The lower the wavelength, the faster the frequency, the more energetic. Right?
Am I crazy, or is this graph showing that CH4 has a lower wavelength than CO2? And thus higher frequency?
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
Am I crazy, or is this graph showing that CH4 has a lower wavelength than CO2? And thus higher frequency?
I think you may want to reconsider. Here is another chart showing wavelength and wavenumber side by side. They always show these earth emission spectra with highest frequency on the left.
Note 2: Wavelength is converted to wavenumber by taking its inverse (remember to use the same units)
Note 3: A wavenumber in inverse cm (cm-1) can be converted to a frequency in GHz by multiplying by 29.9792458 (the speed of light in centimeters per nanosecond).
As you say in 3, wave-number is directly proportional to frequency. I'm seeing high wavelengths (= low wave-numbers and low frequencies) on the left (Far-IR) and low wavelengths (= high w-number and high freq) on the right. So I'm again doubtful that the highest frequency is on the left.
Further, by Planck's equation E = h*freq, at higher wave-numbers you have higher energy. In both your graphs CH4 is labeled at a high wavenumber. Hene it absorbs and emits at higher energy. (again, i'm not used to seeing graphs like this, i'm going by the label and the x-axis alone).
@nimic 's much clearer figure clarifies things; there are 2 bands of absorption for both CH4 and CO2. These are either missing or unclear on your graphs. Regardless, both these statements:
"They always show these earth emission spectra with highest frequency on the left."
"The green CO2 absorption on the left is bigger, and at a more energetic frequency than the tiny orange CH4 (methane) absorption."
seem to be wrong based on the graphs you posted and the positioning of the CH4 label.
Oh would you look at that, @Mark Pawelek realized that both of the graphs he posted directly contradicted the point he was making with such confidence. He didn't say "I think this is right", he said "they always show" them that way. And what happens when he realizes? Well, first he blames the makers of the graph he posted. And then he moves on without skipping a beat (well, after editing his post to hide his mistake). So what if he made a fundamental mistake, it's the IPCC which is lying.
You know Mark, for a second there I was really wondering whether you actually knew this stuff after all. I was almost prepared to ignore the fact that earlier in the thread you claimed that fish breathe water, and that climate change can't kill corals because weather doesn't. You spoke with such confidence.
And then it turns out you were reading the graph backwards.
Last edited:
Both charts confirm the point I made. IPCC claim that methane is 30 times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Some scientists say 90 times. The charts show the region CO2 absorbs in has far more radiation. So CO2 counts for more even though methane is absorbing radiation which is twice as energetic. This IPCC claim amounts to a lie.
In baby talk: CO2 absorbs 100 Oz dollars worth. Methane absorbs 1 UK pound. although the pound is worth twice as much as the dollar, CO2 ended up with about 50 times more in absolute terms.
Thank feck for this post, because in the face of his unflappable confidence I was almost convinced I was mis-reading the x-axis.
I feel like maybe I'm supposed to be insulted by this, but it's hard to be offended by the self-proclaimed climate expert who read his big gotcha graph backwards.
I'm no expert, so I sat there for 10 minutes, staring at the graph, thinking what am I missing? Am I an idiot?
IPCC claim that methane is 30 times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
IPCC also claim that water absorbs only 3 times more outgoing radiation than CO2.
It follows from that that IPCC say methane will be a 10 times more powerful greenhouse gas than water, doesn't it?
Look the charts - water is absorbing all over the place. Methane in one tiny spot. Is methane a 10 times more powerful greenhouse gas than water?
IPCC also claim that water absorbs only 3 times more outgoing radiation than CO2.
It follows from that that IPCC say methane will be a 10 times more powerful greenhouse gas than water, doesn't it?
Look the charts - water is absorbing all over the place. Methane in one tiny spot. Is methane a 10 times more powerful greenhouse gas than water?
Oh yeah. That would explain the melting icecaps.
Methylene?
Something something about when you get simple things wrong, how can you be credible etc etc.
Thanks, one of the few useful contributions. I corrected my typo.
Mass of the antarctic ice cap is bigger today than 30 years ago.
You must have bulging biceps with all that back peddling you do.
Exactly the same for me.
You know, the thing that I cannot comprehend is why would the IPCC lie.
What benefit would there be.
The answer is of course that they are not telling lies. This whole subject is far more complex than can be shown by a single graph.
Why hasn’t he been thread banned yet?
Exactly. The benefit of lying is actually on the other side (oil, gas and coal industry), where they are making trillions by destroying the planet.
You do know that because of the crystalline structure, water behaves differently to any other thing when it freezes and becomes solid.
Every other commonly occurring solid is denser than when it was a liquid.
Whereas ice floats on liquid water because it is less dense.
So. Are you talking about mass or volume?
Perfectly put.
The problem is that we are still wedded to fossil fuels even though we are well aware of its damaging effects.
At least you've come around to the idea that CO2 absorbs light.
The problem is that certain countries/politicians either do not care or think about a timeframe longer than the next election, or they HOPE that technological braketroughs will fix the issue like turning on a switch(This, when we actually have the means to solve it).
I for one, wonder how long time it will take for a mass exodus from the areas most affected by climate change.
If a "woke climate activist" made an error like that, what would you say about them?
The problem with Miskolczi's alternative model is that it is bollocks. Pure fiction.
What would be the point? Climate change denies like this idiot have no capacity to assess the actual evidence.
you probably think that this is actually a killer argument don't you?
Last edited:
That's cool
Extend of the Antarctic hovers unchanged. But the mass increases.
Extent is unchanged because Antarctica is surrounded by the Southern Ocean which tends to warm any sea-bound ice and melt it. Keeping the extend in check.
But Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth: average elevation is 2500m. Higher elevations are colder. Snow falling at these high elevations builds up, becomes ice, making the mass of ice there greater.
Much of the ice in Antarctica is ancient. It began glaciation 34 million years ago when average global ocean temperatures were 4C warmer than today.
Last edited:
Hi Mark. Is there, perchance, a time dimension to global warming potential of different gases?
Every gas absorbs light, at some frequency or other.
Our friend also claims that United's right back position is the one that needs least attention.
If icecaps were melting, sea levels would be rising. Satellite data Luijendijk et al (2018) found that 76% of World's sandy shorelines were either sable or growing during the period 1984 - 2016. No Sea-level rise.
The Arctic icecap would not cause the sea level to rise because the ice already displaces the water. Put a couple of ice cubes in a glass of water and leave them for an hour or so and then tell me if volume is the same before and after they have melted.
The link you have provided is a study on beach erosion, not sea level increase and indeed the study states the assumption it makes with regards to sea level will be verified as part of further research. i.e. There is no answer to this yet.
@berbatrick good technical understanding and good posts. It's easy to get tricked by complexity.
Why are you lot still entertaining him?
Could you be saying he's misread yet another source? Never...
At least BringBackNani was funny in his flat earth foolery, this guy has no bantz
Children know this, he's wumming.
I doubt even the most ardent deniers think the ice caps aren't melting.
In an ideal world, after being proven wrong so many times in a matter of 24 hours would lead to @Mark Pawelek realizing he's wrong and enlighten himself. Obviously it's too late to admit in here pubicly that all he thought he knew is wrong, but perhaps, when no one's watching, he can reinvent himself and change his Twitter handle.
You have to weed out the ignorance one soul at a time I spose.
You have to weed out the ignorance one soul at a time I spose.
It is the other way round I can assure you.