Nope, at the tropopause the CO2 is the region of 390 ppmbv the same as at the surface. Because CO2 is way past it super-critical boiling point it is true highly active gas that spreads evenly throughout the atmosphere. If it was cold enough the CO2 would freeze as well. The tropopause averages -55C and has water vapor only at 5 to 8 ppmbv because it's too cold to hold much water vapor.
I can see you've haven't got the slightest clue.
If water vapor in the atmosphere was above it's boiling point instead of below it, that might be true. But at sea lever water boils at 100C, on top Mt Everest 8k up, the atmospheric pressure has fallen to a third and water boils at 65C
you are correct that the C02 concentration at 15k will be near to 390ppm even though the atmospheric thickness at that altittude is around only 2% that of sea level - I do not pretend to be anything other than human.
C02 obviously changes the climate. The question though is by how much and we simply do not know the answer.
You must by now realise your snowball earth theory without C02, as so far expressed is wrong?
Snow and Ice are significant absorbers of low energy solar radiation and only significant reflectors of high energy solar radiation such as UV and visible light. Water would simply be transported away from the equator to begin unfreezing the earth until a more polar ice layer was reestablished.
At the equator there would be a vast outpouring of water vapour heading towards the poles with drier air returning to the equator
In 1860 Tyndal knew that water was a far better absorber than C02 was, where C02 had a poor ability to absorb the emissions of water, and C02 had a fantastic ability to absorb the emissions of C02, so that C02 had a poor ability to increase the impact of water. Arrhenius did not know that and even when he was informed of it by Knut Angstrom he chose not to believe it. Evidently Arrhenius lacked some fairly basic knowledge about the radiation properties of water and water vapour and C02
Either way Tyndall said that C02 was 'one of the most feeblest of absorbers' that he had examined of the radiation coming from a 'black body' emitter such as carbon black.
Tyndall emphasised that water enabled the emissions of water to transport heat from the surface to sufficient height that where there was no longer water vapour present there was effectively nothing remaining to prevent the outpouring of these emissions to outerspace.
Either way Tyndall said that C02 was 'one of the most feeblest of absorbers' that he had examined of the radiation coming from a 'black body' emitter such as carbon black.
In a glass tube about 12" long, yes. But not when you got CO2 going above 70k of atmosphere. That was the same mistake Angstrom made.
Quote:
You must by now realise your snowball earth theory without C02, as so far expressed is wrong?
If you mean most of the time the ambient equatorial sea level won't be below zero, then you are wrong. It will only be a few hours each day at best the temperature at the equator gets above freezing. And at best water vapor could only rise a few km before it froze again.
As I said before, if the boiling point of water vapor was below zero, then you might have an argument. But it isn't, at least not at atmospheric pressures.
Tyndall didn't know all that much. The guy who put it all together was Arrhenius.
Quote:
At the equator there would be a vast outpouring of water vapour heading towards the poles with drier air returning to the equator
It would freeze.
Quote:
Yes C02 has a role. But the role is hyped.
It's the leading factor, no CO2 and hardly any water vapor.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
In a glass tube about 12" long, yes. But not when you got CO2 going above 70k of atmosphere. That was the same mistake Angstrom made.
If you mean most of the time the ambient equatorial sea level won't be below zero, then you are wrong. It will only be a few hours each day at best the temperature at the equator gets above freezing. And at best water vapor could only rise a few km before it froze again.
As I said before, if the boiling point of water vapor was below zero, then you might have an argument. But it isn't, at least not at atmospheric pressures.
Tyndall didn't know all that much. The guy who put it all together was Arrhenius.
It would freeze.
It's the leading factor, no CO2 and hardly any water vapor.
For some reason you are resisting a basic physical reality of ice and water vapour.
Ice will always have a partial vapour pressure of the gas of water over the ice, even if it is tens of degrees below zero
Even in very cold conditions ice evaporates via the gas. The ice will be warmer at the equator and colder further away.
Ie most snow will arise near the equator and fall further away from the equator where it is cooler. Less snow will arise away from the equator.
Just as happens today water gets transported via the atmosphere away from the equator because most water in the atmosphere arises at the equator
The climate has always changed. Sometimes the globe warms. Other times it cools.
The question is how much of that change is cause by human activity.
I've answered this about a year ago. You don't like the answer AND can't understand it.
Quote:
Seems wasteful to spend huge sums of money and resources trying to prevent global warming that may not even be happening...
Literally that is devastatingly poor logic. It's objectively incorrect from an economics standpoint. You say are not willing to spend a few percent of the economy to insure against a real risk that if it occurs would likely destroy the entire current economic system and the risk is deemed likely to be happening by a majority of experts. Wow.....
Shadow
30 Oct 2012, 04:47 PM
Absence of correlation can prove absence of causation...
What proportion of climate change is caused by humans? Can you give me a figure... 5% of climate change? 95% of climate change? Perhaps only 5% of climate change is caused by humans, I'd be interested to hear why others think it's higher...
You're embarrassing yourself. Yes it CAN prove that, but that scale is beyond laughable. Scale does wonders to the eye. I could easily make all the mountains on earth disappear by just zooming out on the z-axis. Firstly the scales are a joke, secondly CO2 has a significant lag and time mixing/averaging effect. You'd need to smooth out the yearly data, average over a rolling scale and plot it against 50 years into the future. Plus rescale the X-axis to be equivalent in relation to the Y-axis. But then you don't know how to do that, do you !
What you have is a belief that you are now trying to justify. You aren't scientific about it, your ego is too big. The real issue is that you think you are smart enough to uncover this as a conspiracy, or that you are just simply smarter than these mistaken climate scientists. But the problem with that innate assumption is that you then go and put up graphs which a 2nd year science student has to be able to spot the problem with before they make it to 3rd year.
Andrew Judd
30 Oct 2012, 05:31 PM
Shadow is correct. There is no argument about it.
1. Human released C02 is known. The total amount of C02 is known
2. Temperature rises due to C02 are unknown.
3. Correlation does not mean causation.
There is no scientific evidence to link the earths temperature to human activity so it can be scientifically said humans are causing the earth to be warmer.
We currently have no idea if people are simply fitting the C02 idea to their own temperature constructions where C02 may have a a trivial role in climate.
All we seem to know is that the Earth cooled in the last 1000 years and now has returned to similar temperatures existing 1000 years ago, but even that relies on a large amount of assumption and guesswork.
Cool story bro, but nothing which you stated is true. but the conclusion is not accurate.
OK, it seems that you are all hung up about what percentage of warming is due to humans, and trying to correlate that to the amount of CO2 humans contribute vs the total flux of CO2 from nature.
So I offer an analogy.
The planet earth is orbiting the sun. It appears that we are not accelerating towards the sun, or being pulled away from it. However there is a massive gravitational force attracting us to the sun, and a massive force of momentum wanting us to fly away from the sun. This is called an equilibrium. Now....what if someone was to get a big rocket and use it as a tug boat to very slowly over hundreds of years pull us out into space. It seems obvious doesn't it? the tub boat is pulling us out into space? It's 100% the fault of the tug boat? But then there is the scientists paid by the tug boat company who say.....ohhh nooo, the tug boat is only adding 5% of the total force pulling us out, he effort is only equivalent to 5% of the angular momentum. The earth has ALWAYS been moving on it's orbit. Why only 50,000,000,000 years ago we were an elliptical orbit with an unstable climate. That tug boat has been there for two hundred years and is actually stopping us from falling into the sun. Prove otherwise. Then they come up with a graph that has the scale of the distance from the sun wound out to intergalactic distances and it shows we've only moved a poomteenth of that scale on the graph, while the tug boat has been varying it's output anyway and heck it's engine was out for 2 months this year....why isn't THAT showing on the intergalactic scale if the tug boat is sooo important.
It seems you guys believe the tug boat isn't responsible, and if they are it's only 5% responsible. And we should wait until we're out near the asteroid belt before we stop giving fuel to the tug boat.
The problem we have is that the tug boat is odourless and invisible. It's also not as distinct a force as the tug boat since it's a naturally occurring and fluctuating gas. And the output of this gas is the by-product of us consuming energy.
I've answered this about a year ago. You don't like the answer AND can't understand it.
Literally that is devastatingly poor logic. It's objectively incorrect from an economics standpoint. You say are not willing to spend a few percent of the economy to insure against a real risk that if it occurs would likely destroy the entire current economic system and the risk is deemed likely to be happening by a majority of experts. Wow.....
You're embarrassing yourself. Yes it CAN prove that, but that scale is beyond laughable. Scale does wonders to the eye. I could easily make all the mountains on earth disappear by just zooming out on the z-axis. Firstly the scales are a joke, secondly CO2 has a significant lag and time mixing/averaging effect. You'd need to smooth out the yearly data, average over a rolling scale and plot it against 50 years into the future. Plus rescale the X-axis to be equivalent in relation to the Y-axis. But then you don't know how to do that, do you !
What you have is a belief that you are now trying to justify. You aren't scientific about it, your ego is too big. The real issue is that you think you are smart enough to uncover this as a conspiracy, or that you are just simply smarter than these mistaken climate scientists. But the problem with that innate assumption is that you then go and put up graphs which a 2nd year science student has to be able to spot the problem with before they make it to 3rd year.
Cool story bro, but nothing which you stated is true. but the conclusion is not accurate.
OK, it seems that you are all hung up about what percentage of warming is due to humans, and trying to correlate that to the amount of CO2 humans contribute vs the total flux of CO2 from nature.
So I offer an analogy.
The planet earth is orbiting the sun. It appears that we are not accelerating towards the sun, or being pulled away from it. However there is a massive gravitational force attracting us to the sun, and a massive force of momentum wanting us to fly away from the sun. This is called an equilibrium. Now....what if someone was to get a big rocket and use it as a tug boat to very slowly over hundreds of years pull us out into space. It seems obvious doesn't it? the tub boat is pulling us out into space? It's 100% the fault of the tug boat? But then there is the scientists paid by the tug boat company who say.....ohhh nooo, the tug boat is only adding 5% of the total force pulling us out, he effort is only equivalent to 5% of the angular momentum. The earth has ALWAYS been moving on it's orbit. Why only 50,000,000,000 years ago we were an elliptical orbit with an unstable climate. That tug boat has been there for two hundred years and is actually stopping us from falling into the sun. Prove otherwise. Then they come up with a graph that has the scale of the distance from the sun wound out to intergalactic distances and it shows we've only moved a poomteenth of that scale on the graph, while the tug boat has been varying it's output anyway and heck it's engine was out for 2 months this year....why isn't THAT showing on the intergalactic scale if the tug boat is sooo important.
It seems you guys believe the tug boat isn't responsible, and if they are it's only 5% responsible. And we should wait until we're out near the asteroid belt before we stop giving fuel to the tug boat.
The problem we have is that the tug boat is odourless and invisible. It's also not as distinct a force as the tug boat since it's a naturally occurring and fluctuating gas. And the output of this gas is the by-product of us consuming energy.
So nothing I say is true and you can explain everything in one paragraph using a tug boat analogy..............
Well I deliberately crossed that bit out as it was an overstatement, and left my correction in for the sake of honesty.
I never said I could explain it ALL in one analogy but from your answer, or lack of an answer, it certainly appears I might just have. You leaving?
Your initial answer was fairly strange. I only noticed later you had crossed out the part where nothing was correct. And i assumed you left it there to show you were prepared to be honest. I have to go out in 30 minutes.
the tug boat analogy was to show that a question of "how much is due to human contribution" is entirely a question of logical reasoning, not linearity. I gave Shadow what I thought was a very good answer about a year ago to this very question. He refused to believe the form of the answer as it was a subjective answer and, if I remember correctly, was a number derived from the beliefs of people who study climate science. However the question cannot be answered objectively at this point in time, and probably never will be. My mind can only fathom that an objective answer is not possible and would only be possible if we extrapolated data from a statistically significant number of experiment on many earths in a controlled environment. We do not have many earths, and if we did we have no way of feasibly experimenting on them before we ruined this one. Instead we would just move to the next one when this one becomes uneconomical to repair.
So, I propose this question cannot be answered objectively. I therefore pose another question that I hope someone will be kind enough to answer. Does this mean we do nothing?
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
