No, I pointed out that somebody who claimed there was no overlap was an idiot. You are trying to change the claim I rebuked.
It can’t radiate all energy, you know better than that. And it only radiates at the same bandwidth it absorbs, you also know that. And you also know that because of the massive effect water vapor has in the overlap area, CO2 doesn’t even matter there. It is only where water vapor is missing that it matters.
Yes, and along with O2 and O3 and H20 we call that the greenhouse effect.
You are moving away from the overlap question, but that’s OK, you are getting to the good stuff now.
How come those who think Dyson is correct cheerfully just ignore simple facts like these? Facts so well substantiated by the preponderance of scientific evidence provided by competent researchers who, unlike Dyson, are not in the grip of senile dementia, that they have been in scientific textbooks for decades.
Honestly, I’d have you on “ignore” if you weren’t so amusing. 
Well learning should be fun you know. Here are two easy to look at pictures. They are pretty much the same. Easy to see what happens and shit like that.
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Greenhouse_Gas_Absorption-dlh.png
They help visualize why Dyson repeated the facts about the enhanced greenhouse theory. It is that theory that global warming is based on. The attacks on his simple description are actually attacks on the theory of global warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.
That nobody realizes this is pretty funny.
There are damn good reasons the models which are based on the theory, predict exactly what Dyson described, which is now being attacked here.
Priceless.
:smack: to me for mislocating the quote.
So, that means that the actual number were right and not bogus. You haven’t profered other, no bogus numbers. Saying that the numbers were bogus was at odds with the truth.
and since I said
and
it’s not that I don’t know what the numbers mean.
My problem with 30 million tons was that, without context, the number is misleading.
That saying CO2 is the nexus of evil is simplistic without talking about how far it’s taken us.
I never said it did. It radiates all energy above it’s balance point. That’s what makes it a greenhouse gas, but you know better than that.
They radiate at the same wavelengths they directly absorb, but kinetic energy absorbed also radiates out at that same wavelength. You also know that.
And you also know that’s exactly what I said.
CO2 doesn’t have an overlap with O2 or O3. Which is why you may notice I left them out of a review of CO2’s influence.
Actually, I’m directly explaining why the overlaps matter. Water vapor doesn’t have a Nitrogen overlap and CO2 does. So one greenhouse gas causes one effect and another greenhouse gas causes a different effect based on the atmospheric composition. If it wasn’t nitrogen and was something like gaseous fluorine, it wouldn’t matter that CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
Instead, I was illustrating that the effectiveness of CO2 has little to do with the radiative wavelengths of the planet like you pretended, here:
And continued to pretend, here:
Warming the actual earf rock has little to do with what climate science is researching about.
While I depart from Gigo and similar in that I don’t subscribe to the assumption of catastrophe, for many reasons, the science of how the atmosphere is heating is fairly solid. The new and upcoming field of how this affects the oceans is proving interesting, too, though the understanding of that effect is still being sussed out.
Let’s not forget the point I made, quite plainly, about some blogger trying to act smarter than Dyson in these matters.
utter tripe. It’s a wrong statement, and this is obvious using the graphicfrom the NASA site wolfpup uses below.
Nobody is ignoring, in fact the graphic there clearly shows the overlapping bands of CO2 and H2O, which clearly shows why I said the blogger was an idiot.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2_H2O_absorption.png
There is only one place they do not overlap, and as I pointed out it isn’t an important band, too hot.
Nope, and that anyone thinks “there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2”, as our idiot blogger stated, is as dumb as he is.
You can clearly see the one place that does not overlap in the NASA graphic (thanks wolfpup)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2_H2O_absorption.png
If you can’t see that, there is no hope for you.
The other issue is saturation of absorption. If CO2 already has closed the window to a wavelength, adding more CO2 will not increase the absorption.
I did provide relevant numbers here and here. With the relevant context.
I provided context, you didn’t. Taken as posted, your information would have led the reader to an incorrect conclusion – that the human CO2 contribution wasn’t very significant. The isolated facts you posted were correct but devoid of critical factual context. That’s called “spin” in any political playbook and “deception” in any dictionary. It’s also SOP for denialists.
I’d like you to find where I, or where any climate scientist providing information on climate change, has referred to CO2 as “the nexus of evil”. For someone so particular about the exact phraseology of what you did or didn’t say, you seem very loose with what you attribute to others.
You need to explain what you mean by Nitrogen overlap, since the term isn’t a climate or even a physics term.
What do you mean by nitrogen overlap?
You know better than that. It does not radiate “all the energy it picks up from any source”, and it loses as much energy as it gains from collisions, it’s not somehow always gaining energy, and radiating it away.
If it acted like that it would be a cooling gas, not a greenhouse gas.
No, what will really fry your noodle is the fact that you admitted to the warming in the artistic that the OP was onto, and you tried for several pages to claim that it could be dismissed, when Dyson all along was agreeing with it, the problem remains that Dyson accepts that and then right away claims that the warming is just happening there and not elsewhere, leading to claim that the rise in temperature is not global. That is were he is wrong as the contributors to RealCiamate reported.
The idea from Dyson is indeed to not to deny the warming where it is so clear anyone can notice it (and as some have noticed that warming in the north is a factor for the changes in the the circulation pasterns in the north pole.) but to then deny that there is warming going elsewhere, that is what Dyson still gets wrong. And of course the reason is simple, to claim that the warming of the poles* (once again, repeatedly poo pooed by you but accepted by Dyson) is a local item and is not applicable to a global average.
The real funny thing is that as usual I was right: there are no easy pickings from the “experts” you rely on, in reality there is a lot that they have to admit that in the end they do not help unfounded ideas that we should dismiss the warming reported in the arctic because there was “no surface stations”, when it is clear that Dyson can not deny what thermometers from there reported and report. (and there were several instrumental recorders in the area)
*And yes, that does include Antarctica, of course if climate4you was correct they shitted on Dyson too. indeed, all that shows why there are no easy pickings for the cherry pickers.
No, you are still wrong of course. Like how you agreed with some idiot blogger that “Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2”, which I pointed out is so dumb if you don’t know why that is wrong, you have no business in a debate over global warming.
I told you he was wrong, and you doubled down.
Nope, and no matter how many times you post, it won’t make you right.
But at least you finally figured out why arguing with Dyson was futile.
Correction: what will really fry your noodle is the fact that you admitted to the warming that the article posted by the OP was on about.
[quote=“wolfpup, post:428, topic:679056”]
I did provide relevant numbers here and here. With the relevant context.
So, my numbers were right, thanx.
You continue to miss where I said
where I clearly acknolwedged stuff.
Well you said
so, nexus of all evil is a correct metaphor.
You call “phraseology” on me? I gave exact numbers, with a proviso, and you call them “bogus” and you go with the “phraseology” defense?
Lemme get this straight.
You said
without comparing it to the natural production on CO2, therefore, negating any context, and it’s right.
I provide a contex for the 30 with 750, 25 times, 4%, and say it could be very bad and you call it bogus and without context and spin.
Nice.
Read it again, the contributors of RealClimate were correct, as I pointed out. Your sorry failed narrative is to hang on to a single rhetorical affirmation so as to ignore the mess of errors that Dyson runs into.
That is nice, everyone else can notice how you are avoiding that there was more to the quote than that, and that you are continuing to run away from the contributors from RealClimate.
Just a misunderstanding from you, in reality Dyson was like the blind squirrel that finds a nut, nice for him, but that is not what he is only speaking about, it is clearly his denial of what is going on with the warming elsewhere that is the problem.
As it is the huge contradiction of your continuous attempts at clouding the issue of the clear warming of the poles that not even Dyson could deny. What it is clear is that all those denier sources you pointed early that told us by implication that there was no warming going on the Arctic and Antarctic were also shitting on Dyson, glad we could figure that out.
Before we see yet another GIGO, I mean Gish gallop here, lets get a scientific issue settled.
When you look at a graph of absorption by greenhouse gases, or even just CO2 and water vapor, do you think it is showing the possible absorption? Or is it showing the measured absorption?
Nobody said there was an overlap. I was pointing out that those gases are responsible for what we call the greenhouse effect. It’s what keeps the earth warmer than it would be with out any water vapor or O2 and O3 in the atmosphere.
In the same way that the sun is a “cooling star”: if it’s radiating energy until it reaches it’s equilibrium energy state, it’s warming what’s around it. And it’s always gaining energy from kinetic sources as well as radiative sources that it turns right back around and gets rid of.
And, actually, CO2 could be used as a coolant. Unfortunately, it’s most beneficial state would be when it’s a liquid, which is when it’s at ~5 atmospheres and below 31 C. In 1 atm, it goes from solid -> gas without stopping off at liquidity. As such, it’s useless for us as a coolant material because we’d have to have a very strong and durable material to contain it, which would make heat transfer hard. (Our durable materials tend to get thicker for durability.)
:dubious: It was describing the 3-5 um wavelength overlap between CO2 and Nitrogen gas on their respective absorptive spectrums as well as the lack of such an overlap for H2O, which is precisely what I said in those two posts you were responding to. Reading comprehension is A-double-plus.
Sounds to me like saying that before we look at what scientists reported about what Dyson got wrong, and how the little of what he got right in reality turns the past say so’s of FX into nonsense that is.
And you really do not know what a Gish Gallop is, that is a creationist special (and climate deniers like Spencer are too). Recently I linked to a post from Skeptico with that we have just about more than a dozen skeptical groups and fighters of pseudoscience that continue to tell us that you can not properly identify what is science and what is not. And who is a real expert from the ones that are not.
An absorption spectrum is a spectrum used to show what wavelengths are absorbed by materials and how much energy potential can be absorbed from that wavelength. A 100% absorption means that it will halt that wavelength from proceeding due to fully absorbing the energy potential of that wavelength.
What actually happens, is the energy from the wavelength excites the electrons in a particular orbital shell and they jump from their stable orbits into unstable higher energy orbits. As that electron orbit decays, the energy is given back off in a similar, and sometimes slightly less energetic, wavelength and the electron returns to it’s original orbit.
Each atom or compound reacts to different wavelengths because each atom or compound holds it’s electrons differently and it takes varying wavelengths and energy intensities to excite them, based on the strength of the nuclear forces holding that electron into the orbit or bond configuration. If you pump enough energy into a material, you’ll create a plasma, where all of the electrons are free-wheeling billiard balls being captured and released from random atom/compound orbits.
The more complex the atom or compound (or “the more natural electron orbits occupied”) the more wavelengths absorbed.