Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Uncharted Territory, rapid warming greatly exceeds models' forecasts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hans Blaster" data-source="post: 77661931" data-attributes="member: 396028"><p>Your incredulity isn't an argument. CO2 is very opaque in the NIR and small amounts of it can absorb lots of IR radiation. Ozone (O3) is even more opaque, but in the NUV and absorbs most of the NUV light with even less concentration and only in a thin layer of the middle atmosphere.</p><p></p><p>I don't know "GWP", but I'm going to guess that it is scaled to CO2. It would be like scaling all nuclear bombs to the Hiroshima explosion and saying "the Hiroshima bomb only had a strength of 1 Hiroshima bomb --- how did it destroy anything because there are bigger bombs."</p><p></p><p>Different lines in a spectrum of a molecule saturate at different column densities. The climatologists are aware of this. I haven't had the time to fully examine this work, but the references in discussion part imply motivated reasoning.</p><p></p><p>AEI is an industry funded think tank. They have run anti-AGW propaganda for decades.</p><p></p><p>This paper isn't particularly credible. I didn't check the specific claims in the link today.</p><p></p><p>The author seems to be arguing with various people about specific claims made in blogs, etc. I don't think the author is ready to dismiss GW like you are. It ends:</p><p></p><p>"And now, we humans have turned the thermostat up, with predictable results that we’re already observing — such as changes to permafrost in the Arctic that got me going on this post to begin with."</p><p></p><p>Oops.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hans Blaster, post: 77661931, member: 396028"] Your incredulity isn't an argument. CO2 is very opaque in the NIR and small amounts of it can absorb lots of IR radiation. Ozone (O3) is even more opaque, but in the NUV and absorbs most of the NUV light with even less concentration and only in a thin layer of the middle atmosphere. I don't know "GWP", but I'm going to guess that it is scaled to CO2. It would be like scaling all nuclear bombs to the Hiroshima explosion and saying "the Hiroshima bomb only had a strength of 1 Hiroshima bomb --- how did it destroy anything because there are bigger bombs." Different lines in a spectrum of a molecule saturate at different column densities. The climatologists are aware of this. I haven't had the time to fully examine this work, but the references in discussion part imply motivated reasoning. AEI is an industry funded think tank. They have run anti-AGW propaganda for decades. This paper isn't particularly credible. I didn't check the specific claims in the link today. The author seems to be arguing with various people about specific claims made in blogs, etc. I don't think the author is ready to dismiss GW like you are. It ends: "And now, we humans have turned the thermostat up, with predictable results that we’re already observing — such as changes to permafrost in the Arctic that got me going on this post to begin with." Oops. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Uncharted Territory, rapid warming greatly exceeds models' forecasts
Top
Bottom