventing the loss of Earth's water through a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect.[22]
    Contribution of clouds to Earth's greenhouse effect

    The major non-gas contributor to Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on greenhouse gas radiative properties. Clouds are water droplets or ice crystals suspended in the atmosphere.[25][21]


    ----

    When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[25][failed verification]
    Compound
    Formula
    Concentration in
    atmosphere[31] (ppm) Contribution
    (%)
    Water vapor and clouds H
    2O 10–50,000(A) 36–72%
    Carbon dioxide CO2 ~400 9–26%
    Methane CH
    4 ~1.8 4–9%
    Ozone O
    3 2–8(B) 3–7%
    notes:

    (A) Water vapor strongly varies locally[32]

    ----

    Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

    The way land is used affects climate change and the emission of greenhouse gases; the agriculture, land uses, and other land uses sector, on average, accounted for 13-21% of global total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the period 2010-
    2019 (medium confidence).[91]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Jul 17 11:36:43 2022
    On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 10:26:36 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 2:54:09 AM UTC+10, a a wrote:
    On Saturday, 16 July 2022 at 18:11:11 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:39 AM UTC+11, newshound wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 18:49, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:58:51 +0000, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 15:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

    <snip>
    Water (H2O) in the gaseous state is the only greenhouse gas due to its high heat of phase shift: fluid > gas > fluid
    A a does seem to love this particular lunacy. "Greenhouse gases" are gases which have strong infrared absorbtion lines.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with their latent heats of vaporisation. Methane is famously a more potent greenhouse gas than water vapour or carbon dioxide (though it gets oxidised to CO2 and water with a half life of 8.6 years in the earth's
    atmosphere at the moment).

    No one wants to hear about those dumb absorption lines...

    A person of just a modicum of intelligence would be compelled to learn about a quantitative measure of comparison for the various greenhouse gases. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been developed and measured to this end for the various
    atmospheric gas components. The measure is complicated by the reality of variability over time and place for some of them.

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

    There's not a whole lot on water vapor, but the GWP is a ridiculously low 0.001 to 0.0005 that of CO2 baseline, if this paper can be believed:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327565344_The_global_warming_potential_of_near-surface_emitted_water_vapour

    There are some real GWP gaseous doozies out there: https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/

    None of this makes any difference because all these people will be killed off in a few years. UN has recently told us Earth's human population will reach exactly 8 billion on November 15, 2022. Overpopulation is the main driver of GW. The Earth and its
    natural environment will survive no matter what, the human residents will not.









    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Thu Jul 21 19:04:58 2022
    On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 4:36:47 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 10:26:36 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 2:54:09 AM UTC+10, a a wrote:
    On Saturday, 16 July 2022 at 18:11:11 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:15:39 AM UTC+11, newshound wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 18:49, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
    On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 15:58:51 +0000, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
    On 25/11/2018 15:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

    <snip>
    Water (H2O) in the gaseous state is the only greenhouse gas due to its high heat of phase shift: fluid > gas > fluid
    A a does seem to love this particular lunacy. "Greenhouse gases" are gases which have strong infrared absorbtion lines.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with their latent heats of vaporisation. Methane is famously a more potent greenhouse gas than water vapour or carbon dioxide (though it gets oxidised to CO2 and water with a half life of 8.6 years in the earth's
    atmosphere at the moment).
    No one wants to hear about those dumb absorption lines...

    A person of just a modicum of intelligence would be compelled to learn about a quantitative measure of comparison for the various greenhouse gases. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been developed and measured to this end for the various
    atmospheric gas components. The measure is complicated by the reality of variability over time and place for some of them.

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

    There's not a whole lot on water vapor, but the GWP is a ridiculously low 0.001 to 0.0005 that of CO2 baseline, if this paper can be believed:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327565344_The_global_warming_potential_of_near-surface_emitted_water_vapour

    The problem with water vapour as a greenhouse gas is that it freezes out when the atmosphere gets cold.

    The earth - as a black body radiator - has to radiate as if its surface temperature was -18C - so the effective emitting altitude is relatively high in the atmosphere, as Joseph Fourier worked out in 1824. The vapor pressure of water up where it matters
    is relatively low.

    In reality the green house gases make sure that its emission spectum doesn't look much like that of a black body

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

    <snipped the usual misunderstood stuff>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)