Is there a meteorological Keystone?

[Lapin Dormant]

Neeeeeeeext quest-i-on

I think I have pointed out multiple times that the physical strenght of CO2 as greenhouse gas is very small. Perhaps try this tread about that:

Yes I see that, as a Point of it absorbing radiant sunlight, but what about the heat that it evolved with, from it's initial combustion, where did that go?

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Having thought about your explanation of how it "won't get any redder" (by mixing in More dye) it strikes me as somewhat specious, inasmuch as, in physical chemistry when you add more dye to the solution the amount of energy that it WILL absorb will increase relative to the amount of interactive molecular structures {dye} within the Solution, even if it has "gone opaque" to the radiant energy source.

It is simple enough to prove, if you had-have a miscible enough Mixture, you could, by addition of enough of the solute, give rise to the Complete Blocking of passage, through the solution, of any radiant energy source.

So it should still heat, and increase in heating given greater percentages, PPM levels, but I would agree that it's input may not be relative enough to heat the atmosphere, substantially.

Then again it could still be disappearing into the Oceans as there seems to be evidence that they are heating, a recent issue of the Journal Science (Cover story "Science in Iraq") has two articles on the Current readings, heating and Salinity.

 

[Andre]

So what did I say exactly?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=62529

Fill glasses with a little water and put a few drops of red or yellow ink in the second one (leave the first one). After stirring the water will be colored slightly Right? Now drop double as much drops in the third one, and double that in the fourth glass and so on.
Now compare the brightness of the glasses. See that the biggest difference in color is between glass one (no ink) and two. See that there is almost no difference in color between glass four and five, despite the ample difference in ink amount. That's saturation. You can continue dropping more ink in it but the color won't hardly change any more, because the light frequency band that is absorpted gets saturated. There is hardly any more light in that frequency to be absorpted, no matter how much ink you add.

So did I say?:

"won't get any redder"

and then continue to argue that it still does. But that's what I said, so the fallacy you have just set up is the "straw man" But never mind.

Be sure to check the http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html , using plain fair greenhouse gas physics, to see how that saturation works.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

cnt'd from above

Contextually extirpated[/color] and then continue to argue that it still does.

No I haven't agrued that "it still does" I have simply pointed out the Physical Chemistry that shows that Increasing the amount of Solute, in the Solution DOES effect it's ability to absorb energy.

Nothing more. Why?

Now the suggestion is that if we stop burning fuel now, then it's all going to be rescued. Excusez le mot, but this is crap. Whether the concentration of CO2 in the air is 200 ppm 280 ppm or 560 ppm, it is not important. It has incredible little if any influence on the climate.

Which states that increasing concentrations of CO₂ Gas do not make any difference, yet in your own argument

Now compare the brightness of the glasses. See that the biggest difference in color is between glass one (no ink) and two. See that there is almost no difference in color between glass four and five, despite the ample difference in ink amount. That's saturation.[/color] You can continue dropping more ink in it but the color won't hardly change any more, because the light frequency band that is absorpted gets saturated. There is hardly any more light in that frequency to be absorpted, no matter how much ink you add.

You acknowledge that it does BECAUSE you NEED arrive at the Point of Satutration to demonstrate the, then limiting fact.

Ergo the Amount or concentration of CO₂ Gases does-do make a difference, but as I had already admitted,

So it should still heat, and increase in heating given greater percentages, PPM levels, but I would agree that it's input may not be relative enough to heat the atmosphere, substantially.[/color]

As for the FallacyPages, nice try. {strange link though}