CO2 and Some transparency

Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

You're not hearing this from me because it's falsifiable just like the "Great Spirit". Since 1998 the IPCC apparently wrongly claims that 90% of the heat associated with global warming is in the oceans.
This simply means that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat content of the atmosphere caused by CO2.
I have to state that I support itn and gfm7175 in that life is a phallic or fallacy. I get lost on the big words they use. I sometimes wonder if itn gets the point of gfm7175's phallic. That's a fallacy, right? I'm working at learning their ways

Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

ince 1998 the IPCC apparently wrongly claims that 90% of the heat associated with global warming is in the oceans.
This simply means that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat content of the atmosphere caused by CO2.

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

You're not hearing this from me because it's falsifiable just like the "Great Spirit". Since 1998 the IPCC apparently wrongly claims that 90% of the heat associated with global warming is in the oceans.
This simply means that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat content of the atmosphere caused by CO2.
I have to state that I support itn and gfm7175 in that life is a phallic or fallacy. I get lost on the big words they use. I sometimes wonder if itn gets the point of gfm7175's phallic. That's a fallacy, right? I'm working at learning their ways

What you might ask yourself Wake is if the oceans can absorb 90% of the extra heat in the atmosphere. We can't even measure the temperature where I live. It could be Seattle and I might live on the hill (3rd Ave) north of the Space Needle. But that's not Westlake. All falsifiable.

James___ wrote:
I would explain to you why there's different layers of air passing over a wing but have to wait for what you say. You know what you're talking about.

James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow?

James___ wrote:
With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows.

James___ wrote:
I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?

James___ wrote:
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work.

James___ wrote:
Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says?
...deleted condescending rant...

James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.

For what reason are you speaking gibberish? On a molecular level you have to consider "layers" because of surface friction but in general you need only calculate lift using a single constant for air. None of those "layers" make a hill of beans below the speed of sound. Tell is more about skipping bombs from WW II or steam turbines as if they in some manner have some point in your speech.

See? You've only lived in one place, spoke one language and learned only one culture. You couldn't even say that a HiPac works using a piston that looks like a step pyramid. It has a smaller diameter piston on top of a larger diameter piston. The large diameter piston (low pressure) pressurizes the air in the inlet to the high pressure cylinder. FI (fuel injection) uses the same principle, it increases the system's pressure. Then on the intake (downward) stroke the high pressure cylinder becomes charged.
A HiPac is a high pressure air compressor. What you missed about air flowing above the wing on a plane is that even with a steam turbine rotor, even though it spins at the same rpm it will have different layers. An example of this is that one layer will be sub-sonic, one can be vibrating badly because it's traveling at the speed of sound while the out layer will be super sonic.
There will always be a layer moving at the speed of sound. What matters is how prominent it is. If it has a low enough value then the sub-sonic and super sonic layers can absorb it's stress which would be observed as waves of energy.
If you could've given a better answer this is for someone that likes getting things right.
In WW II Joe Kennedy Jr. died as a result of the improper wiring of a bomb. He was the pilot on an experimental piloted drone that had 12 tons of a powerful explosive. They were going to try and take out Hitler's Super Gun. The wiring on the explosives was to activate solenoids on the explosives if a rogue radio signal was picked up. That would prevent the explosiveves from being prematurely armed.
The guy who spotted the wiring problem went up the chain of command and was supposed to have also talked to Joe Jr. The guy didn't have a proper education. Records documented what he said was a serious flaw, his schematic shows it. The plane blew up about 10 minutes after take off.
When Canadians (I think) moved into that part of France where the Super Gun was, they found out that the guy (Barney Wallis), British) who designed the skipping bombs that took out Hitler's hydroelectric dams had also been successful with his earthquake bomb.
How did this affect American politics? That's why JFK became President in 1961.
And you want me to run with a door for what reason? As far as Hitler's Super Gun went, if they would've taken pictures of it in the morning and evening then they could've looked at how shadows were cast on the ground above it. That might've shown that Wallis' earthquake bombs were successful. But they went by 1 perspective and couldn't consider a 2nd or 3rd perspective. If they would've done that then they might've had a proper understanding of how effective those earthquake bombs were.
And when it comes to science, I like considering different perspectives. All this means is that I will go slower than someone who has only one perspective.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.

See? You've only lived in one place, spoke one language and learned only one culture. You couldn't even say that a HiPac works using a piston that looks like a step pyramid. It has a smaller diameter piston on top of a larger diameter piston. The large diameter piston (low pressure) pressurizes the air in the inlet to the high pressure cylinder. FI (fuel injection) uses the same principle, it increases the system's pressure. Then on the intake (downward) stroke the high pressure cylinder becomes charged.
A HiPac is a high pressure air compressor. What you missed about air flowing above the wing on a plane is that even with a steam turbine rotor, even though it spins at the same rpm it will have different layers. An example of this is that one layer will be sub-sonic, one can be vibrating badly because it's traveling at the speed of sound while the out layer will be super sonic.
There will always be a layer moving at the speed of sound. What matters is how prominent it is. If it has a low enough value then the sub-sonic and super sonic layers can absorb it's stress which would be observed as waves of energy.
If you could've given a better answer this is for someone that likes getting things right.
In WW II Joe Kennedy Jr. died as a result of the improper wiring of a bomb. He was the pilot on an experimental piloted drone that had 12 tons of a powerful explosive. They were going to try and take out Hitler's Super Gun. The wiring on the explosives was to activate solenoids on the explosives if a rogue radio signal was picked up. That would prevent the explosiveves from being prematurely armed.
The guy who spotted the wiring problem went up the chain of command and was supposed to have also talked to Joe Jr. The guy didn't have a proper education. Records documented what he said was a serious flaw, his schematic shows it. The plane blew up about 10 minutes after take off.
When Canadians (I think) moved into that part of France where the Super Gun was, they found out that the guy (Barney Wallis), British) who designed the skipping bombs that took out Hitler's hydroelectric dams had also been successful with his earthquake bomb.
How did this affect American politics? That's why JFK became President in 1961.
And you want me to run with a door for what reason? As far as Hitler's Super Gun went, if they would've taken pictures of it in the morning and evening then they could've looked at how shadows were cast on the ground above it. That might've shown that Wallis' earthquake bombs were successful. But they went by 1 perspective and couldn't consider a 2nd or 3rd perspective. If they would've done that then they might've had a proper understanding of how effective those earthquake bombs were.
And when it comes to science, I like considering different perspectives. All this means is that I will go slower than someone who has only one perspective.

James___ wrote:
Wake, all you're demonstrating is that you don't know anything. You have only one perspective and it's yours. You sound like itn and gfm who keep saying they are right. They don't understand the concept of research. It can change the way scientists think about different theories in physics. It's not about being right, it's about developing a better understanding of things. It's a work in progress.
You've shown that you have no understanding of how air flows over a wing. The vacuum between the wings surface and the flow of air will have a different interaction than where that flow of air is increasing the pressure of the air above it.
That would be at least 3 different values.
Flow 1 = creates pressure above flow 2
Flow 2 = primary flow of air
Flow 3 = creates vacuum between itself and the wing's surface.

How can an engineer like you miss something so obvious? Je ne said pourquoi. IL est vrais. Почему? Я не когда не знаю будить.

I do like my smart phone. It's easy to switch between keyboards and has the Cyrillic layout that I like.
On another historical note, the US and Great Britain gave Poland to Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's allowed to have eastern Ukraine and the Sea of Azov so that Ukraine can join NATO. Ukrainians at the moment are nothing more than pawns in a game of chess

And wake, you shouldn't put your reply in with the quote of mine that you're using. That shows just how childish you are.
@itn and gfm7175, if you're using someone else's logic, that doesn't make you right. How would anyone know that they would agree with your usage of their axioms? We can't know that because you are speaking for someone else.

James___ wrote:
Wake,
It's basic that when low pressure air is pressurized that volume is reduced unless it's in a closed system like an air compressor. Likewise vacuum will slow the air creating a venturi effect.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake,
It's basic that when low pressure air is pressurized that volume is reduced unless it's in a closed system like an air compressor. Likewise vacuum will slow the air creating a venturi effect.

Volume is reduced on a closed system like an air compressor as well. That's what the piston in the compressor is doing, reducing volume.

Venturis do not compress air. The do, however, decompress air. As air travels through the venturi tube, it speeds up. This also reduces the pressure of the air. As air comes out the other side, it slows down and resumes it's normal pressure.

In carburetor venturies, fuel is introduced just after the narrowest part of the venturi (where air pressure is lowest). The low air pressure at that point pulls fuel out of the draw tube and atomizes into very small droplets, perfect for burning efficiently.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake,
It's basic that when low pressure air is pressurized that volume is reduced unless it's in a closed system like an air compressor. Likewise vacuum will slow the air creating a venturi effect.

Volume is reduced on a closed system like an air compressor as well. That's what the piston in the compressor is doing, reducing volume.

Venturis do not compress air. The do, however, decompress air. As air travels through the venturi tube, it speeds up. This also reduces the pressure of the air. As air comes out the other side, it slows down and resumes it's normal pressure.

In carburetor venturies, fuel is introduced just after the narrowest part of the venturi (where air pressure is lowest). The low air pressure at that point pulls fuel out of the draw tube and atomizes into very small droplets, perfect for burning efficiently.

If the volume of air in an air compressor is reduced then so is it's output pressure.

James___ wrote:
Volume can be considered as "n" which is Avagrado's number which is 6.022 x 10^23.

James___ wrote:
This is what generates pressure, same volume but it occupies a smaller area. You didn't think about that, did you?

James___ wrote:
More than 1 perspective needs to be considered.

James___ wrote:
I'm just being an @sshole now. A vacuum can only exist in a container. Take a 2 liter bottle (think empty soda bottle) and pour 1 liter of hot water into it. It will collapse when the water cools because a vacuum has been created.

James___ wrote:
A venturi effect applies to any decrease of pressure caused by a flow.

James___ wrote:
And with volume, it refers to quantity. 6.022 x 10^23 is a volume.

James___ wrote:
The space it occupies depends on it's pressure. That is a different volume.

James___ wrote:
This is where we could have some fun itn.
If we have 6.022 x 10^23 / 1 x 10^3 then we can say that 6.022 x 10^20 = molecules of air per centimeter.
Of course with gas we'd have to ask what pressure in kg/cm^2 is that? Then we'd have V1/V2 = pressure.
Then if we changed V2, how would that effect pressure? That's basically what science "is".

James___ wrote:
@wake, this is where we get into the compress ability of a gas. If the space a gas occupies doesn't mean that it's pressure will double. There is a ratio. If it involves a curve then it'd probably take calculus to quantify it. This is why I like you guys. You want to get details like this right.

James___ wrote:
@itn and wake,
This is something that the 2 of you can point to when it comes to what scientists know. With Avagrado's number "n" it's based on a specific composition of gases at 1.003 kg/cm^3.
CO2 obviously occupies more space than oxygen (O2) does. The carbon element has what's known as a double covalent bond with the 2 oxygen elements. With O2, I think it has a single ionic bond. And the 2 of you know that's a big difference. After all, an ionic bond isn't 2 elements sharing an electron. It's like the north and south poles of 2 magnets attracting the other. It's the difference in their charge.
I'm not sure why scientists would accept something that would be defined by specific parameters as being a "law" in physics. And we all know that the laws of physics are universal.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Doesn't warm air rise? We fill hot-air balloons by burning a gas, guess that means CO2, and it will raise up into the sky... Wouldn't super-heated CO2 molecules also rise?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't be able to release the heat on the surface, only in the upper atmosphere.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Stuff doesn't just sit in one place, it get's moved around, not just the hot/cold thing either.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There's wind,

HarveyH55 wrote:
there's gravity, the magnet field, not to mention the planet itself is rotating.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There's just a lot of complex stuff going on, besides CO2 and the Sun.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The atmosphere isn't the ideal laboratory, and a lot of that textbook stuff isn't going to work the same, too many other things going on.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Nothing out there is constant, but we need to set some in the equations, so we can do the math.

HarveyH55 wrote:
A computer model, should ever be able to give any results, because it could never complete the calculations, if all things are considered, and it's an actual simulation of what's going on.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Best you can get is a partial simulation, remove a few things, stop some of the dynamics, and turned them into a set value.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We can't stop the Sun from fluctuating, can't predict precise outputs for any given moment, or future flare ups.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We have active times, and less active periods (current cooling trend), but every single fraction of a second, something different, on a smaller scale is going on with our heat/energy source. CO2 is a very small part of the atmosphere, and an even smaller part, in the overall equations.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's just as meaningless, as all the other forces and events being left out, so somebody's computer can do the math...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, my spare time, is just leisure time, I've got chores to do, also enjoy several hobbies. Reading cryptic propaganda isn't a high priority, since I don't really see a climate crisis, or evil CO2. There really isn't a physical problem, it's all in the paper, and people wanting the political power and control over our energy sources, and usage, how much we pay. I'm not filthy rich, live comfortably with my current income and savings, but this issue could potentially have a huge impact. It's a bad idea, like ObamaCare, and does have the same potential of getting shoved into place, forced on us. I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED. Don't think anyone bothers to check, since if you can fill out forms and sign your name, you are sufficiently qualified. The insurance price increased, coverage and out of pocket, changed, yearly, but ObamaCare made what I get through work, a lot more expensive, huge deductible, and less actual coverage (don't need annual mammograms)... Moving to a 'cleaner', 'greener' world, in a few decades, to prevent a 'non-issue', is my only interest in all of this. The negative impact on the economy is going to be a lot worse, than the health care non-issue. Health insurance, isn't even heath care, just more people needing to get paid, more often. Energy won't really be more expensive, just more people expecting to be paid, for the privilege of using it.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.

You should really consider spending some of your free time on reading. The main issue with CO2 isn't the CO2 itself. It only has a GWP of 1.

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, my spare time, is just leisure time, I've got chores to do, also enjoy several hobbies. Reading cryptic propaganda isn't a high priority, since I don't really see a climate crisis, or evil CO2. There really isn't a physical problem, it's all in the paper, and people wanting the political power and control over our energy sources, and usage, how much we pay. I'm not filthy rich, live comfortably with my current income and savings, but this issue could potentially have a huge impact. It's a bad idea, like ObamaCare, and does have the same potential of getting shoved into place, forced on us. I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED. Don't think anyone bothers to check, since if you can fill out forms and sign your name, you are sufficiently qualified. The insurance price increased, coverage and out of pocket, changed, yearly, but ObamaCare made what I get through work, a lot more expensive, huge deductible, and less actual coverage (don't need annual mammograms)... Moving to a 'cleaner', 'greener' world, in a few decades, to prevent a 'non-issue', is my only interest in all of this. The negative impact on the economy is going to be a lot worse, than the health care non-issue. Health insurance, isn't even heath care, just more people needing to get paid, more often. Energy won't really be more expensive, just more people expecting to be paid, for the privilege of using it.

But just ask any Snowflake - if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Of course mommy and daddy were paying the bills and not them.


But there's no need to worry too much. As the millennials age they see just how much this socialist crap is costing them personally. It's amazing how many liberals are now conservative.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.

You should really consider spending some of your free time on reading. The main issue with CO2 isn't the CO2 itself. It only has a GWP of 1.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'Global Warming Potential'.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.

You should really consider spending some of your free time on reading. The main issue with CO2 isn't the CO2 itself. It only has a GWP of 1.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'Global Warming Potential'.

I wish you would stop using your silly word games but aside from that I agree with you.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.

You should really consider spending some of your free time on reading. The main issue with CO2 isn't the CO2 itself. It only has a GWP of 1.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'Global Warming Potential'.

I wish you would stop using your silly word games but aside from that I agree with you.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, my spare time, is just leisure time, I've got chores to do, also enjoy several hobbies. Reading cryptic propaganda isn't a high priority, since I don't really see a climate crisis, or evil CO2. There really isn't a physical problem, it's all in the paper, and people wanting the political power and control over our energy sources, and usage, how much we pay. I'm not filthy rich, live comfortably with my current income and savings, but this issue could potentially have a huge impact. It's a bad idea, like ObamaCare, and does have the same potential of getting shoved into place, forced on us. I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED. Don't think anyone bothers to check, since if you can fill out forms and sign your name, you are sufficiently qualified. The insurance price increased, coverage and out of pocket, changed, yearly, but ObamaCare made what I get through work, a lot more expensive, huge deductible, and less actual coverage (don't need annual mammograms)... Moving to a 'cleaner', 'greener' world, in a few decades, to prevent a 'non-issue', is my only interest in all of this. The negative impact on the economy is going to be a lot worse, than the health care non-issue. Health insurance, isn't even heath care, just more people needing to get paid, more often. Energy won't really be more expensive, just more people expecting to be paid, for the privilege of using it.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, my spare time, is just leisure time, I've got chores to do, also enjoy several hobbies. Reading cryptic propaganda isn't a high priority, since I don't really see a climate crisis, or evil CO2. There really isn't a physical problem, it's all in the paper, and people wanting the political power and control over our energy sources, and usage, how much we pay. I'm not filthy rich, live comfortably with my current income and savings, but this issue could potentially have a huge impact. It's a bad idea, like ObamaCare, and does have the same potential of getting shoved into place, forced on us. I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED. Don't think anyone bothers to check, since if you can fill out forms and sign your name, you are sufficiently qualified. The insurance price increased, coverage and out of pocket, changed, yearly, but ObamaCare made what I get through work, a lot more expensive, huge deductible, and less actual coverage (don't need annual mammograms)... Moving to a 'cleaner', 'greener' world, in a few decades, to prevent a 'non-issue', is my only interest in all of this. The negative impact on the economy is going to be a lot worse, than the health care non-issue. Health insurance, isn't even heath care, just more people needing to get paid, more often. Energy won't really be more expensive, just more people expecting to be paid, for the privilege of using it.

Is this your post HarveyH55? Unfortunately I'm not an American. I remember what I read and I know the source. These are your words;
I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED.

Republicans don't like cheap health insurance. That's socialism. Social security is also socialism. We need to get rid of that. You can pay for your own retirement and insurance, right? That's what you support. If the government gives you any money that is called socialism. You can't take 1 cent of tax payer money because of your belief that receiving any government funds is socialism.
I think your post says it all. Without an education and having a good paying job you can pay your own way. Prove it a$$hole. Show how you pay for your doctors visits and where the money in your checking account comes from.
I'm trying to get off of SSDI and you're fighting me. Really? You think that if a person can work but doctors say NO that those doctors are right and that YOUR government, ie, tax dollars should support that person?
God, I am using your name in vein because HarveyH55 is FOCKED UP!!!
He supports socialism when doctors encourage it even though it's not necessary. D@mn Harvey, you are stupid. Please get a clue.