Global Warming Argument Simplified

James___ wrote:
If the observations made by the IPCC are considered credible then the debate comes down to which argument a person supports.

James___ wrote:
90% of global warming heat content is found in the top 2,000 meters of our oceans. What people need to consider is this, can our oceans absorb 90% of the heat trapped in our atmosphere?

James___ wrote:
If they doubt this then they need to consider if our oceans are radiating heat into our atmosphere.

James___ wrote:
After this it gets complicated. This is because melting glaciers allows for tectonic plate rebound. And so far it has not been demonstrated how CO2 effects KE = 3/2kT. This does need to be made known. How does increased CO2 levels require more work to be performed to change temperature T in Kelvins? This is something basic but yet to be demonstrated.

James___ wrote:
I thought I'd add this for fun

Water is 1,000 times denser than atmospheric gases. Yet the ratio of heat absorption is 9:1. Does the velocity of current/air flow account for this discrepancy? Does cold water reflect heat?

James___ wrote:
Some background info:
Solar radiation is warming our oceans. What changed the frequencies w/m^2 being absorbed by our oceans?

James___ wrote:
This is all according to the IPCC. And this is since 1998.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth,

HarveyH55 wrote:
control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm fully convinced that this is a huge fraud, just too many things that just don't quite fit. Kind of like looking at a jigsaw puzzle, where someone forced a few pieces into places they didn't quite fit. I'm more interested in finding those pieces. I have no doubt that the truth will come out eventually, and no one will doubt it's a non-issue. But, I'd like to see it exposed as an intentional fraud, and see some accountability, all the way up to the folks writing the grant checks. They were in a position of spending our tax dollars wisely, there was no reason to believe this needed government funding.

Think our next big debate, is going to be genetic engineering related. Been noticing the GMO labeling a lot, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of FDA approved GMO food items. Now, it's no secret that foods have been genetically altered for a long time, just not by splicing genes. Officially, GMO products aren't really a thing, yet. The labeling seems to be a scare tactic, maybe there are a ton of GMO products ready for the market, just waiting for the 'greenlight' (someone in office, who has a reasonable price). Basically, I was thinking about growing some vegetable in my backyard. Never really turns out well, but I get the itch to try occasionally. Probably do better with an indoor garden. I've got to be careful, and look for seeds that are good for this growing zone. Florida vegetables aren't the same as northern varieties, sometimes pretty obvious looking. A northern tomato wouldn't do well here. Pretty much every seed I looked at, said 'Non-GMO', which I thought odd. One, I'd expect them to be sterile, not produce seed, so people would keep buying them, limit competition for a while. Second, there just wasn't that many GMO products a couple years ago, and not well received.

Just sort of looks like there is going to be a huge GMO war soon, which sort of makes me kind of wonder what's really going on in the background. Usually, when we are getting setup for a big scare, something sneaky is going on, while we are fighting a non-issue.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.

Wake wrote:
I'd rather you didn't communicate with the lunatic asylum member who is growing worse with every posting.

Wake wrote:
Here is the spectrum of Sunlight:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Wake wrote:
The solid line is the calculated blackbody radiation of the Sun.

Wake wrote:
Since the Sun is not a true blackbody the yellow area shows the actual Sunlight that arrives at the outer atmosphere of Earth.

Wake wrote:
You can see that since the Sun isn't a pure blackbody that the radiation from temperature emissions is slipped from the high Ultraviolet into the visible spectrum.

Wake wrote:
Therefore the Ultraviolet is lower than in a pure blackbody and the visible light is more than from the blackbody characterization.

Wake wrote:
Finally the red is what actually reaches the surface of the Earth.

Wake wrote:
Some small part of this loss is due to reflection from the clouds that from space often look continuous but at cloud level are not. There is also absorption from the major atmospheric gases of O2 and N2. But the largest absorption is caused by the rather small amount of H2O in the atmosphere in its three different phases- vapor, liquid or solid. There is some tiny absorption from CO2 and here is a representation of the spectrum:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=hSkGvmSu&id=C6E1DC33FB268DF8C8856AC4863B85049661AE20&thid=OIP.hSkGvmSuyCcJZbD3o1XtxgHaEC&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fdaryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com%2f2014%2f05%2fco2absoq.gif&exph=217&expw=398&q=absorption+spectrum+of+co2&simid=608054457139266442&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

The upper two bands are very narrow and absorb all of the energy available in sunlight at around 200-250 ppm of CO2. The lowest band is in the lower infrared and the sunlight puts very little radiation into that band. Instead the other sunlight energies that are absorbed by the Earth are modified because the high energy sunlight is converted to far lower frequency light because it is heating the ground or water. So this energy is practically non-existent and that two is absorbed by very low levels of CO2.

So the levels of CO2 above approximately 250 ppm has no further effect on the temperature in the atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
Remember - what causes emissions is the temperature of a body. The Sun is extremely hot and so closely resembles a blackbody.

Wake wrote:
The Earth is NOT hot with an average temperature about 588 degrees Kelvin. A body at this temperature even a total blackbody still has very low frequency emissions.

Wake wrote:
And these are almost entire absorbed by H2O

Wake wrote:
and transferred through various forms of circulation into the upper stratosphere where is can only escape through the process of emission.

Wake wrote:
Remember that the upper atmosphere has a far greater surface area than the ground level Earth. This means that the temperature of the Earth is spread still thinner and hence the emitted energy is very low frequency.

Wake wrote:
So low that it is undetectable at any distance and hence we have to use other forms of detection to discover planets on other starts.

Wake wrote:
This all has been known by what is now NASA starting circa 1905.

Wake wrote:
There is nothing tricky about any of it. There is nothing that requires a PhD in chemistry to discover.

Wake wrote:
That the WEATHER has been used as a political tool should embarrass every single scientist on the Earth.

HarveyH55 wrote:
'Ideal', doesn't occur in nature, but I'm finding that a lot of Climate Science, uses these 'Ideal Models', as close enough for discussion/fact. Discussion and agreement, isn't fact, but is being sold as such. I work with electronics, hobby I've had most of my life. I use the computer to simulate circuits, saves a lot of math, guessing, smoldering experimentation (warming, at an alarming rate). The parts models, are generally 'Ideal', but silicon parts aren't, since there are many different version of the same basic part. Sometimes you can get a tweaked model from the manufacturer, to simulate specific parts, but still not perfect or 'Ideal', since outside conditions can effect operation. Big difference between what and how, something works on paper, and in discussions, and the real, physical world. I'm not sure if the scientist lost the distinction, being so focused on the theories and hypotheticals, or intentionally ignore it, but what they are generating, is garbage. Think all the papers they generate, copies printed to share, are killing the trees, that would be pulling most of that planet killing CO2 out of the atmosphere.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.

All they have to do is to heat 2 rooms to the same temperature but different levels of CO2. To either raise or lower the rooms temperatures will require work in Btu or KwH.
Scientists can insulate both rooms and test them to determine their rates of entropy.
With the link to solar radiation warming our oceans, why did that start in 1998? Before 1998 there was no mention of that. The heat in the oceans is why there wasn't a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013.

Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not 'in' anything.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.

All they have to do is to heat 2 rooms to the same temperature but different levels of CO2. To either raise or lower the rooms temperatures will require work in Btu or KwH.
Scientists can insulate both rooms and test them to determine their rates of entropy.
With the link to solar radiation warming our oceans, why did that start in 1998? Before 1998 there was no mention of that. The heat in the oceans is why there wasn't a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013.

Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.

If you had any engineering experience you'd be saying otherwise. Air circulation would be expected. And for that matter the velocity that air moves past a heat exchanger would be the result of work being done. That'd be easy enough to demonstrate.
When air is heated or cooled by a heat exchanger it will move away from it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.

Yet scientists have measured the precession of Mercury to be 5600 arc seconds per century.
It's funny that neither you nor Wake think that a rate of flow past a heat exchanger can be measured in a way that could show how the composition of gases would matter. This is something that would be easy if a person opened a book and read it. But as you say Harvey, you won't waste your free time learning about something. I think Wake's the same way.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Heat is not 'in' anything.

Why must you make ignorant statement after ignorant statement?

Heat is energy and it is contained within the material substance of a body when dealing with matter. In open space energy is simply free energy.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have the Climatologist done an physical experiments with CO2, and a simulated (physical build, not computer) environment. Greenhouses have been used a long time to trap heat, so plants can grow in colder climates. They have been using greenhouse for more than trapping heat, for decades, they can better control light, humidity, irrigation, nutrients, even CO2 content. Pretty much simulate any environmental/climate conditions, to produce the ideal growing climate for anything, no matter how rare or exotic. Seems like the Climatologist could build a special version, to simulate Earth, control the vents, to let out the appropriate amount of heat, that would escape into outer space. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far, since CO2 augmentation is fairly common, just have to build to normal greenhouses, one would have CO2 added, the other would be regular atmosphere. The Co2 greenhouse would get measurably warmer, at an alarming rate, and need the vents open, or in fans to for out the terrible heat, and CO2. It would be a very simple experiment, cost less than the salary of one top Climatologist, and could easily be repeated. CO2 augmentation, is around 1200 ppm, 3 times the 400 ppm we currently measure in Hawaii, and they can go up to about 2000 ppm during the fruiting cycle of some plants. Not sure if there is a maximum, or if adding more, just doesn't have any effect, other than cost. With a side-by-side comparison of trapped heat, shouldn't even take one day to resolve the CO2 debate.

All they have to do is to heat 2 rooms to the same temperature but different levels of CO2. To either raise or lower the rooms temperatures will require work in Btu or KwH.
Scientists can insulate both rooms and test them to determine their rates of entropy.
With the link to solar radiation warming our oceans, why did that start in 1998? Before 1998 there was no mention of that. The heat in the oceans is why there wasn't a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013.

James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.

If you had any engineering experience you'd be saying otherwise. Air circulation would be expected. And for that matter the velocity that air moves past a heat exchanger would be the result of work being done. That'd be easy enough to demonstrate.
When air is heated or cooled by a heat exchanger it will move away from it.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:


James - your experiment is on far too small a scale to work. Even current eddies in the room would make errors in measurement.

If you had any engineering experience you'd be saying otherwise. Air circulation would be expected. And for that matter the velocity that air moves past a heat exchanger would be the result of work being done. That'd be easy enough to demonstrate.
When air is heated or cooled by a heat exchanger it will move away from it.

I find you comment strange. I have 40 years as an engineer doing research and development work. One of the projects I designed and programmed won the chief chemist a Nobel Prize in chemistry he could not have done without the evidence from my project. I have communications boards on the Space Station. I've worked on the first real Heart/Lung machine and the follow-up developments are this very second keeping my brother alive in an operating theater.

Wake wrote:
The amount of heat absorption from CO2 is so low that you'd need two rooms that size of a Trade Towers and the eddy currents in the room would not allow the temperature to be constant throughout the room. Also you would need perfect insulation that does not exist.

Wake wrote:
You do not understand the scale of the numbers you are dealing with and are pretending that you do.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.

Yet scientists have measured the precession of Mercury to be 5600 arc seconds per century.
It's funny that neither you nor Wake think that a rate of flow past a heat exchanger can be measured in a way that could show how the composition of gases would matter. This is something that would be easy if a person opened a book and read it. But as you say Harvey, you won't waste your free time learning about something. I think Wake's the same way.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of the point, of any such small scale experiment. The predicted rise in temperature is only a few degrees, over a hundred year span. The difference between temperatures, would be extremely small. Doubtful there is a thermometer that can measure a room, to that degree of precision, to show any useful temperature difference. Could only show the CO2 connection is BS. I chose greenhouses, because they would use the Sun's light and energy, regular outside air, only difference is adding CO2 to one. Plus, we use the 'greenhouse gas' reference, so it adds credibility... The main point though, would be all this climate research is don on computers, not in the real world. They have 'ideal' models, and infinite precision on their virtual instruments. None of which exists outside the computer lab. Their virtual Earth may someday burn up, but our real world is going to do just fine.

Yet scientists have measured the precession of Mercury to be 5600 arc seconds per century.
It's funny that neither you nor Wake think that a rate of flow past a heat exchanger can be measured in a way that could show how the composition of gases would matter. This is something that would be easy if a person opened a book and read it. But as you say Harvey, you won't waste your free time learning about something. I think Wake's the same way.

Let me try again - you would have to expose these rooms to sunlight since the question is whether there are any temperature changes with levels of CO2 above 250 ppm.

You better explain to us what you could hope to achieve and how you would do so. I have said that you do not understand scale of temperatures you're hoping to measure so you should present some numbers and not some sort of imaginary method of achieving some unknown.

In a room 50 meters in all three dimensions you would have 1.25 x 10^26 molecules in the room and only 50,000 molecules of CO2.

You don't have ANY idea of what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

Wake wrote:


Let me try again - you would have to expose these rooms to sunlight since the question is whether there are any temperature changes with levels of CO2 above 250 ppm.

You better explain to us what you could hope to achieve and how you would do so. I have said that you do not understand scale of temperatures you're hoping to measure so you should present some numbers and not some sort of imaginary method of achieving some unknown.

In a room 50 meters in all three dimensions you would have 1.25 x 10^26 molecules in the room and only 50,000 molecules of CO2.

You don't have ANY idea of what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Wake wrote:


Let me try again - you would have to expose these rooms to sunlight since the question is whether there are any temperature changes with levels of CO2 above 250 ppm.

You better explain to us what you could hope to achieve and how you would do so. I have said that you do not understand scale of temperatures you're hoping to measure so you should present some numbers and not some sort of imaginary method of achieving some unknown.

In a room 50 meters in all three dimensions you would have 1.25 x 10^26 molecules in the room and only 50,000 molecules of CO2.

You don't have ANY idea of what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

It's a simple experiment proposal. If I was petitioning for funding (free money), I'd do the calculation, bill of materials, a generous list of cool and nifty instruments and gadgets, most would never come out of the box, least for this project... No reason to make it complicated, the temperature readings on the Dollar Store digital thermometers either match, or they don't. I wouldn't expect any detectable difference.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is only so much energy entering the greenhouse, if CO2 doesn't absorb it, something else will. Shouldn't be significant difference, if any.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.

CO2 does have other colors it emits in other than infrared, Wake.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.

CO2 does have other colors it emits in other than infrared, Wake.

Redefinition fallacy. CO2 "is". Energy "is". Heat also "is".
And it is this perfect logic that allows us to understand there is no "Great Spirit" because there is only what "is". This is why accept logic because it is perfect in it's incarnation.

Peace and Love in the name of "is".

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think molecules are that picky about were they get energy. Some might have preferences, but don't think they are exclusive. Those wavelength CO2 likes so much, are probably just as good for many other molecules. Won't just go to waste, if no CO2 is there to grab them up. It's all fiction any way, the heat will still dissipate, cooler surfaces will get warmed, the sun only shines so many hours in a day.

I suggest you get a textbook on common molecular chemistry. Because of the vibrational patterns of molecules and the way the atoms are arranged in them they will only absorb and emit at particular frequencies. Some are complete such as H2O and some extremely simple such as CO2. CO2 has only two very narrow absorption band at mid level infrared and one at low level infrared. These bands are narrow and there is only small amounts of energy in those bands in sunlight. All of the energy in those bands are absorbed at very low levels of CO2 and so there is no further energy to absorb if levels of CO2 rise.

In the last real Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were 15%.

CO2 does have other colors it emits in other than infrared, Wake.

Redefinition fallacy. CO2 "is". Energy "is". Heat also "is".
And it is this perfect logic that allows us to understand there is no "Great Spirit" because there is only what "is". This is why accept logic because it is perfect in it's incarnation.

Peace and Love in the name of "is".

More random crap.