There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.

tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.

We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.

You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

You are.

spot wrote:
the fact that you think they are is evidence of your profound ignorance.

No, it is what you are trying to argue.

spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.

Im not down with the kids, what does YALIF mean?

spot wrote: You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

Correct. You have merely implied thousands of times that CO2 creates energy out of nothing. What you have expressly stated thousands of times is that the existence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases the earth's average global temperature ... which can only happen with additional energy ...which creates the unstated implication that the CO2 is somehow creating this additional energy.

Oh, and your implication is wrong each and every time.


.

Dom_Hayes_420 wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.

tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.

We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.

You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

You are.

spot wrote:
the fact that you think they are is evidence of your profound ignorance.

No, it is what you are trying to argue.

spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.

Im not down with the kids, what does YALIF mean?

I sure hope you arent down with the kids...

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

Correct. You have merely implied thousands of times that CO2 creates energy out of nothing. What you have expressly stated thousands of times is that the existence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases the earth's average global temperature ... which can only happen with additional energy ...which creates the unstated implication that the CO2 is somehow creating this additional energy.

Oh, and your implication is wrong each and every time.


.

Wrong

Not my claims anyway but every informed sane person.

keepit wrote:
IBDN,
I, for one, don't claim that CO2 creates energy out of nothing or any of that sort of talk.

keepit wrote:
The sun feeds the earth energy. The earth and the atmosphere distribute it.

keepit wrote:
I think you're having a bad day ITN.

James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?

Gosh!!! And to think they banned or limited CFCs in accordance with the Montreal protocol. Or the fact that the IPCC has not criticized the EU's carbon neutral policy of burning trees. Or the IPCC saying that they are relying on CO2 levels increasing so one day the ozone layer can recover.

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?

Gosh!!! And to think they banned or limited CFCs in accordance with the Montreal protocol. Or the fact that the IPCC has not criticized the EU's carbon neutral policy of burning trees. Or the IPCC saying that they are relying on CO2 levels increasing so one day the ozone layer can recover.

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Neither CO2 nor methane nor N2O nor CFCs affect the ozone layer at all.

Ozone is created by UV-B sunlight acting on oxygen in the atmosphere. It is destroyed by UV-C sunlight acting on ozone in the atmosphere (returning it to oxygen).

CO2 doesn't affect this.
Methane doesn't affect this.
N2O doesn't affect this.
CFC's don't even react with ozone at all.

keepit wrote:
IBDN,
I, for one, don't claim that CO2 creates energy out of nothing or any of that sort of talk. The sun feeds the earth energy. The earth and the atmosphere distribute it.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?

Gosh!!! And to think they banned or limited CFCs in accordance with the Montreal protocol. Or the fact that the IPCC has not criticized the EU's carbon neutral policy of burning trees. Or the IPCC saying that they are relying on CO2 levels increasing so one day the ozone layer can recover.

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Neither CO2 nor methane nor N2O nor CFCs affect the ozone layer at all.

Ozone is created by UV-B sunlight acting on oxygen in the atmosphere. It is destroyed by UV-C sunlight acting on ozone in the atmosphere (returning it to oxygen).

CO2 doesn't affect this.
Methane doesn't affect this.
N2O doesn't affect this.
CFC's don't even react with ozone at all.

Can't you do better than to paraphrase what you find on the internet?

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

There isn't enough CO2 to form a continuous layer. It's a trace gas, only 0.04% of the entire atmosphere. It's not additional energy, if the energy was already there to begin with. It's still the same energy. How much of a delay, how long do you thing CO2, or any of the 'GHGs' hold on to 'heat anyway? The sun only shines on half the surface, at any given moment. The wind keeps moving, mixing cold and warm air 24/7. Cloud cover is consistent over the entire planet. It's really not possible to measure the GHE, to many thing going on in nature, it's not the same as a laboratory model. The different greatly exceed the property you are trying to demonstrate.

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.

Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.

spot wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.

Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.

IBdaMann never gets bored of that joke

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.

Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.

IBdaMann never gets bored of that joke

It's possible that they don't understand what "heat" is. They only seem to understand its definition, Heat is the amount of energy flowing. There are other definitions which say it differently which they do not use:

In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system

Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another


They only seem to accept heat if it is flowing from a solid which is radiation like IR. They don't seem to understand that if gases can store heat as heat content.
This is where gases are different than a solid. When gases emit heat as electromagnetic radiation, they can also absorb it. This would make our atmosphere.
In this instance
In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system,
heat is kept in the system because it is transferring from one component/part of the system to another component/part of the system. I don't think they understand this.

James___ wrote: Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law.

James___ wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.

keepit wrote:
I think to qualify as a black body, the body has to emit and absorb every wavelength.

The atmosphere doesn't do this.

keepit wrote: I think to qualify as a black body, the body has to emit and absorb every wavelength.

keepit wrote: The atmosphere doesn't do this.

keepit wrote:
Yes, you can, and it doesn't defy physics.

Emissivity of a planet is determined by the nature of it surface and its atmosphere.

keepit wrote:
Yes, you can, and it doesn't defy physics.

Emissivity of a planet is determined by the nature of it surface and its atmosphere.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.

Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.

keepit wrote:
I think to qualify as a black body, the body has to emit and absorb every wavelength.

The atmosphere doesn't do this.

keepit wrote:
Yes, you can, and it doesn't defy physics.

keepit wrote:
Emissivity of a planet is determined by the nature of it surface and its atmosphere.

keepit wrote:
Not me, it's you.

It's straight out of Wikipedia.

[b] CFC's don't even react with ozone at all.