Remember me
▼ Content

What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?


What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?18-04-2019 17:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
These have higher specific heat than CO2 so they hold more heat than CO2 does. They capture shortwave radiation which is far more powerful than longwave radiation. That means they capture heat at day and dissipate heat at night. So they should be better at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can.
Edited on 18-04-2019 17:40
18-04-2019 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
These have higher specific heat than CO2 so they hold more heat than CO2 does. They capture shortwave radiation which is far more powerful than longwave radiation. That means they capture heat at day and dissipate heat at night. So they should be better at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can.

Duplicate thread. Ignored.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2019 20:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: These have higher specific heat than CO2

So they aren't in a dead heat? Who's going to take the heat for this one? Whoever it is, he'd better be pack'n heat. Maybe even the heat will arrive and give everyone the cold shoulder.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: so they hold more heat than CO2 does.


Tai Hai Chen ... how does one substance "hold" more "heat" than any other? Are there substances that have lower "heat capacities" or lower "heat limits" than others? How does that work?


Tai Hai Chen wrote: They capture shortwave radiation which is far more powerful than longwave radiation.

Tai Hai Chen ... does wavelength determine power, i.e. energy / time ? I thought it was energy / time that determines power? Am I mistaken?

Tai Hai Chen wrote: That means they capture heat at day and dissipate heat at night.

How do they know when night time has arrived so that they stop capturing and start dissipating? I thought it was all based on temperature.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: So they should be better at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can.
How is "heat" retained, exactly? I thought that thermal radiation pours out of all matter per Stefan-Boltzmann and that no matter can do anything to hinder that in any way.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 18-04-2019 21:00




Join the debate What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)16417-10-2019 22:28
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
▲ 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