Visit our Popular Forums

**newhaul** · 20-01-2022, 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

If origin theory of hydrocarbon deposits is correct, then all that CO2 that they contain, originated in the atmosphere. So burning them only returns CO2 back to its natural place in the atmosphere. So what is the harm?

A page that may assist you in your quest.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greenin...urface-warming

BTW w÷ are on the same side of this coin.

Dieseldude · 20-01-2022, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

A page that may assist you in your quest.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greenin...urface-warming

BTW w÷ are on the same side of this coin.

Thanks, read the article. It only makes sense that plant cover stabilizes weather patterns. It is interesting that the climate change crowd jumped for joy that the recent BC floods are more evidence to support their theory. But I have not heard of any investigation on how deforestation may have been a factor.

This discussion on effects of plant cover reminds me of the heat island effect that has been skewing temperature records. Weather stations that have been urbanized are recording higher temperatures than when they were in the midst of forested and agricultural land. Wish I could find the study. It removed the data from urban heat islands, leaving only stations on land in or close to its natural condition. The remaining data indicated stable temperatures.

pt49 · 20-01-2022, 15:31

A recent news article appeared in the NT News regarding the change in recorded temperatures at Darwin, NT Australia.

Those that record temperatures moved the recording device from its' original location to a new location and decided to "adjust" past data to reflect the recordings now collected at the new location... and we are expected to believe the current record that they publish.

Regarding a quoted source of Gordy from the Channel 2 in Australia... by inference he cited them as being "experts"

Channel 2 Australia is a government funded body operated by radical left wing zealots who have not published an unbiased documentary in the last 45 years.

AllenRbrts · 20-01-2022, 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Atmospheric CO2 is a red herring. How can CO2, a trace green house gas at about .04 % possibly compare to the effects of water vapor whose concentration is orders of magnatude higher ?

NASA's CO2 measurement as of Feb. 2021
416 ppm = .0416
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV

North Carolina Climate Office:
"Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0 - 4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition

Jeff Haby B.Sc, M.Sc holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in meteorology:
"Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules."
https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/

Facts from credible science provides for conclusion that water vapor far out ranks CO2 as a green house gas by about 3/.0416 = 72.11. So how can CO2 at .0416 % have any significant climate effect compared to water vapor at 72 time higher content ?

The climate cultists would do well to review their grade 3 arithmetic, renounce their misinformation, and leave the rest of us alone.

Yes you are correct that the effects of water vapor are higher than CO2. That doesn't stand to reason that you can ignore CO2.
You quote that CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere and then conclude it doesn't matter. CO2 is only .04% of gases which mostly are transparent to IR reflected from the earth's surface back towards space, so those other gaes don't count at all in the equation.
The problem with water vapor being a greenhouse gas is it has an amplifying effect. When the atmosphere is warmer it can hold more water vapor. Which in turn heats up the atmosphere, etc. So as the concentration of CO2 rises due to burning fossil fuels and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and which increases the water content and the cycle continues.
As I pointed out to you, be very glad about that .04%, without it this would be a frozen planet.

AllenRbrts · 20-01-2022, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

If origin theory of hydrocarbon deposits is correct, then all that CO2 that they contain, originated in the atmosphere. So burning them only returns CO2 back to its natural place in the atmosphere. So what is the harm?

Those deposits were the accumulation of millions of years of carbon deposits. We have released a vast store of them in a 150 years. See the problem?

pt49 · 20-01-2022, 15:56

I believe that changing global temperatures is a normal natural phenomena. To those fools who believe otherwise... take a look at past causes of temperature changes in history.

Major changes in the past have ALL been caused by natural phenomena... be it volcanic activity, comet and meteorite strikes, solar activity, tectonic plate movements, animals farting etc. It has been happening for billions of years and will continue for billions more years, long after humans disappear from Earth.

Humans are a natural life force arguably contributing to natural warming and cooling of our atmosphere.

The argument that rising sea levels will flood remote islands and coastlines thereby flooding cities is stupid. It is only a perceived problem because some idiots built cities on waterlines that rise and fall naturally.

This whole argument is an attempt to deflect the unarguable fact that we should not have built on low lying coastlines in the first place.

ImaginaryNumber · 20-01-2022, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by pt49

The argument that rising sea levels will flood remote islands and coastlines thereby flooding cities is stupid. It is only a perceived problem because some idiots built cities on waterlines that rise and fall naturally.

To say nothing of all those idiots who have built where forest fires occur, and those idiots who have built on fault zones, and those idiots who have built where hurricanes hit, and those idiots who have built in tornado alley, and those idiots who have built on now-melting permafrost, and those idiots who have built on sinking river deltas, and those idiots who have built in deserts, and those idiots who have built in the unbearably hot tropics, and...and...and...

pt49 · 20-01-2022, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

To say nothing of all those idiots who have built where forest fires occur, and those idiots who have built on fault zones, and those idiots who have built where hurricanes hit, and those idiots who have built in tornado alley, and those idiots who have built on now-melting permafrost, and those idiots who have built on sinking river deltas, and those idiots who have built in deserts, and those idiots who have built in the unbearably hot tropics, and...and...and...

Exactly...

When I visited Bali in 1971, the villages of Kuta Beach and Legian were about 1 kilometre from the ocean beach line, with grazing land and coconut plantations between the villages and the beaches.

The islanders living in these villages for at least the last thousand or so years are NOT idiots like us colonizers... the reason they didn't build near these beaches was because they remembered and respected NATURAL history.

Today when you visit Bali you will likely stay in modern hotels built with a TOTAL disregard of NATURAL history... all of the old farm land that was between the old villages and the beaches is today built out TOTALLY with hotels and motels catering to ignorant visitors.

NATURAL history taught the previous generations that this land was subject to ravaging flooding for up to 1km inland due to Tsunami's, hence it was not wise to build there.

Money making idiots today are willing to risk human lives by disregarding history... period.

Dieseldude · 20-01-2022, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Yes you are correct that the effects of water vapor are higher than CO2. That doesn't stand to reason that you can ignore CO2.
You quote that CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere and then conclude it doesn't matter. CO2 is only .04% of gases which mostly are transparent to IR reflected from the earth's surface back towards space, so those other gaes don't count at all in the equation.
The problem with water vapor being a greenhouse gas is it has an amplifying effect. When the atmosphere is warmer it can hold more water vapor. Which in turn heats up the atmosphere, etc. So as the concentration of CO2 rises due to burning fossil fuels and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and which increases the water content and the cycle continues.
As I pointed out to you, be very glad about that .04%, without it this would be a frozen planet.

Your logic misses the point that CO2 content is only 1/72 or .014 of of water vapor. So its effect on temperature is inconsequential. Water vapor is by far dominates. Of course water vapor effect is variable due to cloud formation. And that is where solar activity comes into play. Solar activity regulates received cosmic background radiation. And cosmic radiation effects cloud formation. The bottom line is that solar activity is the main variable, not CO2.

Dieseldude · 20-01-2022, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Those deposits were the accumulation of millions of years of carbon deposits. We have released a vast store of them in a 150 years. See the problem?

Not a problem. CO2 is only 1/72 or .014 of water vapor content. And water is a green house gas. Its temperature effect dominates dominates that of CO2 by a factor of 72.

**newhaul** · 20-01-2022, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Not a problem. CO2 is only 1/72 or .014 of water vapor content. And water is a green house gas. Its temperature effect dominates dominates that of CO2 by a factor of 72.

This chart should help with your explaining water vapor vs co2 thermal effects thereof.

BTW 99% of co2's effect is overshadowed by the water vapors effects

**newhaul** · 20-01-2022, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Those deposits were the accumulation of millions of years of carbon deposits. We have released a vast store of them in a 150 years. See the problem?

What is your boat made of?

**newhaul** · 20-01-2022, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

.
As I pointed out to you, be very glad about that .04%, without it this would be a frozen planet.

Wrong . If that is so then explain the reason Mars is so cold .

Dieseldude · 20-01-2022, 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

This chart should help with your explaining water vapor vs co2 thermal effects thereof.

BTW 99% of co2's effect is overshadowed by the water vapors effects

The chart well illustrates that water vapor dominates. Did you include the citation, or did I miss it? I'm sure that there ill be nay sayers questioning the source.