Northwest Passage

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

please provide the data to back up your assertion
And like a trillion to one is Not proper evidence.
And yes it is nuclear physics but is is explained in termsp s that were taught in high school chemistry.

So what is the actual current c12-13-14 ratio in the atmosphere right now ?
Funny you seem to want to put all of the co2 on mans use of rotten plants. ( fossil fuels.)
but that is what iirc .04% of the total or is it .4%

Show the current ratios

I'm not saying man hasn't added to the co2
I'm saying that co2 is not a prime driver of the climate either way.
IOW modern man has little effect.

Let a geologist explain it to you.

It's Our Fault | Science and Global Warming

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

There are always new people joining into the conversation who haven't read your every word. Since you've apparently already explained your point of view in the past you shouldn't find it hard to either copy and paste from your old post, or at least provide a link to that specific post.

do a site specific search its not my problem if you don't want to do your due dilligence

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

So what is the actual current c12-13-14 ratio in the atmosphere right now ?

13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Funny you seem to want to put all of the co2 on mans use of rotten plants. ( fossil fuels.)
but that is what iirc .04% of the total or is it .4%

It is .04% but as I have previously explained it other threads the other 99.96% is transparent to IR so ratios to those gases is irrelevant. It is the total amount of CO2 that matters and that amount is increasing fast.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's a ridiculous theory, no matter how many times you state it.


And thanks for the helping of that legendary newhaul "civility".

I try to be as civil as I can be considering some of the comments posted in the past on other threads as well as on this particular one ( which by the way is supposed to be about the NWP not climate change.

Also I am not the one saying I'm being civil that would be a rather conceited thing to say about oneself.

Trust me I have lots of stress from some of the various comments that have been directed at me instead of the science.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.



It is .04% but as I have previously explained it other threads the other 99.96% is transparent to IR so ratios to those gases is irrelevant. It is the total amount of CO2 that matters and that amount is increasing fast.

really the rest other than co2 is transparent to to ir ? Really me thinks you really need to rethink that statement.

Here is the ir chart for the most common gasses in the atmosphere . Btw the strongest is water vapor. ( something that can't be attributed in any way to man therefore can't be taxed.)
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ansmission.png

Funny it looks like 60% or more of the effect of co2 is overshadowed by the effects of water vapor.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let a geologist explain it to you.

It's Our Fault | Science and Global Warming

to many technical errors in this blog post to even consider it

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

to many technical errors in this blog post to even consider it

Please identify those "technical errors". Meanwhile study up on the "Suess Effect" (not the author of "The Grinch that Stole Christmas."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

really the rest other than co2 is transparent to to ir ? Really me thinks you really need to rethink that statement.

Here is the ir chart for the most common gasses in the atmosphere . Btw the strongest is water vapor. ( something that can't be attributed in any way to man therefore can't be taxed.)
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ansmission.png

Funny it looks like 60% or more of the effect of co2 is overshadowed by the effects of water vapor.

You may wish to study up on water vapor as well.

This increase (in water vapor) can be formally attributed to human-induced climate change -- see Santer et al, 2007.

Remote Sensing Systems

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You may wish to study up on water vapor as well.



Remote Sensing Systems

your assertion please provide proof that the increase In water vapor ( you know the sun shining on the water ) how is that caused by humans? Be specific and scientifically verifiable

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

your assertion please provide proof that the increase In water vapor ( you know the sun shining on the water ) how is that caused by humans? Be specific and scientifically verifiable

Santer et al 2007. Just as the link says.

Meanwhile; this "Be specific and scientifically verifiable" is profoundly hypocritical.

Where are Powell's "technical errors'? Be specific and scientifically verifiable

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

your assertion please provide proof that the increase In water vapor ( you know the sun shining on the water ) how is that caused by humans? Be specific and scientifically verifiable

Also study up on the difference between poorly-mixed, condensing GHGs (H2O) and well-mixed, non-condensing GHGs (CO2).

You have a lot of homework while I am overshore for the next while.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please identify those "technical errors". Meanwhile study up on the "Suess Effect" (not the author of "The Grinch that Stole Christmas."

all you have to do is read the first sentence .
It is a lie. If it were true then 2018 would have been the warmest not the 4th warmest
2017 was warmer than 2018 , 2016 was warmer than 2017 and 2015 was warmer than 2016 . Do you see a pattern here ??

The next is it misdirect with a description of some unrelated item .


Btw how's the snow just west of you today??

That never happens


And the nwp is still frozen.

Also the suess effect describes how . It does not give the exact percentages of each isotope .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Also study up on the difference between poorly-mixed, condensing GHGs (H2O) and well-mixed, non-condensing GHGs (CO2).

You have a lot of homework while I am overshore for the next while.

I don't do your homework for you that's your job .

As you offshore or as you say you are doing that doesn't mean you actually are .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I don't do your homework for you that's your job .

As you offshore or as you say you are doing that doesn't mean you actually are .

Your are the one who have no knowledge of the the Suess effect or condensing and condensing GHG.

You also have read Santer et al 2007.

You also have to identify the technical errors in the Powell blog, which you clearly have not read, since you have no clue when it was written.

Yes - I am heading to Victoria today doing a shake down of a Valiant 40; our proposed destination is Cobb Seamount. I think that is what your after in the gibberish you posted.

As you offshore or as you say you are doing that doesn't mean you actually are .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your are the one who have no knowledge of the the Suess effect or condensing and condensing GHG.

You also have read Santer et al 2007.

You also have to identify the technical errors in the Powell blog.
.

have you ever asked about my reason for stating my opinions



Have you ever wondered why I do continue to post in derision of your opinions
Aside from the obvious false narrative that has been pushed and controlled the " published science "

Seems quite interesting that most people that are pro MMGW while still employed seem to switch to counteract MMGW once they are retired and their paycheck no longer dependant on their perceived opinions. ?