Comments on: Quote of the Week http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/07/quote-of-the-week-6/ Taking the heat out of global warming Sat, 25 May 2013 12:00:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Richard Treadgold http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/07/quote-of-the-week-6/comment-page-1/#comment-105290 Richard Treadgold Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:21:04 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=14248#comment-105290 Yes, fictional indeed. Nice work, Chris. Yes, fictional indeed. Nice work, Chris.

]]> By: ChrisM http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/07/quote-of-the-week-6/comment-page-1/#comment-105280 ChrisM Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:31:57 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=14248#comment-105280 Another fact free article with big words in to sound like they know what they are talking about. According to the possibly dubious Wikipedia, the bottom of the stratosphere is about 9km at the poles and 17km at the equator. This means only aircraft flying the northern polar grand circle routes (which is quite a number) actually add water to the stratosphere. However, cumulonimbus (thunder clouds) can go up to 23km. As they have big updrafts, would not those put a lot more water up there? The average amount of water in the stratoshere is about 0.1%. Methane is 0.00018%. Now one methane molecule can give two water molecules. So how does the maths work for methane significantly increasing water composition? All in all - I suspect the website should be filed in the fiction category like the faked moon landings and other pseudo scientific stuff. Another fact free article with big words in to sound like they know what they are talking about. According to the possibly dubious Wikipedia, the bottom of the stratosphere is about 9km at the poles and 17km at the equator. This means only aircraft flying the northern polar grand circle routes (which is quite a number) actually add water to the stratosphere. However, cumulonimbus (thunder clouds) can go up to 23km. As they have big updrafts, would not those put a lot more water up there?
The average amount of water in the stratoshere is about 0.1%. Methane is 0.00018%. Now one methane molecule can give two water molecules. So how does the maths work for methane significantly increasing water composition?
All in all – I suspect the website should be filed in the fiction category like the faked moon landings and other pseudo scientific stuff.

]]> By: Richard Treadgold http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/07/quote-of-the-week-6/comment-page-1/#comment-105196 Richard Treadgold Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:01:56 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=14248#comment-105196 Strange, isn't it? Water vapour is a "feedback". It only causes warming when it has itself been put into an atmosphere already warmed by greenhouse gases. So, first thing in the morning, before the atmosphere has been warmed by the first rays of the sun rising again from the freshly-warmed earth, the water vapour in the atmosphere causes no warming. A few minutes later, the first trickle of warmth from the GHGs reaches back to the ground, lake or ocean and vaporises some water, which becomes, magically, capable of further heating the atmosphere. It's a stupid idea. Cool the planet with sprayed water? They don't know whether it would get warmer or colder. They can't even work out what clouds do, though clouds are hardly novel. Also, yes, only high-flying aircraft are bad -- low-flying aircraft are just incredibly dangerous for your hat. Strange, isn’t it? Water vapour is a “feedback”. It only causes warming when it has itself been put into an atmosphere already warmed by greenhouse gases. So, first thing in the morning, before the atmosphere has been warmed by the first rays of the sun rising again from the freshly-warmed earth, the water vapour in the atmosphere causes no warming. A few minutes later, the first trickle of warmth from the GHGs reaches back to the ground, lake or ocean and vaporises some water, which becomes, magically, capable of further heating the atmosphere. It’s a stupid idea.

Cool the planet with sprayed water? They don’t know whether it would get warmer or colder. They can’t even work out what clouds do, though clouds are hardly novel.

Also, yes, only high-flying aircraft are bad — low-flying aircraft are just incredibly dangerous for your hat.

]]> By: Marian http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/07/quote-of-the-week-6/comment-page-1/#comment-105195 Marian Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:47:17 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=14248#comment-105195 Yes water vapour . Another fact that gets inconveniently in the way of CO2 AGW/CC. 75% of the Earth's surface is water! Oh wait. We have these idiots wanting to pump water into the atmosphere to cool the Planet and slowdown GW through Geoengineering. That's OK then? Only high flying aircraft bad? Yes water vapour . Another fact that gets inconveniently in the way of CO2 AGW/CC.

75% of the Earth’s surface is water!

Oh wait. We have these idiots wanting to pump water into the atmosphere to cool the Planet and slowdown GW through Geoengineering. That’s OK then? Only high flying aircraft bad?

]]>