tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post450129473187259915..comments2024-03-04T03:41:00.002-05:00Comments on Skeptic's Corner: Spit and Pie ChartsJerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-57647533788749650762020-10-28T14:37:54.621-04:002020-10-28T14:37:54.621-04:00Retained heat in the desert is vary sensitive to p...Retained heat in the desert is vary sensitive to precipitable water. A modest amount of evaporative cooling drives the wet bulb up 10 deg. f. The wet bulb is directly proportional to the heat content of the air. Most climate remediators do not seem to be aware of this. This is a destabilizing effect that is greater or equal to CO2.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09393500633210459386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-862707225709170002018-08-28T17:20:10.896-04:002018-08-28T17:20:10.896-04:00"as you increase carbon dioxide in the atmosp..."as you increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, atmospheric temperatures will rise"<br /><br />this is not how it works, sorry to say. CharlieHustlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14483049604047186358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-13537816642838751762018-03-11T12:37:51.422-04:002018-03-11T12:37:51.422-04:00Water vapor may be a powerful greenhouse gas, but ...Water vapor may be a powerful greenhouse gas, but it's concentration in the atmosphere is controlled entirely by the heat of the atmosphere. (water vapor is produced by evaporation.) This means that you can't change the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere unless you change the temperature. Thus water vapor cannot cause warming, it can only enhance it. CO2 on the other hand is not controlled by temperature. What your data shows demonstrates that as you increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, atmospheric temperatures will rise and causing more water to evaporate and more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is known in science as a 'positive feedback mechanism'. <br /> <br />Additionally you fail to understand the role of natural hydrological and carbon cycles.Broadly speaking (at least on human timescales) they are in balance. Think of it like this - You have an airport with space for 100 people.100 people arrive each hour and 100 people leave each hour. The airport is in balance (scientifically this is called a dynamic equilibrium). If you increase the number of people coming in by 1 to 101 (in other words by just 1%) then the system is no longer in balance and the airport will begin to become overcrowded. This is why a tiny increase in carbon dioxide to a carbon cycle that is already in balance can lead to a build up in atmospheric concentration and this is exactly what we have seen. Yes when compared with the total amount of greenhouse gases human contributions make up less than 1 %, but that doesn't mean they are insignificant, just like adding 1 person to inbound flights in the airport analogy will make a significant difference after a while.<br /><br />In short, the data you are describing doesn't mean what you think it means and, rather than being 'covered up' or 'ignored', it is well known and well understood by climate scientists.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13540656831602711620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-25910558910464031592014-06-07T19:39:36.121-04:002014-06-07T19:39:36.121-04:00Well said.... And even though there are few commen...Well said.... And even though there are few comments it may mean more that people read and move on without commenting.... austenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10121112045808909968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-36521673372167781992010-09-11T21:46:50.174-04:002010-09-11T21:46:50.174-04:00It is hard to believe that there has been only one...It is hard to believe that there has been only one comment left so far....<br /><br />While the numbers given in this blog post MAY be basically correct regarding such items as the relative atmospheric concentrations (in molarity, presumably) of various greenhouse gases (GHG), the percentage emissions of CO2 by source, the percentage emissions of various GHG by source, and the percentage molar concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, they are largely irrelevant. Nothing is said of absorption. If water vapor is, at least on average, absorbed as much as it is emitted, then the 95.00% figure makes it that much easier to show that a change in other emissions could make a noticeable contribution to the so-called greenhouse effect. This leaves a possible 0.28/5.00, or 5.6%, new contribution that nature (or man) must absorb or that will result in an increase of the "greenhouse effect". If then any GHG contributors other than CO2 (CO2 implied in this blog post as being the same as all man-made GHG contributions) are absorbed at roughly the same rate as emitted, then this 5.6% change figure will rise accordingly in relation to what nature (or, again, man) must absorb in order to prevent an increase in the "greenhouse effect".<br /><br />I am not a doomsayer and certainly do not agree with the severity of many of the climate change predictions, but I think we are not without cause for some alarm, and the misdirection by both sides on this issue (including this blog post) does the public a disservice.dustythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17817501105269446767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-64304106164286557382009-06-02T09:48:41.404-04:002009-06-02T09:48:41.404-04:00Love this post! I've been trying to explain this ...Love this post! I've been trying to explain this to people, but they continue to buy into the media alarmist BS and it's driving me nuts! Now this latest Cap and Trade legislation is coming up and it's going to accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than to take more money out of our pockets.Laurie Neverman, The Common Sense Womanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371278544210919951noreply@blogger.com