EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Themis]

Common sense is far more often wrong than most people are willing to admit. Common sense is what convinced people for most of history that the earth was flat and the motionless center of the universe.

Common sense does ok with knowledge. It doesn't do well with ignorance as we see with tobin.

[_Themis]

Unless, of course, that consensus is contrary to Tobin's "common sense."

I think if anyone reasonable looks at what we've discussed without bias, they'll see Brad has ignored my points repeatedly and presented deceptive facts. For example, Brad was using world average temperatures to indicate that temperatures wouldn't be sufficient for higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere. I think when you get caught once trying to deceive people and it wasn't an honest mistake, you shouldn't be trusted whatsoever.

I wonder if tobin is just dishonest or stupid. You will notice he doesn't actually quote Brad to show where or how he was being deceptive. I recall Brad using world averages to dispute the idea that the earth's atmosphere had anywhere near 4% water vapor, not that in some areas under certain conditions you could get 4% or even some supersaturation. Time for tobin to put up or shut up.

[_Res Ipsa]

In law, we have a saying:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If neither is on your side, pound the table.

Tobin's personal attacks are pounding the table. It's a concession that I've won the point we were arguing. All he's doing now is trying to distract attention away from the fact that his claim that water vapor is 4% of the atmosphere is absurd. He's had pages and pages now to come up with a single bit of evidence or even a single source to back him up. I've presented evidence to show that the 4% is too high. I've linked to a source to show that, even in the tropics, the average range of water vapor at the earths surface is 2-4%. Tobin is taking the high end of that range and claiming it applies to the entire atmosphere. I've linked to data showing that water vapor content falls off rapidly as you go above the earth. I've also linked to evidence that the mass of water vapor in the atmosphere is around .3 (with generous rounding upward). That means there is about 5X as much water vapor as CO2 in the atmosphere, instead of the 100X Tobin claims. (And the 1000X he originally claimed.) Tobin ignores all of it, and tries to justify his original claim with other irrelevant claims (also wrong, but we'll get to that) for which he provides no evidence or source. He's also admitted throughout this thread that factors other than relative quantity have to be examined in figuring out how a greenhouse gas works.

I'm perfectly satisfied that I've done what I set out to do in this section of the argument: show that Tobin's claim that CO2 can be dismissed as a cause of global warming based solely on the ratio of water vapor to CO2 in the atmosphere. It's a handy place to link to if he ever drags it out again in the future.

So now we move on to looking at the other factors. First up, absorption spectra. Upthread, Tobin made this argument:

Also, even though CH4 is 20 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, there is a slight problem religious zealots like Brad fail to mention. It's a narrow band absorber which overlaps with another greenhouse gas H2O. And since there is vastly more H2O in the atmosphere that already absorbs the same spectrum as CH4, there really isn't any contribution made by CH4 to global warming.

Now, Tobin made that argument with regard to methane. The same argument gets made from time to time in various internet forums about CO2. The best way to understand the argument and understand why it's wrong is to read through the history of how this issue has been addressed since the 1800's. I think the best write up on that comes from Spencer Weart's A History of Global Warming. It is available online in a free, hypertext version. Here is the portion that discusses the history of CO2 in atmospheric sciences. https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It's long, but I think it's well worth reading. There is also a TL/DR version here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -argument/

In short, it's not true that the absorption spectrum of water vapor completely overlaps that of CO2. There is a water vapor window that permits CO2 to do it's greenhouse thing. And as you go upward from the surface of the earth, the overlap becomes smaller and smaller.

[_Res Ipsa]

I wonder if tobin is just dishonest or stupid. You will notice he doesn't actually quote Brad to show where or how he was being deceptive. I recall Brad using world averages to dispute the idea that the earth's atmosphere had anywhere near 4% water vapor, not that in some areas under certain conditions you could get 4% or even some supersaturation. Time for tobin to put up or shut up.

I don't know what Tobin is. Nor do I care. Tobin has twice now misrepresented my argument based on temperature and water vapor saturation. I have consistently said that the amount of water vapor in fully saturated air depends on temperature. I have never said there was a theoretical limit under some ideal conditions to the percentage of water vapor that can exist in air. If there is one, I think that the temperature is well beyond anything we see on earth. My point has always been that, when we look at the actual atmosphere, the claim that 4% of it is water vapor is absurd.

Despite what Tobin claims, there is nothing wrong with using averages per se. My mistake was converting the global average temperature into percentage of water vapor without taking into account the exponential shape of the saturation curve. This is complicated stuff, and people are going to make mistakes. Just like Tobin did when he repeatedly misrepresented the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. What adults do when that happens is point out the mistake, determine it's effect on the argument, and move on. What children do is get all hysterical and accuse the other person of being deceptive or dishonest.

Tobin does this as an excuse to ignore evidence. He won't look at evidence from actual climate scientists because he's already decided they are religious hysterics. It prevents him from having to encounter nasty facts that show that his "common sense" isn't "sense" at all.

[_Gunnar]

Common sense is far more often wrong than most people are willing to admit. Common sense is what convinced people for most of history that the earth was flat and the motionless center of the universe.

Common sense does ok with knowledge. It doesn't do well with ignorance as we see with tobin.

I readily concede that point!

[Guest]

1. It requires a temperature of 85F or so to even permit the atmosphere to even hold that much water vapor; and
2. At that temperature, it would require 100% relativity to reach that figure. (lower if you get hotter)

If he wants to "rescue" his 4% number by invoking supersaturation, he's going to need to provide evidence. So let's place our bets. Will we hear evidence? Or just more bluster?

Brad is simply dishonest and he brought up the average temperature of the planet to discredit the idea that high concentrations of water vapor are common in global warming situations. In response, I've repeatedly pointed out these circumstances are common in semi-tropical to tropical zones as well as during summer months in northerly and southerly locations when global warming is occurring. Brad has been thoroughly discredited by being deceitful with his facts. He is even doing it now by pretending that my claims is that water vapor must be at high concentrations throughout the entire atmosphere for global warming to be in effect. That is simply untrue since the overwhelming effect is occurring in these zones and during these summer months near the surface of the planet. His response to these facts is nothing. He ignores them because they are inconvenient. That is a true sign of someone that is intellectually dishonest and should not be trusted to fairly discuss a topic. From now on, I'm simply going to ignore Brad. He's a liar and not interested in any fair discussion of this topic or any topic.

[_Res Ipsa]

1. It requires a temperature of 85F or so to even permit the atmosphere to even hold that much water vapor; and
2. At that temperature, it would require 100% relativity to reach that figure. (lower if you get hotter)

If he wants to "rescue" his 4% number by invoking supersaturation, he's going to need to provide evidence. So let's place our bets. Will we hear evidence? Or just more bluster?

Brad is simply dishonest and he brought up the average temperature of the planet to discredit the idea that high concentrations of water vapor are common in global warming situations. In response, I've repeatedly pointed out these circumstances are common in semi-tropical to tropical zones as well as during summer months in northerly and southerly locations when global warming is occurring. Brad has been thoroughly discredited by being deceitful with his facts. He is even doing it now by pretending that water vapor must be at high concentrations throughout the entire atmosphere for global warming to be in effect. That is simply untrue since the overwhelming effect is occurring in these zones and during these summer months near the surface of the planet. His response to these facts is nothing. He ignores them because they are inconvenient. That is a true sign of someone that is intellectually dishonest and should not be trusted to fairly discuss a topic. From now on, I'm simply going to ignore Brad. He's a liar and not interested in any fair discussion of this topic or any topic.

Tobin once again misrepresents my argument. I am not making any argument about "global warming situations," what ever that means. I've never argued that "water vapor must be at high concentrations throughout the entire atmosphere for global warming to be in effect." All I am talking about is Tobin's claim that water vapor represents 4% of the atmosphere. The two statements he quoted are absolutely true and absolutely appropriate to the argument.

I'm perfectly fine with Tobin ignoring me. His 4% figure has been shown to be absurd. And he has made enough other completely absurd statements in this thread to keep me busy for months. So I'll just slog along creating a nice reference thread that folks can link to when Tobin does his usual thing and starts a new thread in a couple of months that makes the same old absurd claims again. It'll save us all lots of time in the future.

[_Gadianton]

I'm perfectly fine with Tobin ignoring me. His 4% figure has been shown to be absurd.

Tobin is intensely skeptical when it comes to the kind of routine facts about the world you've explained. Yet, he asserts as scientifically proven fact, things like infinite hierarchical universes with a God per each universe, so that it fits the Abraham verse about one intelligence being above another. Each human-form God one universe up from the last is infinitely more technologically advanced than the God a universe down. If a person rejects the claim that we live in an infinite regress of n universes where each universe is home to an infinity-to-the-nth intelligent God, then the person is an idiot who knows nothing about basic science.

[_The CCC]

I'm perfectly fine with Tobin ignoring me. His 4% figure has been shown to be absurd.

Tobin is intensely skeptical when it comes to the kind of routine facts about the world you've explained. Yet, he asserts as scientifically proven fact, things like infinite hierarchical universes with a God per each universe, so that it fits the Abraham verse about one intelligence being above another. Each human-form God one universe up from the last is infinitely more technologically advanced than the God a universe down. If a person rejects the claim that we live in an infinite regress of n universes where each universe is home to an infinity-to-the-nth intelligent God, then the person is an idiot who knows nothing about basic science.

I don't have a problem with an infinite number of universes within our multi-verse. Maybe even each having a God over it. I don't see how such could be established in science however.

[_Tobin]

Tobin is intensely skeptical when it comes to the kind of routine facts about the world you've explained. Yet, he asserts as scientifically proven fact, things like infinite hierarchical universes with a God per each universe, so that it fits the Abraham verse about one intelligence being above another. Each human-form God one universe up from the last is infinitely more technologically advanced than the God a universe down. If a person rejects the claim that we live in an infinite regress of n universes where each universe is home to an infinity-to-the-nth intelligent God, then the person is an idiot who knows nothing about basic science.

I don't believe any such thing. God, you people make up the most bizarre crap that I don't believe in.