[Truth To Power]

OK, you agree that our instruments can detect the change that results from adding the thin cotton blanket. You just assert that it is not enough to heat the earth enough to matter. Did you do any math to see if that is true.

Of course.

I did some math (that you dismissed as worthless) that showed just how tiny a change is needed to heat the earth the small amount that we are now measuring in tempts over a decade.

It's worthless because it assumes the result.

Whether or not the man in the bed could tell the difference is not the point. He is thinking about a minute or 2 and not over the 5,256,000 min. in a decade.

It won't make any difference no matter how long he sleeps in.

On Oct 31 I posted this in an edit. However, because a power failure here somehow blocked my internet access for many hours, the edit was incomplete.
I'll post it again here for those who missed it then and add more explanation.

TtP, you assume that the air just sits there. It doesn't. There are 6 cells of air flow that ring the world like doughnuts, 3 in the northern hemisphere and 3 in the south. Air rises on one side of the dells, flows across the top of the cell, then falls down to the surface and flows across the bottom of the cell being heated, until it rises again on the other side of the cell. It is constantly going round and round. When it is rising it's because it is hotter. This carries warmer air high up in the atmosphere where it can radiate heat to space without going through saturated air that isn't above it. TtP, you've had this explained (but not as clearly) and reject it, for your strange reasons.
Look at this wiki article to see an image of the atmospheric air circulations in the diagram near the top right corner. The arrows showing the air flows are on the right side of the globe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospher ... errel_cell

TtP. please click on the link to see an image of a diagram of how these 6 cells are constantly rotating, so warm air in 6 different bands is rising every day high in the atmosphere and taking the heat from the surface air with them.
So, TtP, I do not think that you realize just how much air is rising every day as those 6 bands that circle the earth are doing their thing. That air rises above most of the air and it is glowing in IR light. The air in the stratosphere has very little water vapor in it. So, most of the air above the air that just rose is not going to absorb like air at the surface does.

Again, this is a vast amount of air that is rising every day. My seat of the pants estimate of how much air is about 1% of the air each day, So, between 0.5% and 1.5% of the air each day. Even if it is 10% of that, it is still a vast amount of air.

Can you explain why you think that these new facts don't change your mind?

Because it's all the same with or without human CO2 and methane emissions.

[Truth To Power]

Then explain how it supports your claim.

"Hence, any radiation that CH 4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H 2 O. The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH 4 are completely masked by H 2 O."

As I prophesied, and knew with 100% certainty would be the case, you have read this before, but simply refuse to know it. It's always the same.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

You seem confused.

You are discussing evidence that looks at the present amount of methane. This is not what you are claiming.

You are, instead, making a claim about what would happen if more methane were added.

The evidence presented suggests that adding a small amount of methane would have very little (but still a non-zero amount) impact, but that this would be significant if more methane were added.

Do you disagree that the impact would be proportional to the amount emitted?

[Steve_American]

Of course.

1] It's [my calculation to show how little temp increase per day is needed to get the increase per decade we are measuring] worthless because it assumes the result.

It won't make any difference no matter how long he sleeps in.

2] Because it's all the same with or without [additional] human CO2 and methane emissions.

1] Yes, I started with the increase in temps being measured per decade. The calculation merely shows that the increase per day is tiny. I did this because you had agreed that there is an increase but it is tiny, too tiny to matter. I was showing the lurkers and you, if your mind was open, that the temp increase per day needed is tiny. IIRC, it was about 0.0003 deg. C/day =3/10,000 deg. C/day, this seems pretty tiny.

2] I added the "additional" to make our claims conform to what you said.

You have claimed that all the H2O vapor and NO2 in the massive amount of air above the surface will absorb the IR photons anyway, so more CO2 and CH4 added to the air (and thoroughly mixed into the air) has no more IR photons to absorb. I showed that a massive amount of air is moving high into the atmosphere every day where it is above almost all the H2O vapor and NO2, and you say this makes no difference,
. . . It seems like you are claiming that the H2O vapor and NO2 are still there mixed with the CO2 and CH4 as they all are carried high into the air. But, as the air rises it cools, as it cools more and more H2O vapor condenses into tiny drops that form clouds and then some falls as rain. The air higher up is much drier than air down low as a result of this.

I assert without evidence or source that some scientists have sampled the air at all altitudes so they know what is in the air at all altitudes. And, they include this data in their models when they do the calculations that show that more CO2 and Methane added to the air will heat the earth just a tiny bit every day, and these tiny bits do add up over a decade to the 0.18 deg. C temp increase that we have measured, IIRC. IIRC, the amount measured is increasing now, though.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

You seem confused.

No I don't.

You are discussing evidence that looks at the present amount of methane. This is not what you are claiming.

You are, instead, making a claim about what would happen if more methane were added.

The evidence presented suggests that adding a small amount of methane would have very little (but still a non-zero amount) impact, but that this would be significant if more methane were added.

No it doesn't.

Do you disagree that the impact would be proportional to the amount emitted?

Yes. Even implausibly large methane emissions would have no discernible effect on climate because its absorption spectrum is already oversaturated.

[Truth To Power]

1] Yes, I started with the increase in temps being measured per decade.

Which is a bogus number.

The calculation merely shows that the increase per day is tiny. I did this because you had agreed that there is an increase but it is tiny, too tiny to matter. I was showing the lurkers and you, if your mind was open, that the temp increase per day needed is tiny. IIRC, it was about 0.0003 deg. C/day =3/10,000 deg. C/day, this seems pretty tiny.

It only seems tiny to you because you don't know any science. "Tiny" would be more like 0.0000003C/day.

2] I added the "additional" to make our claims conform to what you said.
You have claimed that all the H2O vapor and NO2 in the massive amount of air above the surface will absorb the IR photons anyway, so more CO2 and CH4 added to the air (and thoroughly mixed into the air) has no more IR photons to absorb. I showed that a massive amount of air is moving high into the atmosphere every day where it is above almost all the H2O vapor and NO2, and you say this makes no difference,
. . . It seems like you are claiming that the H2O vapor and NO2 are still there mixed with the CO2 and CH4 as they all are carried high into the air. But, as the air rises it cools, as it cools more and more H2O vapor condenses into tiny drops that form clouds and then some falls as rain. The air higher up is much drier than air down low as a result of this.

It's the same whether there are any human CO2 and CH4 emissions or not.

I assert without evidence or source that some scientists have sampled the air at all altitudes so they know what is in the air at all altitudes. And, they include this data in their models when they do the calculations that show that more CO2 and Methane added to the air will heat the earth just a tiny bit every day,

They don't. Anti-CO2 liars (not scientists) use the US Standard Atmosphere, which contains no H2O, in their models. The tiny bit of increase is more like my idea of tiny than yours.

and these tiny bits do add up over a decade to the 0.18 deg. C temp increase that we have measured, IIRC. IIRC, the amount measured is increasing now, though.

Your basic error is assuming that the up-phase of a natural cycle is actually a human-caused secular trend.

[Pants-of-dog]

No I don't.

No it doesn't.

Yes. Even implausibly large methane emissions would have no discernible effect on climate because its absorption spectrum is already oversaturated.

Then you need to present evidence that shows this.

If you argue that the evidence already shown supports this claim, then you are incorrect. so if you do, this argument will be dismissed as I will assume that you do not actually understand the problem.

[Truth To Power]

Then you need to present evidence that shows this.

I have.

If you argue that the evidence already shown supports this claim, then you are incorrect.

No, I am not.

so if you do, this argument will be dismissed as I will assume that you do not actually understand the problem.

It is you who do not understand the relevant physics of radiative heat transfer.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Your complete lack of support for an argument is noted.

Have a good evening.

———————

Methane seems to have quite a significant impact on anthropogenic climate change.

It is considered less important than CO2 mostly because it does not last long in the atmosphere: about twenty years compared with the 150 years that CO2 is active.

But it traps way more heat. 28 times as much. So, in the short term, it is causing a significant amount of global warming.

[Steve_American]

1] Which is a bogus number.

It only seems tiny to you because you don't know any science. "Tiny" would be more like 0.0000003C/day.

It's the same whether there are any human CO2 and CH4 emissions or not.

2] They don't. Anti-CO2 liars (not scientists) use the US Standard Atmosphere, which contains no H2O, in their models. The tiny bit of increase is more like my idea of tiny than yours.

Your basic error is assuming that the up-phase of a natural cycle is actually a human-caused secular trend.

1] Says you. I assert that this number (which is the temp increase measured over a decade) is the true measured temp increase. It is a fucking measurement.

2] You are totally wrong there. Most climate models include the amount of water vapor because it increases as temps are increased. So, to leave it out would be stupid.

The link is from just an example article or paper from 2008, A quote from it is =>

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So, to not include something that changes as temps increase and can double the amount of heat being trapped would make the model one is using useless. Your assertion without any evidence is therefore without merit. Somebody must be lying, maybe your source is the one.

https://phys.org/news/2008-11-vapor-maj ... imate.html

.

[Truth To Power]

Methane seems to have quite a significant impact on anthropogenic climate change.

If you ignore the relevant physics.

But it traps way more heat. 28 times as much. So, in the short term, it is causing a significant amount of global warming.

Nonscience. Methane has no discernible effect on climate because its absorption spectrum is already fully saturated by natural H2O and N2O. The 28x figure is completely meaningless because it ignores the context of the actual atmosphere.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Discussing this with you seems pointless.

You habitually refuse to provide evidence, the evidence you do provide often contradicts your own claims, and you are rude and disrespectful to those who disagree with you.

[Steve_American]

1] Says you. I assert that this number (which is the temp increase measured over a decade) is the true measured temp increase. It is a fucking measurement.

2] You are totally wrong there. Most climate models include the amount of water vapor because it increases as temps are increased. So, to leave it out would be stupid.

The link is from just an example article or paper from 2008, A quote from it is =>


So, to not include something that changes as temps increase and can double the amount of heat being trapped would make the model one is using useless. Your assertion without any evidence is therefore without merit. Somebody must be lying, maybe your source is the one.

https://phys.org/news/2008-11-vapor-maj ... imate.html

.

Lurkers, please note that it has been about 2.6 weeks and T_P has not responded to this post.

That means he could not think of a thing to say to my 2 points that reject his claims.
.

[Steve_American]

Everyone, please note that Methane is a powerful GHG. It reduces though as OH ions in the air, caused by H2O being split by light photons, reacts with the CH4 to "burn" it to CO2, according to reports I've seen. Reports I've seen disagree on how fast this happens from a decade to several decades, So, various reports I've seen say that Methane is from 20 to 100 times worse by molecule than CO2.

However, if more and more methane is being released into the air by tropical wetlands and also by permafrost, then the amount added in a year less the amount burned in the air is the relevant amount. This can be and is being measured. It is increasing rapidly.

If we assume that a molecule of Methane is 80 times worse than one of CO2 then the amount of heating form this new unexpected source means that the world is heating much faster than predicted by models. Note also the report I linked above that said that temp increases also increase the amount of water vapor in the air, and this also traps much more heat.

I predicted 3 years ago that methane is going to be a major tipping point that would be a sign of big problems coming soon.

It seems like I was correct.

I'm very worried that things will get worse sooner than had been predicted, much sooner.

This is evidence that we must act NOW to have any chance to avoid a +3 deg. C temp increase that will make the Middle East uninhabitable, so 780 million people will be desperate to move somewhere. Also, other areas will be uninhabitable.

This temp is likely enough to cause the collapse of civilization.

We will not act, though. The Repubs in the US will block action. In fact. IMHO, about 90% of Americans will block what is necessary, yes necessary! Because what is necessary is a rationing program to slash CO2 emissions which will also slash GDP. This will cause what seems like a depression, in GDP terms. However, if the rationing program is done right, everyone will get enough to eat and a place to live, etc. The very poor would even be better off. All need not be equal though. The rich and super-rich can get extra ration "coupons", maybe need to buy them with millions or billions of dollars.

This program is the only way to act NOW in a decisive enough way to have any chance of keeping civilization from collapsing. Mark my words.
I'm like Casandra. Nobody will listen, so the disaster will happen. I give it about a decade, 2 at most. And maybe as soon as 5 years. It depends on how fast Methane is released, of it just keeps increasing the rate of release, if the rate increases exponentially, and what the doubling time is.
.

[Truth To Power]

1] Says you. I assert that this number (which is the temp increase measured over a decade) is the true measured temp increase. It is a fucking measurement.

It is a meaningless "measurement" because it undercorrects for urban heating, land use changes, and other human activities other than CO2 emissions that affect thermometer readings.

2] You are totally wrong there. Most climate models include the amount of water vapor because it increases as temps are increased. So, to leave it out would be stupid.

Not the climate models (GCMs), the radiative heat transfer models they use to estimate the effect of adding GHGs.

So, to not include something that changes as temps increase and can double the amount of heat being trapped would make the model one is using useless.

It is absurd to think the tiny increase in water vapor could double the heat being trapped. If that were the case, the earth's climate would be wildly unstable. It isn't, because the effect is logarithmic, not antilogarithmic. So those models in fact are useless.

[Steve_American]

1] It is a meaningless "measurement" because it undercorrects for urban heating, land use changes, and other human activities other than CO2 emissions that affect thermometer readings.

2] Not the climate models (GCMs), the radiative heat transfer models they use to estimate the effect of adding GHGs.

3] It is absurd to think the tiny increase in water vapor could double the heat being trapped. If that were the case, the earth's climate would be wildly unstable. It isn't, because the effect is logarithmic, not antilogarithmic. So those models in fact are useless.

1] Why should we take his word for this claim?

2] AFAIK, the radiative heat models are a small part of the climate change models.

3] Sorry I was not clear. The increased water vapor traps heat about equal to the amount trapped by the increased methane. So, the amount trapped by the increased methane doubles the total increase in the amount trapped.
.

[Rich]

So, because the last Ice Age has already ended with a methane termination event,

So this is what I mean the Liberals just can't stop lying. They seem to think that everyone is as ignorant as they are. I've since read some of the later posts, I'm relieved to see that others have picked up on it., but this outrageous lie stood out to me straight away.

And then there's the narcissism of the Liberals. This poster writes something as ignorant and wrong as this, but at the same time imagines he's some special fount of wisdom that "the lurkers" as he calls them should look to, if they want a quick summary of the facts. He imagines he's so smart, knowledgeable and objective that he's the poster that these so called lurkers should put their blind faith in if they're too lazy to follow the debate.

[Steve_American]

So this is what I mean the Liberals just can't stop lying. They seem to think that everyone is as ignorant as they are. I've since read some of the later posts, I'm relieved to see that others have picked up on it., but this outrageous lie stood out to me straight away.

On what basis do you assert that the last Glacial Period didn't end with a methane termination event?

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

@Pants-of-dog
Discussing this -- or anything else -- with you seems pointless -- and I have had PMs from other members concurring with that conclusion.

You habitually refuse to provide evidence, the evidence you do provide often contradicts your own claims,

Those claims are false.

and you are rude and disrespectful to those who disagree with you.

OK, you got me -- because those who disagree with me invariably prove themselves to be dishonest, and not worthy of respect.