Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:13am:



Is that particulate emission for which they have scrubbers?

Do you mean Carbon Dioxide pollution? Or Carbon particulate pollution?

“. . .irrelevant trace gas. . .”



Somehow that “irrelevant trace gas” seems to be doing something. Since you probably can’t work out the graph I posted it shows that over a period of years the CO2 in the atmosphere has reflected infra red radiation back to the surface.

The surface is trying to lose heat by radiation so if a significant part of the radiation gets reflected back to the surface then it necessarily warms, can’t get rid of the heat.

The graph shows that as CO2 increases with time the amount of IR blocked from escaping the surface increases. Also, within each year you see the carbon cycle: CO2 high in winter then decreases in spring and summer as plants grow, deciduous trees put on leaves etc, all of this affecting the amount of IR that can escape to space and the amount that is blocked and sent back to the surface.

Pretty good for a “trace gas” eh?

Another reason why this “trace gas” bullshit does not hold water: CO2 and water vapor combine to allow only a small window of IR frequencies through which IR can escape.

Didn’t take you long to get here? You really have notifications turned on? Such behavior is so odd in one who says he is so comfortable with CO2 and everything! So very odd!

My post was addressed to Rider but you HAD to put your 2¢ in didn’t you, Lees? Thought you were comfortable with CO2? So very odd.

“. . .irrelevant trace gas. . .”



Somehow that “irrelevant trace gas” seems to be doing something. Since you probably can’t work out the graph I posted it shows that over a period of years the CO2 in the atmosphere has reflected infra red radiation back to the surface.

The surface is trying to lose heat by radiation so if a significant part of the radiation gets reflected back to the surface then it necessarily warms, can’t get rid of the heat.

The graph shows that as CO2 increases with time the amount of IR blocked from escaping the surface increases. Also, within each year you see the carbon cycle: CO2 high in winter then decreases in spring and summer as plants grow, deciduous trees put on leaves etc, all of this affecting the amount of IR that can escape to space and the amount that is blocked and sent back to the surface.

Pretty good for a “trace gas” eh?

Another reason why this “trace gas” bullshit does not hold water: CO2 and water vapor combine to allow only a small window of IR frequencies through which IR can escape.

H2O is a condensing GHG so studies normally remove the influence of water vapor. The other gases increase in concentration over time as we continue burning fossil fuels.

Lees knows this but his desperation forces him to constantly cover up the effect of the CO2 he says he is comfortable with 

This chart:



shows the effect of CO2 really well. What it charts is CO2 concentration and the amount of infrared radiation redirected back down to the surface.

Have a good look at it, it makes AGW denial just ridiculous.

The world receives energy, light, ultraviolet and near–IR radiation from the sun which warms the planet. It can only get rid of excess heat by radiation: infra red.

It has been known for 200 years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and just as well it is a greenhouse gas too: the world would be bloody chilly without it! However, since the industrial revolution picked up, errr, steam we have been creating and emitting CO2 by burning fossil fuels and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 46% since 1880. So, as a direct result, have temperatures.

Lees has dragged up another stale argument “CO2 is not a wellmixed gas” which is wrong. Not only that the chart above shows the carbon cycle not geographical dispersion. Stations from the Arctic to the Antarctic have shown the same increase in CO2.

But with more and more CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere means the planet is warming up, like a car engine with insufficient coolant in the radiator.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 2:04pm:



You mean like a fossil fuel plant may generate more electricity if we up the increase the fuel? 

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:



Actually, if you look at NASA's video, CO2 increases over Spring and Summer. The trees are dormant in winter.

You can check the time stamp at bottom right.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 2:04pm:



I notice the use of words like 'may' and 'if' feature in your post...not very inspiring, but I guess its enough for the useful idiots to chant along.