The radiative gases verses CAGW

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The radiative gases verses CAGW

Post by SamCogar on Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:16 pm

[author unknown]

During sunlight, radiative gases, CO2 and water vapor, absorb, emit, and convert energy from heat to IR and the reverse, such that the effects are a wash in sunlight, they being saturated at the time.

It is at night that these gases actively cool the air, converting heat energy to IR, which can then be lost to space. This is why the air cools down so rapidly after sunset and why little breezes kick up so quickly on partly cloudy days as air rapidly cools in the shadows of the moving clouds.

Remember, none of the computer climate models have night-time. They are all 24/7 day-time. They completely ignore the outward energy flux at night as well as the massive global heat engine called the “water cycle” that carries about 85% of the solar input energy budget from the surface to altitude where it is lost to space. The climate models only consider radiative energy movement; a huge mistake.

This latter omission is massive, as the water cycle is a large negative feedback mechanism that is left out of climate model considerations. Instead, the models pretend that water vapor acts as a positive feedback mechanism, which not only totally ignores the water cycle, but creates a false situation that engenders the “runaway greenhouse” fantasies. The warmist “climate science” is fatally flawed, with the models leaving out over 50 major climate factors that are much larger than that of a trace gas in the atmosphere that, if it does have any effect, would be undetectable.

Do not forget that we cannot double CO2 in the atmosphere, as it partitions 50 to 1 into the oceans. To double the CO2 in the atmosphere, we would have to emit 51 times as much CO2 as 50 out of 51 parts would go into the hydrosphere. If we burned all of the available carbon of all kinds, the best we could do is raise atmospheric CO2 by 20%. As real world data clearly shows that our changing emission rates in the last ten years have no effect on the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, this exercise ends up being a waste of time.

SamCogar

Number of posts : 6238
Location : Burnsville, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum