Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: All you need to know about atmospheric physics

By: monkeytrots in GRITZ | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 14 Feb 25 5:21 AM | 16 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens! 		Msg. 03961 of 04563
(This msg. is a reply to 03959 by De_Composed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

chuckling to myself ...

>>> Maybe this statement does not rock everyone’s boat, but for me it seems astounding that a decrease in low cloud cover of only a few percent could largely compensate for the impact from a doubling of CO2.

100% assbackwards ... decreasing the low cloud cover HEATS up the earth, exactly the same direction 'of effect' of increasing CO2 levels - although the cloud cover DOES have much larger effects for much smaller changes that CO2. HOWEVER THE MECHANISM OF HEATING EFFECT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Lower cloud cover REFLECTS incoming solar radiation (sunshine) ... so lower the cloud cover, earth gets hotter. A cloudless day is much warmer than a cloudy day for the same time of year. CO2 absorbs OUTGOING radiation (earthshine if you will ie. causes heating/retaining heat) but allows almost 100% OF INCOMING RADIATION (sunshine) to pass unimpeded through.

The original statements (not the authors confused understanding)

Greenhouse gases also affect heat transfer, but much less than clouds. Absolutely INCORRECT/FALSE statement.

*water vapor [humidity, not clouds]" IS a 'greenhouse gas) and has a 9 to 10 times GREATER greenhouse effect than all the other 'gases' combined. Greenhouse effect and 'heat transfer' ARE NOT synonymous terms and are NOT interchangeable.

Correct statements:
For example, ‘instantaneously doubling’ CO2 concentrations, a 100% increase, only decreases radiation to space by about 1%. To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent. (both sentences correct/TRUE)

The author got confused with increasing/decreasing and incoming versus outgoing, absorption vs reflection; due to awkward but correct wording of the original statements that he THOUGHT he understood - but obviously did not.

If you weren't corn=fused afore, perhaps you are now. *w*




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
All you need to know about atmospheric physics
By: De_Composed in GRITZ
Fri, 14 Feb 25 4:01 AM 		Msg. 03959 of 04563

February 13, 2025

All you need to know about atmospheric physics

by Bill Ponton
AmericanThinker.com

I feel a little uneasy about the title of this essay. Atmospheric physics is a subject that I have learned to appreciate later in life. I would have probably not spent much time studying it were it not for the need to construct a framework to grapple with the nonsense that climate activists insist on shoving down everyone’s throat. I do not want to dissuade anyone from diving deeply into it, but I also know that many will not.

It is for those readers that I have condensed all you need to know about atmospheric physics into a single statement. Actually, the statement is not mine but is a passage from the summary of a recent paper by Will Happer and William van Wijngaarden called Radiation Transport in Clouds; here it is:Greenhouse gases also affect heat transfer, but much less than clouds. For example, ‘instantaneously doubling’ CO2 concentrations, a 100% increase, only decreases radiation to space by about 1%. To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent.”
Maybe this statement does not rock everyone’s boat, but for me it seems astounding that a decrease in low cloud cover of only a few percent could largely compensate for the impact from a doubling of CO2. The same impact that the whole world has been fretting about for the last fifty years.

We all know about cloud cover. We see it vary over the course of a day, a week, and a month. Is it too difficult to imagine that cloud coverage on a global scale might vary by a few percent over a period of years or even decades? If you believe that, then any effect from rising CO2 gets lost in the noise and one is wasting one’s time anguishing over it.

Now that is my attempt at simplifying the climate issue, but I imagine the opposing side would have a credible argument to counter it. To present that argument I will turn to the website of no other than Al Gore’s brainchild, The Climate Reality Project, and their Intro to Climate page. The first thing that we see is a section entitled “The Science is Settled”. It starts off with a lengthy passage explaining the difference between the terms “climate change” and “global warming” and why they should not be used interchangeably. Actually, I wondered about that myself. Then at the bottom, they get to the meat of the matter with the following passage. Put simply, here’s what we know for sure:

- We know that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

- And we know that humans are burning fossil fuels, releasing huge amounts of carbon pollution and trapping more and more heat in the atmosphere.

- There’s only one conclusion: humans are the primary reason the planet is warming and we see our climate changing today.”
Well, I guess there you have it. Man is emitting CO2 which traps heat in the atmosphere. No mention of the countless other variables in a system as complex as Earth’s atmosphere, but to be fair I also attempted to simplify matters. I guess the bottom line is what does your bulls**t radar tell you? Mine tells me and has told me since Al Gore first opened his mouth in a Congressional hearing in 1976 on the subject, that he was full of it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/02/all_you_need_to_know_about_atmospheric_physics.html

« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next