Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change for the non-scientists


Climate change for the non-scientists31-08-2020 21:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1685)
The earth receives energy from the sun at a certain rate. Then the earth reemits that energy at a certain rate. If the rate of absorbtion is greater than the rate of reemission, then the temperature of the earth will increase. CO2 slows the flow of energy back into outer space. This results in the rate of reemission being smaller than the rate of absorbtion. The CO2 doesn't create the energy in the atmosphere, it absorbs energy that is reemitted by the earth. This isn't a violation of thermodynamics since the earth isn't a closed system. The CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over historic levels because of the burning of fuels such as gasoline and oil which weren't burned in distant history. The amount of fuel that has been burned is easily calculable and even though there might not be an exact number for this, it is a huge number. Therefore there is a huge amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere. Even though the historic amount of CO2 is a small number, it has been sufficient to keep earth's temperature at a higher level than would be the case if the CO2 were not there. The increased CO2 during the last 100 years is sufficient to result in an increase the earth's temp by an amount commensurate with the percentage increase in CO2 from burning fuel. This increase in temp isn't energy created by the CO2. It is the result of CO2 slowing the emission of energy back into outer space. This has changed the balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy. From that we have an increase in temp, global warming. I don't feel the need to measure it. I'm sure it's there.
31-08-2020 22:50
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
The earth receives energy from the sun at a certain rate. Then the earth reemits that energy at a certain rate. If the rate of absorbtion is greater than the rate of reemission, then the temperature of the earth will increase. CO2 slows the flow of energy back into outer space. This results in the rate of reemission being smaller than the rate of absorbtion. The CO2 doesn't create the energy in the atmosphere, it absorbs energy that is reemitted by the earth. This isn't a violation of thermodynamics since the earth isn't a closed system. The CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over historic levels because of the burning of fuels such as gasoline and oil which weren't burned in distant history. The amount of fuel that has been burned is easily calculable and even though there might not be an exact number for this, it is a huge number. Therefore there is a huge amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere. Even though the historic amount of CO2 is a small number, it has been sufficient to keep earth's temperature at a higher level than would be the case if the CO2 were not there. The increased CO2 during the last 100 years is sufficient to result in an increase the earth's temp by an amount commensurate with the percentage increase in CO2 from burning fuel. This increase in temp isn't energy created by the CO2. It is the result of CO2 slowing the emission of energy back into outer space. This has changed the balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy. From that we have an increase in temp, global warming. I don't feel the need to measure it. I'm sure it's there.

At least you are now being forthcoming about your very strong faith in the Global Warming religion, a faith that is completely unshaken by logic, math, and science...
01-09-2020 00:40
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
keepit wrote:
The earth receives energy from the sun at a certain rate. Then the earth reemits that energy at a certain rate. If the rate of absorbtion is greater than the rate of reemission, then the temperature of the earth will increase. CO2 slows the flow of energy back into outer space. This results in the rate of reemission being smaller than the rate of absorbtion. The CO2 doesn't create the energy in the atmosphere, it absorbs energy that is reemitted by the earth. This isn't a violation of thermodynamics since the earth isn't a closed system. The CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over historic levels because of the burning of fuels such as gasoline and oil which weren't burned in distant history. The amount of fuel that has been burned is easily calculable and even though there might not be an exact number for this, it is a huge number. Therefore there is a huge amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere. Even though the historic amount of CO2 is a small number, it has been sufficient to keep earth's temperature at a higher level than would be the case if the CO2 were not there. The increased CO2 during the last 100 years is sufficient to result in an increase the earth's temp by an amount commensurate with the percentage increase in CO2 from burning fuel. This increase in temp isn't energy created by the CO2. It is the result of CO2 slowing the emission of energy back into outer space. This has changed the balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy. From that we have an increase in temp, global warming. I don't feel the need to measure it. I'm sure it's there.

Good theory.Even the believers agree that 97% is natural.What is the plant uptake of CO2? I have been measuring the CO2 and its around 400ppm at ground level as it is heavier than air at what altitude is it minimal.All the theory shows it as this band at cloud height that is not the case.If the extra CO2 is only at the first 1000 feet of the atmosphere how much difference does it make?The theory is good it is just the reality is not.The effects are minimal we are being lied to.Time will tell.The sea is not rising the ice is not melting and polar bears and penguins are booming.To shut down humanity on a theory would be nuts which is why it is not happening.The scared people will always be scared of something with no logic


duncan61
01-09-2020 00:47
keepit
★★★★☆
(1685)
Duncan,
The temperature and the sea level will go up in very small increments.
Think of this - a 5 degree drop in temp would put us in an ice age. Very small temp changes make a big difference. If you look for wide swings in temp or sea level you won't find them but that doesn't disprove the fact that a lot of co2 is going into the atmosphere and the more co2, the more the reemission of energy to outer space is decreased.
01-09-2020 01:21
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
Keepit, At what altitude do you suspect all this CO2 is hanging out at?
01-09-2020 01:51
keepit
★★★★☆
(1685)
Gas,
As i understand it CO2 is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen and so it tends to reside at lower altitudes. It definitely went into the atmosphere so if it is not there anymore, where is it?
01-09-2020 03:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
keepit wrote:
Gas,
As i understand it CO2 is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen and so it tends to reside at lower altitudes. It definitely went into the atmosphere so if it is not there anymore, where is it?


Our plants are on the surface (or in the ocean). Wind can whirl CO2 around but it always works its way downward to the surface where it is greedily consumed by plants. There is so little CO2 in our atmosphere that plants are never satiated and always need more. This is why serious greenhouses add loads of CO2 for the plants to thrive.

It's all part of the carbon cycle.

* CO2 in the atmosphere

W1. CO2 makes some precipitation acidic and goes into the ocean.
W2. Sea water with dissolved CO2 evaporates, releasing the CO2 back into the atmopshere.

G1. CO2 is consumed by plants and the plants grow
G2. Plants become fuel, either as food or as fuel, generating CO2 which is released into the atmosphere.

Let me know if you have any questions.


.



B.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-09-2020 03:16
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
It's still the same amount of energy, and CO2 remains a trace gas, even though 'levels are rising, at and alarming rate', to quote Al Gore... It's not going to make any difference, since it's the same amount of energy coming in, and going out, just as always (best anyone can tell). Thermal energy flows from warm to cold. The greater the difference, the faster the rate of transfer. You seem to think that CO2 is forming this thick, continuous blanket, that surrounds the planet, like a lab jar. You also ignore, that the planet is spinning, and only 50% of the surface, might be exposed to the sun, at any given time, the other half is in shadow. All things are not equal, and always the same, on a global scale. It's nothing like a glass jar in a laboratory.

The glaring example of what happens, the real catastrophic effect, but on a much more damaging, and permanent scale, is going on right now. We shut down the economy for basically 3 months in many areas, not completely, but close enough to cause huge problems, cost a lot of money, but we'll recover, when the political games end. The covid response, is similar to what is being ask for global warming. Economy doesn't effect people on a fixed income as badly, since that check shows up every month, sometimes for years after they die. Besides, there is always cans of cat food, three for a dollar, with a coupon, of course...
01-09-2020 03:30
keepit
★★★★☆
(1685)
IBD,
The CO2 cycle is like a wheel with the CO2 circulating between the atmosphere, the ocean, the rocks, and the streams, the ocean floor, and underground. When you add a quantity of CO2 to this cycle it does rain down and go to the rivers and sea and ocean floors but then it rises back up to the atmosphere. The CO2 is always divided up between the aforementioned components but once a quantity of CO2 enters the carbon cycle (wheel) that cycle carries increased CO2 for hundreds to even a thousand years.
By the way, when the plants that absorb the CO2 dies, they rot and release all the CO2 that they absorbed and release it back into the atmosphere. In other words it still remains in the carbon cycle.

Also, it isn't the same amount of energy going out at the same rate. It's the rate that is key here. The incoming rate stays the same but the outgoing rate slows because of increased CO2.
Edited on 01-09-2020 03:35
01-09-2020 03:40
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:
Gas,
As i understand it CO2 is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen and so it tends to reside at lower altitudes. It definitely went into the atmosphere so if it is not there anymore, where is it?


Our plants are on the surface (or in the ocean). Wind can whirl CO2 around but it always works its way downward to the surface where it is greedily consumed by plants. There is so little CO2 in our atmosphere that plants are never satiated and always need more. This is why serious greenhouses add loads of CO2 for the plants to thrive.

It's all part of the carbon cycle.


You could not be more correct.

Keepit, little home experiment for you.

1. Light a candle
2. In a glass, put a tablespoon of baking soda.
3. Add a shot of vinegar to the baking soda. CO2 will be created.
4. Now, without pouring out any liquid, pour the CO2 onto the candle. The flame will go out, showing just how heavy CO2 actually is.
5. Tell me with a straight face that there is CO2 anywhere other than low altitudes where plants are gobbling it up.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 01-09-2020 03:41
01-09-2020 04:14
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
The CO2 cycle is like a wheel with the CO2 circulating between the atmosphere, the ocean, the rocks, and the streams, the ocean floor, and underground. When you add a quantity of CO2 to this cycle it does rain down and go to the rivers and sea and ocean floors but then it rises back up to the atmosphere. The CO2 is always divided up between the aforementioned components but once a quantity of CO2 enters the carbon cycle (wheel) that cycle carries increased CO2 for hundreds to even a thousand years.
By the way, when the plants that absorb the CO2 dies, they rot and release all the CO2 that they absorbed and release it back into the atmosphere. In other words it still remains in the carbon cycle.

Also, it isn't the same amount of energy going out at the same rate. It's the rate that is key here. The incoming rate stays the same but the outgoing rate slows because of increased CO2.


All you cam see is that little jar of CO2 in the lab, and just can see the bigger planet. CO2 is a trace gas. It's not evenly divided up, or evenly distributed. Plants will consume all that drift by, and always wanting more. It's like when you go grocery shopping, and walk buy the meat isle and really want on of those thick cut ribeye steaks. But, your fixed budget for the month, only allows for ground beef occasionally, or you'll be shopping the pet food isle the rest of the month.

All living things, are built from carbon molecules, every cell. That carbon only comes out of the environment, to enter the food change, in the form of CO2. Natural, or man-made, it's still the same molecule. When organic matter 'rots', it's being consumed by bacteria, another living thing that needs to feed. That CO2 isn't released back into the environment for quite some time. Bacteria release other carbon based molecules, beside CO2. You learned most of your science, from Bill Nye, the science guy. The overly simplified version, for a simple mind...
01-09-2020 10:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
The CO2 cycle is like a wheel with the CO2 circulating between the atmosphere, the ocean, the rocks, and the streams, the ocean floor, and underground. When you add a quantity of CO2 to this cycle it does rain down and go to the rivers and sea and ocean floors but then it rises back up to the atmosphere. The CO2 is always divided up between the aforementioned components but once a quantity of CO2 enters the carbon cycle (wheel) that cycle carries increased CO2 for hundreds to even a thousand years.
By the way, when the plants that absorb the CO2 dies, they rot and release all the CO2 that they absorbed and release it back into the atmosphere. In other words it still remains in the carbon cycle.

Also, it isn't the same amount of energy going out at the same rate. It's the rate that is key here. The incoming rate stays the same but the outgoing rate slows because of increased CO2.


CO2 is not an indestructible molecule, moron. Plants break down CO2, combine it with water and sunlight to make carbohydrates. It is no longer CO2. Oxygen is released in the process of photosynthesis as well. A plant is made of carbohydrates, not CO2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-09-2020 12:59
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
As already said, CO2 is a trace gas. Even if some magician could somehow heat it up to 1000 degrees of celsius, it would not cause anything because it has no mass. The mass of the earth is enourmous. You need something very big and massive to heat it up ( sun ) and if you want to heat it up some more, then this additional heater should also be very big and massive.
Edited on 01-09-2020 13:14
01-09-2020 17:58
keepit
★★★★☆
(1685)
ITN,
More name calling huh.
Anyway, sure, the plants turn CO2 into carbohydrates. Later, but not much later, they die. Then the plants decompose with the help of various organisms and in the process CO2 is released to go back into the CO2 cycle and into the atmosphere.
You should stay in your own lane.
01-09-2020 18:17
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
More name calling huh.
Anyway, sure, the plants turn CO2 into carbohydrates. Later, but not much later, they die. Then the plants decompose with the help of various organisms and in the process CO2 is released to go back into the CO2 cycle and into the atmosphere.
You should stay in your own lane.


That's the Bill Nye version. Very little of that CO2 the plant took in, is ever released back into the atmosphere. Plants don't just produce carbohydrates, but a very wide assortment of organic chemicals. Some used medically, but more commonalty, recreational these days. There are quite a few organic chemicals animals need, that our bodies don't produce from raw minerals. Some we get from plants, other from eating flesh from other animals, which got the parts and pieces from plants.

We really don't know everything there is to know about this planet, or life. We know quite a few things, can mess around with a lot of stuff, but we are a long ways from really understanding the full picture.
01-09-2020 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Xadoman wrote:
As already said, CO2 is a trace gas. Even if some magician could somehow heat it up to 1000 degrees of celsius, it would not cause anything because it has no mass. The mass of the earth is enourmous. You need something very big and massive to heat it up ( sun ) and if you want to heat it up some more, then this additional heater should also be very big and massive.


CO2 has mass, dude.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-09-2020 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
More name calling huh.
Anyway, sure, the plants turn CO2 into carbohydrates. Later, but not much later, they die. Then the plants decompose with the help of various organisms and in the process CO2 is released to go back into the CO2 cycle and into the atmosphere.
You should stay in your own lane.


Nope. They can break down into carbon, or be recombined into proteins. They do not 'return the CO2' unless you burn them.

Learn chemistry, moron. Yes. I called you another name. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-09-2020 22:15
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
As already said, CO2 is a trace gas. Even if some magician could somehow heat it up to 1000 degrees of celsius, it would not cause anything because it has no mass. The mass of the earth is enourmous. You need something very big and massive to heat it up ( sun ) and if you want to heat it up some more, then this additional heater should also be very big and massive.


CO2 has mass, dude.



It has no mass( neglible mass) compared to earth s mass. There are guys who build fusors in their homes and temperatures reach to millions of kelvins and nothing happens to the device because the mass of the plasma is neglible.
02-09-2020 03:39
keepit
★★★★☆
(1685)
ITN,
All that name calling sounds like a personal problem - but what personal problem? I don't know.
Anyway, burning carbon is what happens when the carbohydrates decompose. It's the oxidation of carbon. It's an ongoing process throughout billions of years. There may be more than one step in the process but it ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning oil and gas adds to the natural process by increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby slowing the outflow of energy back into outer space.
02-09-2020 04:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
keepit wrote:Duncan, The temperature and the sea level will go up in very small increments.

DEBUNKED

keepit wrote:Think of this - a 5 degree drop in temp would put us in an ice age.

I notice that we don't plunge into an ice age every night.

keepit wrote: Very small temp changes make a big difference.

Why would any rational person believe that? Very small temperature changes have very small effects.


keepit wrote:.. the fact that a lot of co2 is going into the atmosphere and the more co2, the more the reemission of energy to outer space is decreased.

DEBUNKED


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2020 04:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
keepit wrote:... once a quantity of CO2 enters the carbon cycle (wheel) that cycle carries increased CO2 for hundreds to even a thousand years.

Fallacy. No CO2 "enters" the carbon cycle. All of it is already in the carbon cycle. In order for CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, it is converted from plants (either as food or as fuel) that grew because it consumed CO2 that was in the atmosphere.

keepit wrote: By the way, when the plants that absorb the CO2 dies, they rot and release all the CO2 that they absorbed and release it back into the atmosphere. [/quot]
... or they are burned as fuel or consumed as food ... and whatever CO2 is released into the atmosphere is then consumed by plants that grow.


.




In other words it still remains in the carbon cycle.

Also, it isn't the same amount of energy going out at the same rate. It's the rate that is key here. The incoming rate stays the same but the outgoing rate slows because of increased CO2.



A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2020 04:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Into the Night wrote: Learn chemistry, moron.

That was so unnecessary for you to call him a moron ... and totally inappropriate.



... that's my job.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2020 11:05
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
All that name calling sounds like a personal problem - but what personal problem? I don't know.
Anyway, burning carbon is what happens when the carbohydrates decompose. It's the oxidation of carbon. It's an ongoing process throughout billions of years. There may be more than one step in the process but it ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning oil and gas adds to the natural process by increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby slowing the outflow of energy back into outer space.


Like all global warming nuts, you go with the kiddie versions, and don't have a clue there is a huge planet involved, and many other 'cycles' involved. Only a very small portion of the CO2 that plants pulled out of the atmosphere, returns to the environment, directly as CO2. The carbon is locked into many other organic molecules. Burning stuff, helps get more CO2 back into the atmosphere. California is big on assisting that natural process, burning hundreds of thousands of acres every year. That's why they claim to be the 'greenest' state. Plants do there best in the 800 ppm range, must be some reason. I've never read any upper limit of CO2 that kills plants. There just wasn't any measurable advantage to providing more.

Certainly, you've heard of those massive reptiles, known a dinosaurs. Cold blooded, and would certainly have a huge feed bill. That's going to require a warmer climate, and a lot of rapid plant growth. Seems to indicate that we once had a warmer climate, and much higher CO2, and life was good.
02-09-2020 12:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
keepit wrote:The earth receives energy from the sun at a certain rate. Then the earth reemits that energy at a certain rate.

These would be about the same rates, for Venus as well. Even though the ground level temp might be much higher than the temperature which corresponds to that recieved/emitted per meter amount.

keepit wrote:If the rate of absorbtion is greater than the rate of reemission, then the temperature of the earth will increase.
So we are not talking about the entire Earth from the last molecule of gas near the void of space to the molten core. We are concerned with the ground level (bottom of the atmosphere). For more thermal energy to be present in that zone the key is why more of it is able to be present. If a change in the composition of gas caused there to be a increased capacity for thermal energy to be retained, there would initially be more absorbtion than emission. But the reason the temperature if higher is the ability to retain the thermal energy (technically temporarily).

keepit wrote:...CO2 doesn't create the energy...isn't a violation of thermodynamics since the earth isn't a closed system.
"Isolated System" is actually what you mean. As you are identifying the foolishness of ITN/IBD here I would point out that they get this wrong in thinking that there cannot be more thermal energy present without an increase in the energy received from the Sun. This error is evident in that sentence as the amount of thermal energy received from the sun is not fixed at all as we receive a constant stream of energy. Be a bit like claiming it's not possible to have a million dollars if you're only getting a hundred bucks, skipping over that someone might be getting a hundred dollars every hour. I kind of like a sponge analogy. A sponge does not create or destroy water, it simply absorbs it. It's constantly evaporating out of the sponge. A sponge could receive the same fixed input of water spray and have very differnt amounts of water in it depending on it's compostion.

keepit wrote:...the historic amount of CO2 is a small number, it has been sufficient to keep earth's temperature at a higher level than would be the case if the CO2 were not there.
This is the important part. How much impact does CO2 have. Pretty much what 80% of the discussion on this board should be if Trolls hadn't stomped all over it.

keepit wrote:This increase in temp isn't energy created by the CO2. It is the result of CO2 slowing the emission of energy back into outer space.
Or I would even just say that there is more thermal energy present at ground level.

duncan61 wrote:If the extra CO2 is only at the first 1000 feet of the atmosphere how much difference does it make?
Since the solid/water surface of Earth is radiating outward that would actually put the CO2 in the optimal position to interfere with that clean exit of infra red radiance.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Keepit, At what altitude do you suspect all this CO2 is hanging out at?....Tell me with a straight face that there is CO2 anywhere other than low altitudes where plants are gobbling it up.
Already well answered by Keepit but GG this is not a mystery. Duncan just bought a CO2 meter did you notice that? Air is thinner up high and denser down low. There is therefore more CO2 near the ground level. I found this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1934239 "The volume percentage of CO2 in the air remains almost constant with increasing elevation"


Now if you're going to call that fake news or something GG, why don't you get a CO2 meter and go fly a kite! If there truly is some vast conspiracy you'll be famous for debunking it.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 02-09-2020 12:18
02-09-2020 13:03
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I am sure water vapour and clouds do most of the IR blocking.How much are we going to attribute to .04% V .028% of a trace gas.This is where it falls over.The reality and all the complex factors.Again Time will tell
02-09-2020 15:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
duncan61 wrote:I am sure water vapour and clouds do most of the IR blocking.

Wrong word: "blocking" You'll only end up confusing yourself.

Do you mean to say "absorbs", i.e. converts electromagnetic into thermal?

Do you mean to say "reflects", i.e. the electromagnetic energy flies off into space?

Do you mean to say both? If so then you mean neither.

Hint: You are allowing yourself to be distracted. Nothing about clouds or water vapor will alter the earth's average global temperature. I'm not telling you to stop talking about them, but to thine own self be true; no discussion of the atmosphere is going to help you achieve any sort of truthful understanding in the area of temperature. It just won't.

The fact that tgoebbles and keepit want to bog you down in this particular mire should tell you all you need to know.


duncan61 wrote: How much are we going to attribute to .04% V .028% of a trace gas.

Zero in either case. Ask me how much that figure changes if the atmosphere were 25% CO2 with double the water vapor. That's right, zero still. I have no idea why you are trying to convince yourself otherwise.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2020 18:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
These would be about the same rates, for Venus as well.... [much more blathering has been deleted, as much of it is in violation of the tmiddles ordinance]

Summarily dismissed. Answer the questions.
03-09-2020 00:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g..25c...20b5...20f...20a2...20b3...20h...20i...20g...20b1...25g...20a1...1...20e1...20a4...20a1...4a...4b...20r6...35a...32...22g...IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. False authorities. Answer the questions put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-09-2020 01:49
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:I am sure water vapour and clouds do most of the IR blocking.

Wrong word: "blocking" You'll only end up confusing yourself.

Do you mean to say "absorbs", i.e. converts electromagnetic into thermal?

Do you mean to say "reflects", i.e. the electromagnetic energy flies off into space?

Do you mean to say both? If so then you mean neither.

Hint: You are allowing yourself to be distracted. Nothing about clouds or water vapor will alter the earth's average global temperature. I'm not telling you to stop talking about them, but to thine own self be true; no discussion of the atmosphere is going to help you achieve any sort of truthful understanding in the area of temperature. It just won't.

The fact that tgoebbles and keepit want to bog you down in this particular mire should tell you all you need to know.


duncan61 wrote: How much are we going to attribute to .04% V .028% of a trace gas.

Zero in either case. Ask me how much that figure changes if the atmosphere were 25% CO2 with double the water vapor. That's right, zero still. I have no idea why you are trying to convince yourself otherwise.
If water vapour and clouds do not keep us warm what does.

.



duncan61
03-09-2020 05:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
duncan61 wrote:
If water vapour and clouds do not keep us warm what does.


Nothing. Only the continuing energy from the Sun keeps the temperature of the Earth where it is.

Like a coal near (not in) a campfire, it's cooling all the time. The fire keeps heating it. If the fire goes out, the coal cools to ambient temperature.

Each is like a coal near the campfire (the Sun).

The surface temperature on Earth doesn't swing as wildly as the Moon because the Earth has a thicker atmosphere. That is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat it and to cool it. The average temperature doesn't change, but the range of temperatures narrows.

The Moon's atmosphere is so thin most people don't really count it as one (but it does have one!). There is very little mass in that atmosphere. It is far easier to heat it and cool it, so the temperature on the surface of the moon swings wildly. It's average temperature, however, doesn't change.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit




Join the debate Climate change for the non-scientists:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Ocean currents are speeding up faster than scientists predicted417-02-2020 14:55
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists203-09-2019 04:38
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
If it's so important why don't some climate scientists kill themselves?028-03-2019 02:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact