SOTT
SIGNS
OF THE
TIMES
OF THE
TIMES
Welcome to Sott.net
The World for People who Think
Earth Changes
Reader Comments
Jason Of course not. No one has a 'complete understanding', however there are basic principles.
Rulistening. Ok. What do you think of what Steven Hawkins said about trump that TH mentions at the start?
RUListening what are you saying though? the only thing to talk about here is that the absorption window is already saturated where CO2 absorbs... adding more CO2 will do nothing.
Jason I do not feed the propaganda machines, and I have seen and heard so much hypocrisy over the years.
When someone steps into the lime-light and has such influence upon the world (ie Hawkings) they have the potential to be
used by the system as an influencer, mouth-piece for the agenda.
Does that answer your question?
I think that is merely the politics talking.
Do a agree, no, I do not. Trump is just in the Que right now. This is much bigger than a president.
I will tell you, I am no longer a believer in our political system. It's my opinion, there are no sides..
Just division. Being united as a people is not how the system works. Perpetual division is the plan.
When someone steps into the lime-light and has such influence upon the world (ie Hawkings) they have the potential to be
used by the system as an influencer, mouth-piece for the agenda.
Does that answer your question?
I think that is merely the politics talking.
Do a agree, no, I do not. Trump is just in the Que right now. This is much bigger than a president.
I will tell you, I am no longer a believer in our political system. It's my opinion, there are no sides..
Just division. Being united as a people is not how the system works. Perpetual division is the plan.
We see from direct observation that solar output and water vapor almost completely drive and moderate global temperatures. Water vapour has a net cooling effect due to water's many properties of heat absorption to vaporisation, redistribution of heat to cold areas, plus its albedo via clouds. What is important in this video is that the "greenhouse" IR absorption of carbon dioxide is of almost zero effect since the absorption by water vapor is virtually 100% without any contribution from carbon dioxide. So adding more CO2 will not have any effect as all the IR is already absorbed, as seen by the transmission spectrum. The hysteria is for nothing.
morpheus Not quite accurate. Solar (output) does not moderate global temperatures. Water in our atmosphere (water exchange0 moderates global climate, weather, and temperatures; along with Earth systems. Our oceans for instance have a large effect on moderating global temperature. In fact increased water vapor and co2 is one of the 'feedback loops, or mechanisms' that are greatly affected by each other. Water vapor is the most important of the 'greenhouse gases'. Water vapor creates the cloud cover you are talking about. The more cloud cover, the more warming effect that is produced (keeping the heat in like a thermal blanket). When the skies are clear and it is a cool spring or winter day, the heat is allowed to escape and the temperatures will drop. It is in fact a viscous cycle, the more co2 the more water vapor, more clouds in upper, the more the heat is trapped. More heat, more water vapor, more co2, more water vapor............
In regards to the transmission spectrum. This is misleading because we still have a working/moderating cycle that our atmosphere goes through on daily, and even hourly, so on...So, you see that there is a certain amount of variance due to this exchange and transfer system. ie. humidity, clouds rain, snow, ice, hail......It is another misunderstanding of the 'more the better' theory. Ultimately it is such a complex relationship that has several variables that contribute to the process. (such as, gas phase rotations) absorption intensity, so on. Saying that there is near 0 effect- absorption of co2 is not logical if you think about it. You are not thinking on terms of a continual process. It does not stop and start, it is a cycle which is taking in far more than it has the ability to absorb. Think of a saturated cotton ball, if you keep loading it with water, what happens? Now if you let that cotton ball dry a bit, then what happens?
In regards to the transmission spectrum. This is misleading because we still have a working/moderating cycle that our atmosphere goes through on daily, and even hourly, so on...So, you see that there is a certain amount of variance due to this exchange and transfer system. ie. humidity, clouds rain, snow, ice, hail......It is another misunderstanding of the 'more the better' theory. Ultimately it is such a complex relationship that has several variables that contribute to the process. (such as, gas phase rotations) absorption intensity, so on. Saying that there is near 0 effect- absorption of co2 is not logical if you think about it. You are not thinking on terms of a continual process. It does not stop and start, it is a cycle which is taking in far more than it has the ability to absorb. Think of a saturated cotton ball, if you keep loading it with water, what happens? Now if you let that cotton ball dry a bit, then what happens?
RUListening If you've got this all figured out then perhaps you should make some of your own videos?
From your first comment:
Saying that there is near 0 effect- absorption of co2 is not logical if you think about it.Not sure what you mean here. Particularly since CO2 levels seem to rise as an effect of warmer ocean temperatures rather than the other way around.
From your first comment:
In regards to your opinion on the amount of co2 in our Earth's past history; you make the same erroneous conclusionPretty sure the video was pointing out that CO2 levels and temperature were not correlated. What does the fact that the planet had much higher concentrations of CO2 while experiencing lower overall temperatures have to do with humanity?
that so many do without stopping to actually think about it. During the period of the Cambrian explosion! You are looking
at this backwards. You are looking at time when humans did not exist! Do you understand how that is not logical.
Life that existed in a much different atmosphere. For instance there was no free o2. It was in fact due to the explosion and
expanse of time that diveristy of o2 using life sprang into being. This is really a complex issue. However, the mistake that
is often made by non/scientist, lay-persons, to use that as an argument for the higher c02 being A'Ok.
It is in fact a viscous cycle, the more co2 the more water vapor, more clouds in upper, the more the heat is trapped. More heat, more water vapor, more co2, more water vapor............I think you mean "vicious" cycle... but even so if your hypothesis were true then shouldn't the earth have kept getting warmer & warmer instead of passing through many different cold spells from the Cambrian until now?
Mr. Heller, this is one of the myriad of reasons why there's so much misinformation floating around out there!
When you don't understand how Earth systems work, you can't make an intelligent statement.
First, let me set you straight on something. The origins of CC started even earlier than you have stated in your video.
Let me refer you to a gentleman/scientist, Fourier, in the year 1824. Additionally, physicist Pouillet discovered the
link between rising co2 and water vapor (warming effect) and so on. In this you might see the logic, that it stands to
reason that this has been studied for a lot longer time-span than most realize. Logic then should tell you that this is
not a modern day hoax. It is in fact a campaign however to control votes, and much more. CC is the truth that
was seen as a lie, that is now become the 'convenient' truth again.
In regards to your opinion on the amount of co2 in our Earth's past history; you make the same erroneous conclusion
that so many do without stopping to actually think about it. During the period of the Cambrian explosion! You are looking
at this backwards. You are looking at time when humans did not exist! Do you understand how that is not logical.
Life that existed in a much different atmosphere. For instance there was no free o2. It was in fact due to the explosion and
expanse of time that diveristy of o2 using life sprang into being. This is really a complex issue. However, the mistake that
is often made by non/scientist, lay-persons, to use that as an argument for the higher c02 being A'Ok.
One thing that is being used as propaganda against science is this notion that there's a time-stamp on our planet. An expiration
date of sorts. That is simply untrue, and most scientists will tell you that no one knows for sure. No one! We are just discovering
Previously unknown processes and systems that our Earth has up her sleeve. Propaganda has co'opted the truth.
There is so much more that you are misunderstanding, but I haven't got the time in this little window to participate further.
Cheers.
.