The green CO2 absorption on the left is bigger, and at a more energetic frequency than the tiny orange CH4 (methane) absorption. Is methane, CH4 a 30×, some say: 100 times, more powerful global warming gas than CO2?
They messed me up by writing it inside out. I expected sunlight to be on the left. But here it must be on the right.
Am I crazy, or is this graph showing that CH4 has a lower wavelength than CO2? And thus higher frequency?The lower the wavelength, the faster the frequency, the more energetic. Right?
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.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).
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.
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.
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?
Oh yeah. That would explain the melting icecaps.
Methylene?
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.
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.
Perfectly put.
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).
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?Extend of the Antarctic hovers unchanged. But the mass increases.That's cool
Hi Mark. Is there, perchance, a time dimension to global warming potential of different gases?
Every gas absorbs light, at some frequency or other.
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.
Could you be saying he's misread yet another source? Never...
Children know this, he's wumming.
