The Lemon Fool

mc2fool wrote:

XFool wrote:OMG. In that case I gave explicit links to that in my original post (not my OP "original post" on this thread...).

On the previous page I see. Yes, it passed me by, it didn't seem important.

mc2fool wrote:But on the "said it", said, "said" and didn't say, if you thought that was clear then that's your view I guess. A simple addition of "others incorrectly claimed s/he said" would have made it a lot clearer, and that's my view.

mc2fool wrote:

XFool wrote:Plus, a certain base level of knowledge is surely necessarily assumed by people interested in/discussing a particular issue? Do I have to explain who "Trump" is? Do I have to explain what a "President" is? Do I have to explain what "the USA" is? Do I have to explain who "Greta Thunberg" is? Do I have to start with "A is for Apple, B is for Breakfast..."?

Don't be silly.

mc2fool wrote:

XFool wrote:I only know what I know, I cannot know what others do not know.

Indeed, so if you assume what other people know then you might find that people think you come across as cryptic....

JohnB wrote:These aren't beliefs, they are facts and theories, because its science. Of course without CO2 the temperature of the Earth would be below zero, that's because of its warming properties, and why more CO2 means more warming. Vague 'but scientists might be wrong, they don't know everything' comments are dangerous as they give self justification to people who don't want to change their lives. The same is true of this hydrogen nonsense.

tjh290633 wrote:

JohnB wrote:These aren't beliefs, they are facts and theories, because its science. Of course without CO2 the temperature of the Earth would be below zero, that's because of its warming properties, and why more CO2 means more warming. Vague 'but scientists might be wrong, they don't know everything' comments are dangerous as they give self justification to people who don't want to change their lives. The same is true of this hydrogen nonsense.

I think that you will find that the effect of water vapour and cloud formation has a far greater effect than CO2 or any other so-called greenhouse gases. A look at the absorption spectra and the relative concentrations will demonstrate this.

The difference in temperature on clear and cloudy nights is an easy way to show this effect.

XFool wrote:

tjh290633 wrote:I think that you will find that the effect of water vapour and cloud formation has a far greater effect than CO2 or any other so-called greenhouse gases. A look at the absorption spectra and the relative concentrations will demonstrate this.

The difference in temperature on clear and cloudy nights is an easy way to show this effect.

Aarrggghhh! This, again?

Enough already.

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.
.
.
.
While water vapor may be the most dominant greenhouse gas by mass and volume, it certainly is not the primary culprit responsible for global warming. Rather it is part of an amplifying effect. As other greenhouse gases such as CO2, warm the atmosphere, the air is able to hold more water vapor. The water vapor traps more heat and further warms the atmosphere. Human activities have increased CO2 output, and responsible human activities can reduce its production. Unlike water vapor that returns to Earth as precipitation within one week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 50-200 years. Therefore, the best way to control global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions.

ursaminortaur wrote:

XFool wrote:Aarrggghhh! This, again?

Enough already.

TJH is correct that water vapour is responsible for most of the Earth's greenhouse effect. However it is only playing a minor role in climate change slightly amplifying the effects caused by the increase in CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for far longer.

swill453 wrote:I see it reported on Twitter that the Antarctic sea ice is right now more than six standard deviations less than the mean for the last 30 years.

A once-in-7.5-million-year event, apparently. Or one in 13 billion, reading some of the replies.

Seems a little concerning, anyway...

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/statu ... 1481286656

Scott.

ursaminortaur wrote:

swill453 wrote:I see it reported on Twitter that the Antarctic sea ice is right now more than six standard deviations less than the mean for the last 30 years.

A once-in-7.5-million-year event, apparently. Or one in 13 billion, reading some of the replies.

Seems a little concerning, anyway...

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/statu ... 1481286656

Scott.

Here is an article about it - though it talks about it being five standard deviations from the mean.

(A one in 13 billion year event would be once in the current lifetime of the universe)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

odysseus2000 wrote:

ursaminortaur wrote:
Here is an article about it - though it talks about it being five standard deviations from the mean.

(A one in 13 billion year event would be once in the current lifetime of the universe)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

Looks like a pot boiler article, just comments from a few scientists & one chart showing the deviation of the ice thickness.

For a scientific approach one needs to see the data as it has varied over time & then one can draw conclusions, this article is all about sensationalism.

Regards,

Sorcery wrote:

odysseus2000 wrote:
Looks like a pot boiler article, just comments from a few scientists & one chart showing the deviation of the ice thickness.

For a scientific approach one needs to see the data as it has varied over time & then one can draw conclusions, this article is all about sensationalism.

Regards,

It's also the old negative x axis trick, antarctic sea ice cannot go negative, so if correct it must mean it's a graph of sea ice relative to some average. Have seen elsewhere the green activists pulling the same trick for greenland ice. All the 5/6 sigma deviations or once in 7.5 million year event is probably rubbish too, it could be just an under water/ice volcano.

Sorcery wrote:

Sorcery wrote:
It's also the old negative x axis trick, antarctic sea ice cannot go negative, so if correct it must mean it's a graph of sea ice relative to some average. Have seen elsewhere the green activists pulling the same trick for greenland ice. All the 5/6 sigma deviations or once in 7.5 million year event is probably rubbish too, it could be just an under water/ice volcano.

That should be negative y axis trick, to be conventional.

ursaminortaur wrote:

Sorcery wrote:
That should be negative y axis trick, to be conventional.

Yes the twitter graph is better as it explicitly says in the graph title that it is relative to the 1991-2020 daily mean.

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/status/1683556231481286656

Sorcery wrote:It's also the old negative x axis trick, antarctic sea ice cannot go negative, so if correct it must mean it's a graph of sea ice relative to some average. Have seen elsewhere the green activists pulling the same trick for greenland ice. All the 5/6 sigma deviations or once in 7.5 million year event is probably rubbish too, it could be just an under water/ice volcano.

BullDog wrote:Very interesting article published yesterday by a company called Getech. These guys know what they're talking about with respect geology and gas. We'll worth a read by anyone interested in geological hydrogen reserves.

https://getech.com/blog/a-mineral-syste ... -deposits/

CliffEdge wrote:Of course you have to acknowledge that it's possible.