Which Climate Denial Crock Wins Super Tuesday?

March 1, 2016




9 Responses to “Which Climate Denial Crock Wins Super Tuesday?”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    What would be more polluting than a WW3?

  2. grindupbaker Says:

    I have way better hypotheses involving frictional heat from an increase in synthetic underwear. Can I become a famous subject of a posting if I develop it ?

  3. grindupbaker Says:

    That cartoon at 2:20 that’s everywhere is too incorrect even for the masses. I don’t like it. It gives rise to the “saturated atmosphere” and “water vapour overwhelms” nonsense. It’s the shimmer in the atmosphere that sends the 200 w/m**2 to space, surface only sends 40 w/m**2 to space.

    It’s the extra constipation at the top of the atmospheric shimmer that thickens the whole thing, not photons being bounced from surface back to surface or getting to space. The ~0.8% extra atmospheric shimmer sends a tad extra back down from each layer to the layers below. You could layer it into 200 of 100m layers and do the iterative calculations if you were retired and desperate for a hobby.

    • Kiwiiano Says:

      But why is the atmosphere shimmering more now than it was 10, 20, 100 years ago?

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        Sarah Palin’s eyes.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        I’m more concerned with all the shimmering on the surface of those puddles (lakes actually) that are forming on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet and the shimmering of the arctic ocean surface that is increasing because of the decrease in arctic sea ice, as well as the shimmer in the air as heat waves emanate from the melting permafrost.

        I am starting to get a headache from all the mathematical yada-yada and navel gazing here (about forcing and layering and satellites not measuring) that those who must be retired and desperate for a hobby want to repeat endlessly.

        Can we instead focus on simple things like the melting ice and sea level rise? (And the graph that you “don’t like” is more than adequate for explaining the greenhouse gas effect to “the masses”, who will never stay awake long enough to grasp the “saturated atmosphere” and “water vapour overwhelms” nonsense, so come down off your high horse).

      • grindupbaker Says:

        “But why is the atmosphere shimmering more now than it was 10, 20, 100 years ago?” Per table below CO2 molecules at 12 km altitude now 381 ppmv, but was ~270 ppmv 100 years ago. The extra molecules get to absorb more transverse electromagnetic radiation from below (and from above) entering my arbitrary-thickness layer. There’s more inbound from below than from above because surface is the source and space is the sink. 50% of that absorbed goes down to the layers below (not surface because it’s saturated effect below). This layer is just illustrative. All layers same logic but differing quantities of course. So the overall atmospheric shimmer of radiation energy must increase. I’ll not find time before I die to compute it all (the %ages in from above, in from below, absorbed, out up, out down, but I would write iterative software because each layer depends on itself which makes it tricky (like MS Excel circular reference warning). If the iterations don’t reduce to a result I’d be out of ideas. The outer iterations are simply to determine accuracy related to layer thickness (reducing thicknesses and compare like the simple Newton-Raphson iteration to compute a square root). Not so much water vapour up there way above Mt Everest peak.

        Water vapour *was* the most significant greenhouse gas when it was released into the atmosphere but now the effect is almost 100% saturated except for a 10% frequency band that gets from surface to space. It’s been incapable of being the major driver of temperature change for billions of years because its freezing point is too high. The +CO2 “global warming” is happening at 6km-16km altitude and there’s 37.6x as much CO2 as H2O at 15km altitude. That’s why climate scientists keep calling CH4, CO2, N2O, CFCs “well mixed”, it means they go high without freezing out. Water doesn’t. Like:———-
        alti- air air
        tude tempe- density —- atmospheric ppmv —-
        km rature g/m3 CO2 water vapour
        0 16 1,290 400 14,000 10% of the 396 w/m**2 radiation from here gets through to space
        (that’s 16% of Earth’s 242 w/m**2 total radiation that gets to space)
        0.5 12 1,235 399 11,000 **84% already caught by H2O & CO2 and shimmering around**
        1 9 1,180 398 8,500
        1.5 5 1,130 398 6,400
        2 2 1,075 397 4,900
        3 -6 965 395 2,900
        4 -13 860 394 1,700
        4.7 -18 783 393 1,210 temperature 255K (-18 degrees) so this is the average
        place where Earth sends its radiation to space to cool itself
        5 -20 750 392 1,000
        6 -27 680 390 600
        ** zone above approx. this height has more CO2 than H2O **
        ** zone above approx. this height is not “saturated” with GHGs **
        ** zone above approx. this height produces most +CO2 & +CH4 warming **
        6.5 -30 645 390 475 At -29 degrees is average point that 83% radiation is sent to space from atmosphere
        7 -34 610 389 350
        8 -42 540 387 200 Contrails typically higher than this
        9 -49 470 386 120
        10 -56 420 384 70
        11 -56 370 384 40
        12 -56 320 381 25
        15 -56 200 376 10 ** 37.6x as much CO2 as H2O **
        ** not much +CO2 & +CH4 warming above approx. this height, air too thin **
        20 -56 90 368 8
        25 -52 40 360 8
        30 -47 20 352 8
        40 -25 5 344 8
        50 -3 1 336 7
        60 -18 0.39 328 7
        70 -50 0.125 320 5.5 to 6.5
        80 -83 0.027 312 2.5 avge (2 to 4.5)

    • otter17 Says:

      Make it look official by doing a short write-up in research paper format and press release. Then, I bet it could make the rounds at Climate Depot, Delingpole, or others in that blogosphere.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: