WOW, I had no idea that such a small amount of dust could change albedo of the visible and near IR by that much!
They don't give it enough merit, just like they don't give solar enough merit.
UV light isn't being generated by the Earth. There is nothing to 'trap'. It is not possible to trap light. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.
What UV? Earth doesn't generate UV!
UV is never converted to heat upon absorption. It converts to chemical reactions.
Only by twits in the 'climate' division of NASA.
Air temperature has nothing to do with ozone production, at least not until you get to a few thousand degrees.
CFCs don't affect ozone. You can put them both in a common tank and nothing will happen.
What CFC's? Did you know that cosmic rays occur EVERYWHERE ON EARTH?
There is CO2 in Antarctica, just like everywhere else.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Buzzword fallacy. What do you mean by 'solar effect'?
Argument from randU fallacy. CFC's do not affect either ozone or CO2.
Mitigation of what? Void argument.
There is no frequency term for albedo, emissivity, or absortivity. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law either.
They don't give it enough merit, just like they don't give solar enough merit.
Absolutely. Dust and soot definitely cause melting. I've said this before. The IPCC incorporates that into their criteria. Quaestio posted this IPCC graph earlier.
View attachment 67252086
I don't really see an issue with CO2 ether, but we do have an energy problem.There are no issues with CO2. We don't have an energy problem.
Try this, find some snow on the ground, and scatter some ashes on top of 1 square foot, and no ashes on another square foot.There is no frequency term for albedo, emissivity, or absortivity. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law either.
Whilst that graph shows that they have considered the effect of dust and soot in terms of general forcing (to a very tiny amount) it does not show the effect of changes in surface albedo that then cause melting which uncovers a darker surface. The old positive feedback thing that the alarmists panic about.
It's just amazing - all these novice scientists that know more than thousands and thousands of the world's most acclaimed Climatologists.:roll:
More irrefutable evidence that we have a real problem.
I heard 20 years in 1975..let us know when it actually melts.
When you're looking upward at the sea level, you'll know it quite well.
Been hearing that for 50 years. My boat still goes in at the same exact boat ramps...tide marks unchanged my entire life. Why were their predictions wrong?
There's that arrogance again. In your wet dreams, you know more than thousands of phD scientists who have studied the issues all their lives.
Unknown. No one has measured the spectrum of lightning. Electric arcs can produce UV light and so lightning is assume to produce it, but any that is produced is not trapped. You can't trap light.Well, no. Lightning, for instance, produces UV light.
WRONG. UV light converts to chemical reactions upon absorption, not heating. See quantum physics.False. UV light can be absorbed and converted to heat just like any other wavelength of light.
Irrelevant. CFC and ozone do not react.Well, you might notice that the atmosphere is not a tank in a lab...
WRONG! There is no such thing as an 'electromagnetic field'.Yes and no, cosmic rays are deflected and move along electromagnetic fields.
Are you confusing magnetic fields with electromagnetic energy?and so are concentrated in the atmosphere at the polls where the field bends into the poll.
WRONG. The Auroras are caused by high energy ions and electrons in the solar wind striking the atmosphere. THESE particles are part of the solar wind, and ARE deflected by the magnetic field of Earth, being charged particles. These are not cosmic rays.That concentration of cosmic rays is what cause the auoras at the polls.
WRONG. Cosmic rays have nothing to do with the Sun at all.Likewise, the amount of cosmic rays that hit earth changes dramatically with the solar cycles.
WRONG. If Earth were that close, we would essentially be almost INSIDE the Sun! We would be far closer than Mercury is.The Earth is close enough to the sun that during the un's energetic cycles the Earth is inside the sun's magnetosphere,
WRONG. Cosmic rays are not affected by the solar wind or the magnetic fields of Earth.and so the Earth is protected from a lot of cosmic rays...
WRONG. Cosmic rays are relatively constant, regardless of solar activity.during a low cycle, like we are entering into now, the Earth is outside the magnetosphere so the amount of cosmic rays increases significantly.
This part is correct. You got one right.CO2 is not uniformly distributed around the globe,
Sort of. Life itself can generate CO2, and that tends to warmer regions.and is in lower concentrations in cold regions than it is in hot regions.
WRONG. The ocean water is not saturated with CO2. Warmer ocean water does NOT need to vent 'excess' CO2 since the amount of CO2 dissolved in ocean water is nowhere near the saturation point.Equatorial oceans vent CO2 as the water flowing from the north and south polls are warmed,
WRONG. No ocean water is anywhere near the saturation point of dissolved CO2.and in the colder regions towards the polls the ocean is a net CO2 sink, where colder water has a higher capacity to absorb CO2 and so it does.
This part is correct.Likewise, land areas have different CO2 generation, and the CO2 doesn't immediately spread across the globe.
WRONG. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.It is possible to make a fairly accurate map the atmospheric temperature using satellites.
Still the problem today. There is no magick satellite that can read an absolute temperature.Before then, you are correct, the ability to measure the temperature of the earth was greatly reduced, and until the last 80 years or so there was practically zero coverage of the southern hemisphere.
Yes you did.Neither I or the paper made a claim about CFCs effecting CO2,
You just did it again! WRONG! CFCs and ozone do NOT react.but CFCs do effect Ozone.
WRONG. Chlorine is a highly reactive gas. It reacts with something else long before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. It is also denser than air. It tends to fall (just like CFCs do), rather than to rise into the ozone layer. Chlorine will usually react with hydrogen and water in the air.When UV hits a CFC it creates a chlorine molecule, the chlorine molecule breaks apart of O3 molecule.
WRONG. No one is using R-12 refrigerant at the poles. No need to, you see. No CFC's or chlorine.The reason that this happens so readily in the polar region is because the temperatures need to be below -78°C to create and maintain free chlorine molecules.
Wow, you can't seem to make in-roads with your fellow Conservatives or Liberals. You may need to find another political party. Maybe we need another party that starts with the letter "W", like the old Whip Party. How about the Whacko Party?
They don’t just make up those graphs, you know.
Yes you do. You've stated it several times.I don't really see an issue with CO2 ether,
No, we don't. We produce all the energy people are willing to pay for.but we do have an energy problem.
There is plenty and to spare.Our energy problem is that we do not have enough stored energy in the ground,
Define 'first world', 'second world', 'third world', or any other number 'world' and how they have anything to do with lifestyles.to allow every person of earth to live a first world lifestyle if they choose to, for very long.
Nope. The conditions to make more oil takes only hours. No matter where you drill on Earth, if you drill deep enough, you WILL find oil. Oil tends to come closest to the surface near the edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is taking place.Ever if oil recharges itself, we would quickly exceed the recharge rate.
Piddle power. All of the solar energy panels combined in any State doesn't equal even a tenth of a single oil, coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear power plant produces. It's expensive too.Solar power with energy storage, has the potential to allow everyone on the planet to
achieve a first world lifestyle if they choose to.
Try this, find some snow on the ground, and scatter some ashes on top of 1 square foot, and no ashes on another square foot.
See which one melts faster.
It's just amazing - all these novice scientists that know more than thousands and thousands of the world's most acclaimed Climatologists.:roll:
Not just novices...anonymous novices.
When you're looking upward at the sea level, you'll know it quite well.
Sea level rise map.
View attachment 67252226
The map shows an average of a 80mm rise since the mid '90s. That's 8 cm, which is a little over 3 inches. You probably wouldn't notice that on your boat dock - huh? However, we should all heed the warning. You can double that in 10 years, and quadruple it in 20 years, etc, etc... Then you look at a high tide, and all of a sudden the infrastructure isn't adequate, and the salt water flooding wreaks havoc, including contamination of the fresh water.
If some of these huge glaciers Arctic and Antarctic start breaking loose, that's when we would incur catastrophic, instantaneous sea level rise. Next thing, you'll be saying --- "More government, more government --- fix my dock, find my boat"...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?