Remember me
▼ Content

Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)


Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)30-07-2019 11:07
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread):

The "Temperature" means the air temperature at sea level. The air is heated through both infrared radiation (only the water vapor and greenhouse gases) and conduction/convection (all the gases).

For 100 units of SUN light/infrared coming in:
35 reflect back (our Albedo)
51 absorbed by the ground
14 absorbed by the air directly

For the 65 units now departing:
From the ground
17 radiate from the ground directly (the remaining 34 transfer from ground to air before leaving earth)
From the air
So the air now has 34+14=48 units it radiates out into space:
14 it had absorbed directly
19 are from evaporated water condensing
9 from conduction/convection
6 infrared radiation from the earth absorbed by the air
(6+9+19=34)

wikipedia heat budget

For the thermal energy transferred to the atmosphere from infrared radiation, 14 on the way in and 6 leaving the surface, the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

And the increase that may have occurred in the change from 300 to 400ppm would have been like 0.45C, 0.81F?

I just want to know if this is the general idea.



Edited on 30-07-2019 11:22
30-07-2019 17:38
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Doubling the amount of CO2, doesn't add any energy. The sun doesn't send us more energy, based on CO2 content. Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity? Some reactions, you need to add energy to form or break bonds, others release energy.
30-07-2019 19:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread):

The "Temperature" means the air temperature at sea level. The air is heated through both infrared radiation (only the water vapor and greenhouse gases) and conduction/convection (all the gases).

For 100 units of SUN light/infrared coming in:
35 reflect back (our Albedo)

The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
51 absorbed by the ground

The emissivity of the ground is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
14 absorbed by the air directly

The emissivity of the air is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:

For the 65 units now departing:
From the ground
17 radiate from the ground directly (the remaining 34 transfer from ground to air before leaving earth)
From the air
So the air now has 34+14=48 units it radiates out into space:
14 it had absorbed directly
19 are from evaporated water condensing
9 from conduction/convection
6 infrared radiation from the earth absorbed by the air
(6+9+19=34)

* You cannot destroy energy.
* You cannot create energy.
* You cannot reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
tmiddles wrote:
wikipedia heat budget

Wikipedia is garbage. Don't use it as a science textbook.
tmiddles wrote:
For the thermal energy transferred to the atmosphere from infrared radiation, 14 on the way in and 6 leaving the surface, the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot treat all photons as the same energy.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
tmiddles wrote:
So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
* There is no sequence.
tmiddles wrote:
An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

Argument from randU fallacy. You math is based on random numbers to produce a random number.
tmiddles wrote:
And the increase that may have occurred in the change from 300 to 400ppm would have been like 0.45C, 0.81F?

Zero. Zip. Nada. CO2 has absolute no capability to warm the Earth.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the entropy in any system.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
tmiddles wrote:
I just want to know if this is the general idea.

Your 'general idea' violates laws of physics.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-07-2019 19:43
31-07-2019 04:31
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Doubling the amount of CO2, doesn't add any energy. The sun doesn't send us more energy, based on CO2 content. Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity? Some reactions, you need to add energy to form or break bonds, others release energy.


We actually live in the atmosphere, the air above the surface of the earth. When we talk about the temperature we are talking about the atmosphere.

Some love to point out that the air cannot heat the earth (during the day anyway) and that's true, but we don't live in the earth we live on it in the air.

Every bit of the suns energy that comes to Earth will leave it, as we have to settle into an equilibrium.

However!!! There is a delay/storage capacity to Earth. An amount of the Suns energy that is on it's way but not gone yet (why we don't freeze to death at night).

That delayed thermal transfer is why our atmospheric temperature, near the ground where we live (but not IN the ground), is what gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. (technically without an atmosphere we'd be exposed to the void of space with no gas around us at all).

Your sweater doesn't create thermal energy either, but it does delay its movement from your skin out into the air, trapping/holding up some of it near you for a little while.

So adding more CO2 would in theory result in more thermal energy being "held up" on it's way out, more thermal energy would be stored in the atmosphere, and the temperature would be higher.

While only 2.6% of the atmospheres particles (mostly water vapor) can be energized by infrared radiation, those particles can transfer their thermal energy to the remaining 97.4% of the atmosphere. The heat is then distributed throughout the air around us.



Edited on 31-07-2019 04:50
31-07-2019 05:48
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Only so much energy is sent to one side of the planet, at any given moment. The thermal energy always tries to find a balance, equilibrium. The air isn't going to get warmer than the surface, without the surface getting a little cooler, they try to become equal. The whole time, we have it leaking back out to space. Takes time for half the planet to warm in the daylight, takes time for it to cool at night. The air was never warmer than the surface, so it could never warm the surface. Nothing is being trapped, it moves to a cooler surface. There is always movement. It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way.
31-07-2019 05:57
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way.


Yeah that's a good way of putting it. It's not sealed. The heat is always leaking out back into space. If the sun stopped shining it would eventually drift down (over time, not instantly) to the point that the only heat we'd feel would be from the earths molten core.

So the sun keeps pumping heat in during the day as the planet radiates it back out into space all day and night. The "traffic jam" or "hold up" or "Thermal storage" that the earth has, in everything from a hot rock to heated air to the thermal energy that goes into evaporating water (and is then rereleased when the water condenses back into liquid) represents the amount of thermal energy, from the sun, that is still with the earth at any given time. Because it doesn't leave instantly unless it's reflected away.

The moon, mercury and other solar system object with no atmosphere aren't able to store much thermal energy and become very cold at night. Venus stores a tremendous amount. The Earth stores some.

It's a temporary "storage" (not the best word) but the important part is that it's here, energizing our air and what we call the temperature.

You CAN increase the ability of a planet to store/delay the departing energy from the sun. This is why looking at Venus and Mercury is worthwhile.

The Earth will be in equilibrium still if there is a change, what goes in will equal what goes out, just as it does with Venus and with Mercury:
in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

But the amount of thermal energy that hangs out at any given time could be different.

This is known as "The hang out principle of thermodynamism" based on the principle of "It's night time and you didn't freeze to death"



Edited on 31-07-2019 06:56
31-07-2019 06:50
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread):

The "Temperature" means the air temperature at sea level. The air is heated through both infrared radiation (only the water vapor and greenhouse gases) and conduction/convection (all the gases).

For 100 units of SUN light/infrared coming in:
35 reflect back (our Albedo)
51 absorbed by the ground
14 absorbed by the air directly

For the 65 units now departing:
From the ground
17 radiate from the ground directly (the remaining 34 transfer from ground to air before leaving earth)
From the air
So the air now has 34+14=48 units it radiates out into space:
14 it had absorbed directly
19 are from evaporated water condensing
9 from conduction/convection
6 infrared radiation from the earth absorbed by the air
(6+9+19=34)

wikipedia heat budget

For the thermal energy transferred to the atmosphere from infrared radiation, 14 on the way in and 6 leaving the surface, the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

And the increase that may have occurred in the change from 300 to 400ppm would have been like 0.45C, 0.81F?

I just want to know if this is the general idea.



If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.
31-07-2019 06:59
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
James___ wrote:
If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C.

However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing.

Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that.



Edited on 31-07-2019 07:03
31-07-2019 10:28
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:The air was never warmer than the surface, so it could never warm the surface. Nothing is being trapped, it moves to a cooler surface.


There is a flaw in the thinking that: The air cannot warm the ground, the ground is always warmer.

The ground is not the source of the thermal energy the sun is. The dirt is not like a hot plate generating the energy that results in our temperature. At night the ground is no longer absorbing any sunlight and can actually be cooler than the air and yes it CAN be warmed by the air:
the ground cools off rapidly at night. In such situations, the 2-m air temperature can be 2-8F warmer than the surface

This is because it takes time for thermal energy to move around. The loss of the radiation of the sun is fairly sudden and so the thermal energy movement is essential slower than sunset. Sometimes anyway.

It is true that we cannot warm the sun, with energy from the sun, but that's unlikely to come up!

Also "The earth" is not well defined in these discussions. Isn't the gas layer around a planet part of the planet? Would we exclude liquids too? What about when they evaporate?

I think "The Earth" is only reasonably defined as the whole thing, gas included.

It is true that thermal energy will move from a hotter to a cooler place but it doesn't know which way is up.

That said our temperature, greenhouse effect and all, really has little to do with thermal energy flowing downward, but simply with the accumulation of it in the gases of our atmosphere (temporary accumulation but that's our temperature for you).

It's just so often repeated that the air can't warm the ground so the greenhouse effect is impossible I thought it was good to address it.

So again:
The heat source is the sun, it's true we cannot heat the sun as we are only the recipient of it's energy.
The dirt/ground of Earth is NOT the SOURCE of the heat that results in our temperature (not a hot plate plugged into the wall).
The whole planet has the thermal energy of the sun either reflecting off of it or moving through it's matter before radiating back out. Our temperature (the one humans, plants and animals are concerned with) is the amount of thermal energy on it's way through the gases of our lower atmosphere (conventionally measured at 2M 6ft above the ground).



Edited on 31-07-2019 10:44
31-07-2019 18:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
HarveyH55 wrote: Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity?

No, they do not. That is a common misconception held by warmizombies and they promulgate that physics violation as religious dogma.

Whatever the temperature of a molecule, it's temperature can be increased, i.e. it will absorb photons (of sufficient energy, it must adhere to the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and its temperature will increase. There's no such thing as photon seating capacity.

From The Manual:

Saturation: noun
In the Global Warming mythology, the mysterious belief that an atom can somehow be "filled to capacity" with photons. At such a point all other photons will apparently find no room at the inn and must look elsewhere to be absorbed. Since this seems to violate Planck's Law and other classical physics, this belief falls within Settled Science.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-07-2019 18:50
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C.

However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing.

Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that.



Between 1880 to 1980, about a 60 ppm rise in CO2 levels. Why no significant temperature change? Yet with a rise of 70 ppm it's considered that CO2 is causing the warming that didn't happen before?
I do have a carbon capture idea that I might pursue when able. But I won't be able to ask any Americans or American owned businesses to take an interest in it. This would also include scientists as well.
And if it creates any jobs, it can't for any Americans. In the US people should do things by themselves. If I wanted to work with other people to help make things better for everyone, that is socialism and that's a bad thing. And a socialist should not ever want to live in the US.
31-07-2019 19:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C.

However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing.

Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that.


Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.".

Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number).

Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics.

It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same.


The Parrot Killer
31-07-2019 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Doubling the amount of CO2, doesn't add any energy. The sun doesn't send us more energy, based on CO2 content. Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity? Some reactions, you need to add energy to form or break bonds, others release energy.


We actually live in the atmosphere, the air above the surface of the earth. When we talk about the temperature we are talking about the atmosphere.

Some love to point out that the air cannot heat the earth (during the day anyway) and that's true, but we don't live in the earth we live on it in the air.

This actually is an attempt to deny Kirchoff's law. As far as energy goes, the Earth and the atmosphere are one body. To separate them out and treat them differently for energy denies this law. All nodes of energy are summed into one body.
tmiddles wrote:
Every bit of the suns energy that comes to Earth will leave it, as we have to settle into an equilibrium.

However!!! There is a delay/storage capacity to Earth. An amount of the Suns energy that is on it's way but not gone yet (why we don't freeze to death at night).

Aren't you forgetting something?

It takes time to heat the Earth in the first place. In terms of the surface temperature, it takes time for the Sun to heat everything up to the highest temperature of the day, which typically takes place around 2pm (assuming constant weather during that time).
tmiddles wrote:
That delayed thermal transfer is why our atmospheric temperature, near the ground where we live (but not IN the ground), is what gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. (technically without an atmosphere we'd be exposed to the void of space with no gas around us at all).

This is an attempt to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy that isn't there, and of the 2nd law of thermodynamics by reducing entropy in a closed system.

tmiddles wrote:
Your sweater doesn't create thermal energy either, but it does delay its movement from your skin out into the air, trapping/holding up some of it near you for a little while.

It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Sweaters work by reducing heat.

You are also making a false equivalence fallacy. You convert food into thermal energy. The Earth doesn't. Putting a sweater on a rock will not make the rock warmer.

Sweaters actually don't make YOU warmer either. Your body temperature is controlled by a small set of cells at the base of the brain. What the sweater does is reduce your need to produce as much thermal energy to maintain your body temperature.

The body only has so much capacity to convert food into thermal energy. If you exceed that capacity, your body temperature drops, putting your life in danger. Sweaters reduce the need to expend so much energy to maintain your body temperature.

But they don't help a rock. They don't help a dead body. Sweaters do not make anything warmer.

tmiddles wrote:
So adding more CO2 would in theory result in more thermal energy being "held up" on it's way out, more thermal energy would be stored in the atmosphere, and the temperature would be higher.

WRONG.
* You cannot trap or slow heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

tmiddles wrote:
While only 2.6% of the atmospheres particles (mostly water vapor) can be energized by infrared radiation, those particles can transfer their thermal energy to the remaining 97.4% of the atmosphere. The heat is then distributed throughout the air around us.

Argument from randU fallacy. Using arbitrary numbers as data is a fallacy, dude.

Humidity is NOT a measure of total water content. It is a measure of how close the water vapor is before it condenses out and becomes a cloud. Another way to show this is by the dew point you see on weather reports.

Humidity in the air can range from as little as 2% (in the driest of deserts) to 100% (when the cloud forms).


The Parrot Killer
31-07-2019 20:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C.

However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing.

Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that.


Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.".

Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number).

Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics.

It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same.



In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves.
I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle.
It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases. This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point.
And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less.
What I like is that none of you probably get this. And Ya'all have good heari g.
I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one. The bristles matter. Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating. Even in wood working details matter. And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby.
31-07-2019 20:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only so much energy is sent to one side of the planet, at any given moment. The thermal energy always tries to find a balance, equilibrium. The air isn't going to get warmer than the surface, without the surface getting a little cooler, they try to become equal. The whole time, we have it leaking back out to space. Takes time for half the planet to warm in the daylight, takes time for it to cool at night. The air was never warmer than the surface, so it could never warm the surface. Nothing is being trapped, it moves to a cooler surface. There is always movement. It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way.


There are times when warm air moves in from elsewhere and can warm the surface. In general, yes...the atmosphere is always cooler than the surface.


The Parrot Killer
31-07-2019 21:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way.


Yeah that's a good way of putting it. It's not sealed. The heat is always leaking out back into space. If the sun stopped shining it would eventually drift down (over time, not instantly) to the point that the only heat we'd feel would be from the earths molten core.

A surprisingly small amount of time. If the Sun were to go completely dark, or Earth was removed from the Sun, temperatures on the Earth would drop to the temperature of space in as little as 48 hours.
tmiddles wrote:
So the sun keeps pumping heat in during the day as the planet radiates it back out into space all day and night. The "traffic jam" or "hold up" or "Thermal storage" that the earth has, in everything from a hot rock to heated air to the thermal energy that goes into evaporating water (and is then rereleased when the water condenses back into liquid) represents the amount of thermal energy, from the sun, that is still with the earth at any given time.

There is no 'traffic jam'. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Water evaporating and condensing does not add energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Because it doesn't leave instantly unless it's reflected away.

Reflected light has nothing to do with heat.
tmiddles wrote:
The moon, mercury and other solar system object with no atmosphere

They actually do, it's just very, very thin. So thin we can essentially ignore it as an atmosphere.
tmiddles wrote:
aren't able to store much thermal energy and become very cold at night.

They also become much hotter during the day.
tmiddles wrote:
Venus stores a tremendous amount.

Nope. It is not possible to trap thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
The Earth stores some.

Nope. It is not possible to trap thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
It's a temporary "storage" (not the best word) but the important part is that it's here, energizing our air and what we call the temperature.

Nope. It is not possible to trap thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
You CAN increase the ability of a planet to store/delay the departing energy from the sun. This is why looking at Venus and Mercury is worthwhile.

It's not a one way street, dude. It takes time to heat the Earth's atmosphere, just as it takes time to cool it. An atmosphere is mass. It is no different from any other mass. It also takes time to heat the surface, just as it takes time to cool it.
tmiddles wrote:
The Earth will be in equilibrium still if there is a change, what goes in will equal what goes out, just as it does with Venus and with Mercury:
in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

You have built yourself a paradox.
1) energy in = energy out
2) energy is stored. energy in < energy out

Both cannot be true. That is irrational.
tmiddles wrote:
But the amount of thermal energy that hangs out at any given time could be different.

Back to argument 2) again. Thermal energy doesn't 'hang out'. It is not possible to store thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
This is known as "The hang out principle of thermodynamism" based on the principle of "It's night time and you didn't freeze to death"

No such principle. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
31-07-2019 21:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread):

The "Temperature" means the air temperature at sea level. The air is heated through both infrared radiation (only the water vapor and greenhouse gases) and conduction/convection (all the gases).

For 100 units of SUN light/infrared coming in:
35 reflect back (our Albedo)
51 absorbed by the ground
14 absorbed by the air directly

For the 65 units now departing:
From the ground
17 radiate from the ground directly (the remaining 34 transfer from ground to air before leaving earth)
From the air
So the air now has 34+14=48 units it radiates out into space:
14 it had absorbed directly
19 are from evaporated water condensing
9 from conduction/convection
6 infrared radiation from the earth absorbed by the air
(6+9+19=34)

wikipedia heat budget

For the thermal energy transferred to the atmosphere from infrared radiation, 14 on the way in and 6 leaving the surface, the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

And the increase that may have occurred in the change from 300 to 400ppm would have been like 0.45C, 0.81F?

I just want to know if this is the general idea.



If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


No one was measuring CO2 in 1880. Atmospheric CO2 measurements didn't start until 1959.
There is no way to measure the global atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and we don't have enough stations to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable level.

It is also not possible to measure the global temperature. Same problem. There are simply not enough thermometers. Further, the ones we do have are biased by location grouping and by time.


The Parrot Killer
31-07-2019 21:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Into the Night wrote: CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and we don't have enough stations to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable level.

What's wrong with simply relying on a single CO2 measurement at, say, the base of an active volcano that is only fudged a little bit I'm sure?

I don't see why we wouldn't be able to call it the atmospheric CO2 measurement; of course the CO2 measured is in the atmosphere! Where else would it be from? What's the big confusion?

Into the Night wrote:It is also not possible to measure the global temperature.

I have to beg to differ. I measured the earth's average temperature outside my house before lunch. It was easy.

Into the Night wrote: There are simply not enough thermometers.

I only needed one. I grabbed the one in my den. I don't know what you guy's big problem is.

I hope I didn't need to put any smileys in my post.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-07-2019 21:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C.

However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing.

Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that.


Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.".

Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number).

Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics.

It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same.



In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves.

That they do, but it doesn't change the logic, the math, or the error you make by using such numbers as data.
James___ wrote:
I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle.

You are almost, but not quite, correct here.

Atmospheres form on planets because the surface essentially 'burned off'. Volcanic activity, pressures in land or water compared to a vacuum, etc. produce an atmosphere.

Water and land will vaporize into the vacuum, filling it. Any mass does that. That's why it's not possible to achieve a perfect vacuum. The container is going to vaporize part of itself into it.

All bodies in space have an atmosphere. It may not be thick enough to actually call it an 'atmosphere' in the traditional sense, but they ALL have an atmosphere, thin as it might be.

Even space itself isn't empty. It too has an 'atmosphere', that is simply very, very, very, very, very, <repeat a large number of times> thin atmosphere. Yes, that's a randU. It's okay here, since it is used as a generic description and not as data.
James___ wrote:
It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases.

Because it doesn't.
James___ wrote:
This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point.

Gravity is a property of any mass. It is not the property of any other mass. The inverse square law doesn't apply here.
James___ wrote:
And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less.

Nope. The gravity of Venus is determined by the mass of Venus. Nothing else.
James___ wrote:
What I like is that none of you probably get this.

Because what you are suggesting is wrong. Fortunately, people who navigate spacecraft know better.
James___ wrote:
And Ya'all have good heari g.

You are typing. I can be deaf and understand what you are typing.
James___ wrote:
I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one.

Okay. Let's talk about wood work. I happen to be building a wood airplane. I know staining and finishing pretty well.

There is no wrong brush for applying polyurethane. Any chip brush will do. Better brushes can do a slightly better finish.
James___ wrote:
The bristles matter.

Ah. Caught by that one, eh? It's not the brush. It's the technique. All brushes will drop bristles into your nice work. Sucks, don't it?

Here is the trick:
Before you use a brush, slap the brush against a hard edge (any table will do). This dislodges the loose hairs in the brush. Slap it in your hand and this will further loosen the hairs. They are now sticking out far enough that you can pull them free of the brush.

All new brushes should be treated so before using them. The best brush money can buy will shed little hairs into your work unless you do this.

Worse, sometimes you get 'em anyway. Don't worry about 'em. Just keep some toothpicks handy and work the hair out of your finish before it dries. Then simply rebrush the affected area.

James___ wrote:
Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating.


Not such a disaster. You can use an Exacto knife (carefully!) to pick the hair out. Sand the area immediately around the spot where the damn hair was with 400 grit paper, and recoat the affected area only.

James___ wrote:
Even in wood working details matter.

Yes, they do. Finishing techniques matter as well. Don't sand the whole thing and start over. Just do the areas where the hairs are. Use a properly slapped brush next time.
James___ wrote:
And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby.

400 grit sandpaper is pretty cheap. So are Exacto knives (I like to use No. 2 knives for this purpose). It's mostly your time, not cost.


The Parrot Killer
31-07-2019 22:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C.

However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing.

Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that.


Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.".

Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number).

Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics.

It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same.



In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves.

That they do, but it doesn't change the logic, the math, or the error you make by using such numbers as data.
James___ wrote:
I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle.

You are almost, but not quite, correct here.

Atmospheres form on planets because the surface essentially 'burned off'. Volcanic activity, pressures in land or water compared to a vacuum, etc. produce an atmosphere.

Water and land will vaporize into the vacuum, filling it. Any mass does that. That's why it's not possible to achieve a perfect vacuum. The container is going to vaporize part of itself into it.

All bodies in space have an atmosphere. It may not be thick enough to actually call it an 'atmosphere' in the traditional sense, but they ALL have an atmosphere, thin as it might be.

Even space itself isn't empty. It too has an 'atmosphere', that is simply very, very, very, very, very, <repeat a large number of times> thin atmosphere. Yes, that's a randU. It's okay here, since it is used as a generic description and not as data.
James___ wrote:
It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases.

Because it doesn't.
James___ wrote:
This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point.

Gravity is a property of any mass. It is not the property of any other mass. The inverse square law doesn't apply here.
James___ wrote:
And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less.

Nope. The gravity of Venus is determined by the mass of Venus. Nothing else.
James___ wrote:
What I like is that none of you probably get this.

Because what you are suggesting is wrong. Fortunately, people who navigate spacecraft know better.
James___ wrote:
And Ya'all have good heari g.

You are typing. I can be deaf and understand what you are typing.
James___ wrote:
I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one.

Okay. Let's talk about wood work. I happen to be building a wood airplane. I know staining and finishing pretty well.

There is no wrong brush for applying polyurethane. Any chip brush will do. Better brushes can do a slightly better finish.
James___ wrote:
The bristles matter.

Ah. Caught by that one, eh? It's not the brush. It's the technique. All brushes will drop bristles into your nice work. Sucks, don't it?

Here is the trick:
Before you use a brush, slap the brush against a hard edge (any table will do). This dislodges the loose hairs in the brush. Slap it in your hand and this will further loosen the hairs. They are now sticking out far enough that you can pull them free of the brush.

All new brushes should be treated so before using them. The best brush money can buy will shed little hairs into your work unless you do this.

Worse, sometimes you get 'em anyway. Don't worry about 'em. Just keep some toothpicks handy and work the hair out of your finish before it dries. Then simply rebrush the affected area.

James___ wrote:
Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating.


Not such a disaster. You can use an Exacto knife (carefully!) to pick the hair out. Sand the area immediately around the spot where the damn hair was with 400 grit paper, and recoat the affected area only.

James___ wrote:
Even in wood working details matter.

Yes, they do. Finishing techniques matter as well. Don't sand the whole thing and start over. Just do the areas where the hairs are. Use a properly slapped brush next time.
James___ wrote:
And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby.

400 grit sandpaper is pretty cheap. So are Exacto knives (I like to use No. 2 knives for this purpose). It's mostly your time, not cost.


It's not the bristles in the polyurethane. It's air bubbles. You are probably using a smaller brush because of what you're working on. It changes things a little.
The inverse square of gravity does matter. For what I'm pursuing, it doesn't matter. With that said, the acidification of our oceans might be something to be concerned about. If the ph balance is thrown off by too much then it would harm marine life. That's when people would know we have a problem.
I think ITN that the basic problem is that most people just don't care.
31-07-2019 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.


The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C.

However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing.

Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that.


Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.".

Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number).

Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics.

It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same.



In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves.

That they do, but it doesn't change the logic, the math, or the error you make by using such numbers as data.
James___ wrote:
I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle.

You are almost, but not quite, correct here.

Atmospheres form on planets because the surface essentially 'burned off'. Volcanic activity, pressures in land or water compared to a vacuum, etc. produce an atmosphere.

Water and land will vaporize into the vacuum, filling it. Any mass does that. That's why it's not possible to achieve a perfect vacuum. The container is going to vaporize part of itself into it.

All bodies in space have an atmosphere. It may not be thick enough to actually call it an 'atmosphere' in the traditional sense, but they ALL have an atmosphere, thin as it might be.

Even space itself isn't empty. It too has an 'atmosphere', that is simply very, very, very, very, very, <repeat a large number of times> thin atmosphere. Yes, that's a randU. It's okay here, since it is used as a generic description and not as data.
James___ wrote:
It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases.

Because it doesn't.
James___ wrote:
This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point.

Gravity is a property of any mass. It is not the property of any other mass. The inverse square law doesn't apply here.
James___ wrote:
And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less.

Nope. The gravity of Venus is determined by the mass of Venus. Nothing else.
James___ wrote:
What I like is that none of you probably get this.

Because what you are suggesting is wrong. Fortunately, people who navigate spacecraft know better.
James___ wrote:
And Ya'all have good heari g.

You are typing. I can be deaf and understand what you are typing.
James___ wrote:
I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one.

Okay. Let's talk about wood work. I happen to be building a wood airplane. I know staining and finishing pretty well.

There is no wrong brush for applying polyurethane. Any chip brush will do. Better brushes can do a slightly better finish.
James___ wrote:
The bristles matter.

Ah. Caught by that one, eh? It's not the brush. It's the technique. All brushes will drop bristles into your nice work. Sucks, don't it?

Here is the trick:
Before you use a brush, slap the brush against a hard edge (any table will do). This dislodges the loose hairs in the brush. Slap it in your hand and this will further loosen the hairs. They are now sticking out far enough that you can pull them free of the brush.

All new brushes should be treated so before using them. The best brush money can buy will shed little hairs into your work unless you do this.

Worse, sometimes you get 'em anyway. Don't worry about 'em. Just keep some toothpicks handy and work the hair out of your finish before it dries. Then simply rebrush the affected area.

James___ wrote:
Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating.


Not such a disaster. You can use an Exacto knife (carefully!) to pick the hair out. Sand the area immediately around the spot where the damn hair was with 400 grit paper, and recoat the affected area only.

James___ wrote:
Even in wood working details matter.

Yes, they do. Finishing techniques matter as well. Don't sand the whole thing and start over. Just do the areas where the hairs are. Use a properly slapped brush next time.
James___ wrote:
And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby.

400 grit sandpaper is pretty cheap. So are Exacto knives (I like to use No. 2 knives for this purpose). It's mostly your time, not cost.


It's not the bristles in the polyurethane. It's air bubbles.

Not the brush. Air bubbles are the result of one of two things:
1) You are moving too fast with the brush. Slow down.
2) You stirred the polyurethane, introducing air into it. Do not stir the polyurethane. It doesn't need mixing.
James___ wrote:
You are probably using a smaller brush because of what you're working on. It changes things a little.

I use everything from a 4 inch brush to an acid brush. None of them change anything. The aircraft is 25 feet long and has a 25 foot wingspan. Every bit of its structure is coated with polyurethane (an indoor/outdoor variety called 'spar varnish'). Indoor polyurethanes behave the same way.
James___ wrote:
The inverse square of gravity does matter.

There is no inverse square of gravity.
James___ wrote:
For what I'm pursuing, it doesn't matter.

It can't.
James___ wrote:
With that said, the acidification of our oceans might be something to be concerned about.

The oceans are alkaline. You can't acidify an alkaline. The ocean water and calcium carbonate that are in solution completely buffer and counter any weak acid like carbonic acid from CO2.

pH is not a linear scale either. Further, the pH of ocean water varies somewhat depending on your location.
James___ wrote:
If the ph balance is thrown off by too much then it would harm marine life.

Nothing is changing the pH at all.

Most CO2, when introduced to water, simply dissolves (think soda pop). The amount of CO2 in ocean water near the water surface tracks that of the atmosphere (about 0.04% if you believe the Mauna Loa 'data'). Only about 1% of THAT becomes carbonic acid (about 0.004% of any sample of ocean water near the surface). This is H2CO3. In water, a small amount of THIS disassociates into H+ ions and HCO3- (sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda) ions, making this a weak acid.

pH is defined as: 0 - log10(number of H+)

But the H+ from carbonic acid doesn't stay there. It reassociates with the HCO3 again forming carbonic acid again (the same thing happens in your own bloodstream). That can reform into dissolved CO2 and even vent to the atmosphere again.

Then of course there is the sheer vast amount of ocean water. The only place where atmospheric CO2 interacts with ocean water takes place at the surface. Everything happens there. There is a hell of a lot of ocean water in the ocean, most of which isn't anywhere near the surface.

Adding a few temporary H+ to ocean water makes no significant change at all in pH. Any difference that would show up temporarily is too small to measure with our current instrumentation (and we have GREAT instrumentation in this area!).

Anyone claiming CO2 is 'acidifying the oceans' simply doesn't understand acid-base chemistry.

James___ wrote:
That's when people would know we have a problem.

I live in the Pacific Northwest. No clams, oysters, mussles, or any other shellfish around here is in any kind of distress (other than overharvesting in some places).
James___ wrote:
I think ITN that the basic problem is that most people just don't care.

No, I think the basic problem is that you don't understand acid-base chemistry.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-07-2019 23:14




Join the debate Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
So what if CO2 goes up to 1000 ppm and gives people head ache?009-07-2019 03:27
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact