|Why the Guardian is putting global CO2 levels in the weather forecast07-04-2019 01:13|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★☆☆
|It is really important to know what the Earth had 40% of it's atmosphere made up of CO2 and it was life forms on this planet that reduced this to 0.04% replacing it with oxygen. Since this change in the components of the atmosphere of 1,000 to 1 did not change the cyclic warm periods to ice ages exactly how are they trying to pass off that a change in CO2 by 50% why would make a difference?|
That we have never had a change in CO2 this rapidly? That is completely incorrect. While the Ice Core demonstrates only small changes and only over long periods these do NOT show accurate CO2 levels. Let's remember that CO2 is washing in and out of the oceans with temperature changes. Likewise CO2 moves rather freely in and out of ice.
I have covered this before but I will cover it again: Plant stomata are the small pores under the leaves of plants by which plants absorb CO2. The sunlight strikes the top of the leave and the pores on top of the leaves aspirate O2 and H2O. The lower the amount of CO2 in the air the higher the number of stomata trying to catch some.
Therefore, looking at fossilized leaves you can rather closely identify CO2 levels and compare them with times. These directly show that CO2 has been both a lot higher than reported by the Ice Cores, showing the truth of my claims about CO2 in ice, but also that CO2 changes far faster than previously thought.
There is more to the story though. The leaves on the top layer of a jungle are rarely those that are fossilized, the overwhelming majority examined are those from the lowest levels of very dense jungle. This means that the 350 to 380 ppm CO2 that they are recording are at the absolute lower layers where the competition for CO2 is at it's highest. Where the largest part of CO2 present in the atmosphere never get.
This should be interpreted as the REAL high points of CO2 since the last Ice Age are far more likely to be well above 450 ppm or even higher.
All of the horror stories about CO2 have little or no basis in fact.
I have also explained before that CO2 and it's ability to absorb radiation of three very low IR wavelengths has absolutely no bearing on the temperature IN the atmosphere. In the first place, there is little to no energy in those wavelengths - none at all from water which covers 70% of the Earth and very little from objects that can get hot such as rock surfaces. The Sun's emissions does have a low amount of these but so what? All this absorption does is turn radiant energy into conductive energy. The Earth warms to the temperature at which it regains temperature stability by emitting the same amount of energy it receives.
The reasons that a planet has any temperature at all is because of the atmosphere and its specific density. While the sun side of Mercury is 427 C, the night side is -173 C or only 100 C over absolute zero. The AVERAGE temperature of Venus, is 467C or hotter than the sun side of Mercury. This is from the density of the atmosphere and not because, like most other planets, the atmosphere is composed mainly of CO2. The average temperature of Mars is -65 C despite it getting about half the energy from the Sun that Earth does. (Average temperature of Earth is about 14 C.)
Jupiter receives only a tiny amount of the Sun's energy as Venus. Jupiter's temperature at about 600 miles above its surface is 725 C. This is almost twice the temperature as Venus or the sun side of Mercury.
This is a perfect example that demonstrates that the mean global temperature of a Astronomical body is almost entire due to the atmospheric density and the received energy of the Sun.
That children have been propagandized to believe that CO2 levels below those that interfere with breathing are important is something that should be attacked by any and everyone possible.
|Into the Night★★★★★
How do you know, Wake? Were you there?
Which is it, Wake? Is an ice core an indicator of historic CO2 content or not?
The density of plant stomata varies with the species of plant, Wake. It has nothing to do with CO2 concentration.
How do you know? Were you there?
It shouldn't be interpreted in this direction at all.
Correct. CO2 has no capability to warm the planet.
All infrared light is energy, Wake. ALL light is energy. There is no such thing as light with no energy.
The Sun has strong emissions all the way down into the radio bands, Wake. That is well below any infrared frequencies.
There is no such thing as 'conductive energy'.
Energy has no temperature, Wake.
What about planets and moons that have no atmosphere, Wake. Don't they have a temperature?
Did you know that 100 > zero, Wake?
The temperature of Venus is unknown, Wake, just like the temperature of Mercury.
A dense atmosphere does not make a planet hotter, Wake. It only makes the atmosphere more like the surface.
The albedo of Earth is unknown, Wake.
The albedo of Mars is unknown, Wake.
The temperature of Earth is unknown, Wake. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. We do not have sufficient instrumentation.
The temperature of Jupiter is unknown, Wake.
No, it isn't.
Yet you also believe that CO2 warms the Earth, Wake.
The Parrot Killer
|15 ppm O3 capture 98% of UV so what makes IPCC think 15 ppm CO2 don't capture 98% of those 3 bands of||0||19-04-2019 16:27|
|New climate models forecast a warming surge||0||19-04-2019 15:36|
|Earth's carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, study says||0||19-04-2019 15:33|
|Rising CO2 on declining nutrition in food is big issue, TED talk hears||0||19-04-2019 15:32|
|Going up against CO2 is going up against GOD.||0||19-04-2019 15:14|
|Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events|