50% is A Trace Amount

OK, folks, we finally got a daffynition for "trace" amount.
It's 50%.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
I hear ya. now, how about the absorption spectra of dihyrdrogen oxide vs. dioxygen carbide?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 12/11/2012 03:59 AM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:

You can look them up. How about the relative amounts of water vapour and CO2 in the atmosphere? Precipitable column water average 25kg/m2 400 ppm CO2 works out at 6kg/m2
So in terms of the GHG components in the atmosphere, describing CO2 as a "trace gas" is simply incorrect.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Even more, the denier community never provides any quantitive scientific definition of "trace" in the first place, nothing that would or could ever lead to any conclusions.
Deniers, like all looneytarians, are basically simple minded emotive types w/o any cognitive ability whatsoever. They have no use for logic let alone math. Not one denier has ever or could ever pass a college level linear algebra course.
They think merely invoking a word is somehow defeats a body of science.
The average auto mechanic is sophisticated enough to know a frozen radiator will cause an engine to overheat.
Deniers must go through life pretending they are too simple minded to figure that out.
Bret Cahill
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
my impression is that the absorptive spectrum of CO2 in very much smaller than water vapor's. now, you can say that that poster from Westinghouse was wrong; thank you.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
also from ch.7: By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor because of its abundance and its extensive IR absorption features.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

The reason no one responded is because you completely missed the boat.
H2O isn't a gas like CO2. H2O a condensable _vapor_ and any excess H2O immediately precipitates out of the atmosphere.
CO2 is a gas and any excess CO2 hangs around for decades or centuries.
That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent that CO2 has _already_ warmed the atmosphere. The higher temp. due to CO2 allows more water vapor in the atmosphere.
This is a _positive_ feedback.
Bret Cahill
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
of course, but the greater absorption spectrum of water vapor, as well as its greater amount, "swamps" carbon dioxide; the complex of feedbacks due to water's adiabatic property is important, but somewhat secondary to this gross feature of a water planet.
anyway, your putative ordering of the effects of each gas, is just foolish.
to wit, there is no "global" warming.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 12/13/2012 08:06 AM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:

This is a common misunderstanding. The reason why WV does not "swamp" CO2 in the spectrum is that the atmosphere has a temperature gradient - meaning that there is virtually no WV above 5 km. The temperature gradient on the other hand has no effect on the CO2 concentration. That means that CO2 in the higher atmosphere absorbs the outgoing radiation that was re-radiated by WV at a lower altitude, so the effects are additive. This is well documented in most textbooks on atmospheric physics, as well as being clearly visible in satellite observations of the LWR. For example see http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/jacobbook/bookchap7.pdf page 9 figure 7-8 and the accompanying text.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

How does a lot of noise eliminate the signal?
In phase sensitive detection the initial input from the signal is much less than that of the noise. After integrating the signal over a few thousand cycles, however, the signal is much larger than the noise.
The noise doesn't integrate / accumulate.
H2O isn't a gas like CO2. H2O a condensable _vapor_ and any excess H2O immediately precipitates out of the atmosphere.
CO2 is a gas and any excess CO2 hangs around for decades or centuries.
That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent that CO2 has _already_ warmed the atmosphere. The higher temp. due to CO2 allows more water vapor in the atmosphere.
This is a _positive_ feedback.
Bret Cahill
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

humans, as

ere, makes

Wow. Just wow. You get stupider by the post.
Even if we were talking about the percentage increase (which we are not) and even if we were to accept (wrongly) that all the 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the last 150 years were all from man made sources, the amount increase would not be 50%.
100 / 385 = 26%
You are out by nearly 100%.
But that is not even what we are talking about. You idiot.
total CO2 = 385 ppm, which is trace. It is .0385 of one percent. Trace.
And I'm not talking about a general concept of what trace is, I'm talking that as far as the actual physical properties of Carbon Dioxide go, in terms of it being a plant food and in terms of it being a GHG, .0385 ppm of CO2 is TRACE.
And even if all 100 ppm increase were man made, which it isn't, it's closer to 15 or 16 ppm. But lets assume 100 ppm, this is the reality:
100 ppm = trace = .01 of one percent.
One hundredth of one per cent of the atmosphere is trace.
But thank you for illustrating one more time, just how you completely and utterly lack even the most basic grasp of mathematics, science, or the properties of CO2 gases, as a life giving gas and as a GHG.
You have outdone your own stupidity. Congratulations.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

In the land of the deniers the man with one brain cell is king.
If you have a web page or any authority -- denier sites are welcome -- that provides a quantitive scientific definition for "trace" please post it.
_You_ are relying on the word "trace" as though merely invoking that word automatically leads to scientific conclusions.
And then you try to deny that _your_ daffynition of "trace amounts" hold for anything other than CO2.
Your daffynition doesn't hold for VX or polonium -- only CO2.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 12/12/2012 09:55 PM, Tunderbar wrote:

The relative amounts of water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere: Precipitable column water average 25kg/m2 385 ppm CO2 works out at just under 6kg/m2
So in terms of the GHG components in the atmosphere, describing CO2 as a "trace gas" is simply incorrect. The main components of the atmosphere, N2 and O2, are irrelevant as they are not greenhouse gases.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

hy humans, as

phere, makes

Wow. That's almost a stupid as cahill.
N2 and O2 and every other gas in the atmosphere is definitely relevant. We are in fact talking about all gases in the atmosphere. You want to move the goalposts to only include GHG and then claim that that makes me wrong. That is just plain stupid. And transparently so.
If you want to move the goal posts and talk about GHGs only, then lets include vapour and water which is estimated at 70 to 80% or more of the total GHG effect. At that point CO2 and it's effect on warming is still rather small, isn't it?
And lets consider that the hydrosphere of the planet is 250 times the mass of the atmosphere.
Manmade CO2 in amounts of approx. 14 to 16 ppm of CO2 still comes out as tiny amounts of change that will have virtually imperceptible effects on the entire globes climate.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 12/12/2012 10:46 PM, Tunderbar wrote:

Wow, this is amazing, Tunderbar has got one number almost correct for the first time in his life.

Irrelevant. Would you like us to consider all the carbon buried underground as well?

Tundy goes back into his usual mode of getting three things wrong in the space of one sentence.

Tundy and Tonto ride off into the sunset to the sound of hoots of laughter.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

d hy humans, as

osphere, makes

g
a

,
In order for the climate to change it must involve changes to the hydrosphere. The oceans are massive heat sinks. The atmosphere and the hydrosphere are what defines the climate that we experience.
Buried carbon is not involved in the carbon cycle. The hydrosphere is deeply involved in all climatic cycles.
Apples and oranges.
To suggest otherwise is denial of reality.

Prove me wrong. You want wholesale global transfer of wealth, show us the science.

r
r.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

hy humans, as

phere, makes

And then there is the simple and inconvenient truth that CO2 has never, in the history of the globe, ever led temps. Ever. Not even once.
http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/gore_with_co2_temp_graph.j pg?wE0&h'9
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:31:59 +0100, Tom P wrote:

So N2 and O2 are not gases so they don't fall under comparisons to "trace gases"? You are as stupid as a box of hammers.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Site Timeline

• How to remove solutions included in gold colloid exception for gold particles

• - previous thread in ⚗ Material Sciences