Ocean acidifcation .

[ImaginaryNumber]

Cities Acidify the Water Next Door

https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/c...ter-next-door/

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

wrong and right I really love the bs that you are trying to spread here shows a real likelihood of Berkeley college influence .

The correct percentage is .04% is co2 and .04% of that is human and they can't even say what part is from natural life processes and from burning of ancient plants.



Lastly

There is no such thing as dry air in the atmosphere . So peddle your falsehoods elsewhere .

So for this large spike in CO2 in the last 100 years what natural source are you suggesting 99.96% of that came from?
Remember it is just math to take the amount of fossil fuels burned and calculate how much CO2 is created.



Yes, all of the upper atmosphere is dry air.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

So for this large spike in CO2 in the last 100 years what natural source are you suggesting 99.96% of that came from?
Remember it is just math to take the amount of fossil fuels burned and calculate how much CO2 is created.

Attachment 197986

Yes, all of the upper atmosphere is dry air.

define large spike in specific percentage terms.
Then specifically broken down by source.
Lastly specify where the measurement was taken.


define upper atmosphere ( in your context)
specifics do matter

[newhaul]

Ok here is the ultimate question for everyone

What is the optimum global average temperature?

Explain why , list advantages and disadvantages of that temperature.
Also a verifiable source for said temperature .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

define large spike in specific percentage terms.
Then specifically broken down by source.
Lastly specify where the measurement was taken.


define upper atmosphere ( in your context)
specifics do matter

I was asking *you* where all the additional co2 is coming from. You tried to say that 99.94% of the recent increase in CO2 was from not fossil fuels. Please specify the source of the increase in CO2. Please cite your references. [emoji3]

As for water vapor in the atmosphere. As you should know cold air contains very little moisture. Here is a chart showing a cross section of water moisture by latitude and attitude. Not surprisingly most of the water vapor is low altitude in the tropics.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I was asking *you* where all the additional co2 is coming from. You tried to say that 99.94% of the recent increase in CO2 was from not fossil fuels. Please specify the source of the increase in CO2. Please cite your references. [emoji3]

As for water vapor in the atmosphere. As you should know cold air contains very little moisture. Here is a chart showing a cross section of water moisture by latitude and attitude. Not surprisingly most of the water vapor is low altitude in the tropics.
Attachment 197997

the additional co2 is from human sources but how much from what source ? Be specific and what is the net effect on the concentration by each source by percentage

I see you are trying to do the usual MMGWC and attempt to redirect instead of actually answering the questions.

So I will post again

define large spike in specific percentage terms.
Then specifically broken down by source.
Lastly specify where the measurement was taken.


define upper atmosphere ( in your context)
specifics do matter

We need to establish a common frame of reference.

Are we talking lower or upper troposphere ? Tropopause ? Lower stratosphere ? Upper stratosphere ? Or even higher specify.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok here is the ultimate question for everyone

What is the optimum global average temperature?

Explain why , list advantages and disadvantages of that temperature.
Also a verifiable source for said temperature .

Winter: 65° F
Summer: 78° F

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/11/a...is-summer.html

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/02...4531351320400/

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the additional co2 is from human sources but how much from what source ? Be specific and what is the net effect on the concentration by each source by percentage

I see you are trying to do the usual MMGWC and attempt to redirect instead of actually answering the questions.

So I will post again

define large spike in specific percentage terms.
Then specifically broken down by source.
Lastly specify where the measurement was taken.


define upper atmosphere ( in your context)
specifics do matter

We need to establish a common frame of reference.

Are we talking lower or upper troposphere ? Tropopause ? Lower stratosphere ? Upper stratosphere ? Or even higher specify.

You said that only .04% of additional CO2 was from human sources. Please either retract that statement (post 1378) or specify where the source of CO2 come from.

I gave you a graph. No other specification or frame of reference necessary. You can retract that statement from 1378 as well[emoji3]

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok here is the ultimate question for everyone



What is the optimum global average temperature?



Explain why , list advantages and disadvantages of that temperature.

Also a verifiable source for said temperature .

I think this is a very good question. We know that 5C colder resulted in an ice age with most of Northern America covered in glaciers. I don’t think there much to rely on in last million years on what 5C warmer looks like but probably is not good.

The problem is even if we decide to do a major correction in our energy policy it will take many decades to change and the CO2 numbers will keep increasing leading to higher temperatures. Given we don’t understand how strong the feedback are for water vapor, warming oceans and reducing snow and ice cover we probably have already committed to a large temperature gain.
As of today there is no known way to remove massive quantities of CO2 from atmosphere, so we are going to probably have to live with all the CO2 that exists now and that emitted for the many decades.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

4mm my arse. Provide empirical proof of that assertion .

That requires access to NASA earth database.... but here's the graf.. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

wrong and right I really love the bs that you are trying to spread here shows a real likelihood of Berkeley college influence .

The correct percentage is .04% is co2 and .04% of that is human and they can't even say what part is from natural life processes and from burning of ancient plants.



Lastly

There is no such thing as dry air in the atmosphere . So peddle your falsehoods elsewhere .

BTW if you would actually read the article I posted, you would probably stop posting that graph of absorption or at least understand what it does and doesn’t mean. [emoji3]

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Winter: 65° F
Summer: 78° F

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/11/a...is-summer.html

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/02...4531351320400/

so you are saying that the optimum global average temperature is
71.5℉ correct?

GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).

So you want the global average temperature to rise
From 58.6℉ to 71.5℉ an Increase of 12.9℉
That's not a good thing ( in my sceptical opinion)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently there's no need to communicate this part of THE science when it sounds so much better to preach the part of THE science which says that humans have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. Afaik both stats are undisputed, it's just that the latter is soooo much more ALARMING.

Anyone who's reassured that the human contribution is minor by hearing "0.0012% contribution to the atmosphere" ... doesn't understand the issue. And has also been misled, because human activity throws a whole lot more into the atmosphere than just CO2.

Anyone who claims to understand what it means to increase one important component of our atmosphere by 40%, yet considers quoting that being deliberately "ALARMING", is putting their own bias ahead of reality.

Wow, this thread is looking more like the classic CF denier-fests of yore. Awesome.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

], because human activity throws a whole lot more into the atmosphere than just CO2.
.

that is correct and a lot of it has an actual net cooling effect . However co2 is the only one that they can specifically quantify to be able to tax us to death on .

The IPCC. Has nothing to do with actual climate change its just a big ponzi scheme to redistribute the wealth by " climate " policy.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that is correct and a lot of it has an actual net cooling effect . However co2 is the only one [???] that they can specifically quantify to be able to tax us to death on.

The IPCC. Has nothing to do with actual climate change its just a big ponzi scheme to redistribute the wealth by " climate " policy.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercur..._United_States

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