Remember me
▼ Content

Why CO2 increases temperature more than O2 and N2 do.


Why CO2 increases temperature more than O2 and N2 do.15-09-2016 01:39
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
First, CO2 is much heavier. Heat is really kinetic energy because when molecules absorb light, they become excited and move, which we interpret as heat. Kinetic energy is mass times velocity times velocity. CO2 has more mass than O2 and N2, so it has more kinetic energy and therefore more heat.

Second, CO2 is much heavier. So they stay close to the ground and displace O2 and N2 upward. People live near the ground, about a meter or two above, so they feel the heating effects of CO2 much more than the heating effects of O2 and N2.
15-09-2016 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

How does CO2 create thermal energy and thus increase temperature?


.


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
15-09-2016 04:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, if you want the answer of a climate-change-non-denier, here goes:

Energy is flowing in and out of the Earth system. CO2 reduces the outward flow rate. The energy that didn't leave must still be around, as per the 1st LoT. Thus the temperature increases.
15-09-2016 13:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
jwoodward48 wrote:Well, if you want the answer of a climate-change-non-denier, here goes:

Actually, I prefer a non-science-denial answer. I'm thoroghly familiar with the science denier family of answers.

Like yours, for example. You have a certain need for earth's thermal emission and earth's temperature to move in opposite directions in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Your "greenhouse effect" miracle fills that need.

I see that your religion affords you comfort. If science isn't that important to you then more power to you.


.


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
15-09-2016 15:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Seriously. Stop attacking the person, start attacking the argument. (Also, if I didn't know it before, I know it now: you're no scientist. The rational competition of theories and arguments is an integral part of science, and you're just using ad hominems.)

Energy is flowing away from the Earth, yes, but energy is also flowing in from the Sun. If less energy leaves than arrives, then the temperature will increase.
15-09-2016 15:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
jwoodward48 wrote: Seriously. Stop attacking the person, start attacking the argument.

Seriously, stop being an argumentative, science denying control freak.

I have tried every way from Tuesday to give you clear answers and you are simply an ashsole. You are a fanatical "Climate" worshiper who works hard to be derided.

So I'm deriding you. You've earned it.

jwoodward48 wrote: Energy is flowing away from the Earth, yes, but energy is also flowing in from the Sun. If less energy leaves than arrives, then the temperature will increase.

Yes, this is your mantra, your dogma, your holy scripture. Stefan-Boltzmann would quickly show you that what you are describing is impossible, ergo you must deny it.

...and you expect to not be mocked? How naïve.

[ s . . c . . i . .e . . n . . c . . e . . * . . d . . e . . n . . i . . e . .r ]

...and Yookan Blome E. Learn science. Ditch your religion.


Here's more sacrilege for you: If energy flowing away from the earth has decreased then the energy flowing in has decreased.

Energy_in and Energy_out move in the same direction.


.


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
15-09-2016 23:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
[quote
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Seriously. Stop attacking the person, start attacking the argument.

Seriously, stop being an argumentative, science denying control freak.

I have tried every way from Tuesday to give you clear answers and you are simply an ashsole. You are a fanatical "Climate" worshiper who works hard to be derided.

So I'm deriding you. You've earned it.


Hey, guys, I'm going to pretend to be IB.

"I am here - I am at the forums! I am preparing to bequeath my impressive knowledge to those blinded by the evil communist liberal-scientists.

Oh, my! What's that? jwoodward48 has heard my wonderful words - and yet he is not believing them! I know! I have a solution! I will insult him until he gives in!

Ahaha, he's fighting back! Now he looks bad and angry. But I won't leave him as a scapegoat, to be laughed at by all rational beings! No! I will bring him over to my side. My countless arguments, which are totally not all variations on the same misinterpreted law, will surely convert him! He will thank me for showing him how stupid he is.

That ash-shoal! Even after I gave him all my best points, he still won't believe in my huge conspiracy! How dare he! He must be doing it on purpose! Either that, or he's too stupid to notice that he is worshipping pieces of energy. He deserves anything I post now! Forget decency. This person does not count as a human being anymore. He has the intelligence of a ROCK!"

jwoodward48 wrote: Energy is flowing away from the Earth, yes, but energy is also flowing in from the Sun. If less energy leaves than arrives, then the temperature will increase.

Yes, this is your mantra, your dogma, your holy scripture. Stefan-Boltzmann would quickly show you that what you are describing is impossible, ergo you must deny it.

...and you expect to not be mocked? How naïve.

[ s . . c . . i . .e . . n . . c . . e . . * . . d . . e . . n . . i . . e . .r ]

...and Yookan Blome E. Learn science. Ditch your religion.


Here's more sacrilege for you: If energy flowing away from the earth has decreased then the energy flowing in has decreased.

Energy_in and Energy_out move in the same direction.


What part of this is impossible. "Energy is flowing away from the Earth." True, see black body radiation. "Energy is flowing into the Earth system from the Sun." Obviously true. "If there is a net inflow of energy, temperature increases." How is this false? Where else will the energy go? We can debate whether there is a net inflow or not, but we both know that if there is a net inflow, temperature will increase. I gave rock-solid facts in that quote. You gave rock-intelligence replies.


I have a catapult. I catapult a boulder over a city. You break it into stones. You throw the stones. They do not reach me.

It is physically possible for the energy intake of a system to exeed the energy outflow. Do you deny this?

Take Venus, for example. If we take Earth and add Venus's atmosphere, will the temperature increase? (I don't care whether it's CO2, H2O, or just huge amounts of gas that will make Earth warm. Just this: will we get warmer?)
16-09-2016 00:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
jwoodward48 wrote:What part of this is impossible. "Energy is flowing away from the Earth." True, see black body radiation. "Energy is flowing into the Earth system from the Sun." Obviously true. "If there is a net inflow of energy, temperature increases." How is this false?

What does Stefan-Boltzmann say?

jwoodward48 wrote:We can debate whether there is a net inflow or not,

Stefan-Boltzmann says there is no debate. There is no net inflow, as I laid out for you, step by step.

I know, why don't you tell me how Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise?

jwoodward48 wrote:It is physically possible for the energy intake of a system to exeed the energy outflow. Do you deny this?

Let me know when you get back to the earth. You seem to have wandered away.

jwoodward48 wrote:Take Venus, for example. If we take Earth and add Venus's atmosphere, will the temperature increase?

THE temperature will not change.


.


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
16-09-2016 05:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You are claiming that there is no net inflow. I am claiming that there is. Certainly this is more an echo-chamber than a debate forum, but this is pretty much the definition of an argument.

But that doesn't matter. Despite how impossible you say net inflow is, if there was, temperature would increase. My statement is technically correct no matter what.

====

Stefan-Boltzmann concerns emission. Anything that happens to the emitted energy needs to be investigated more closely, as the complexity of the system increases.

You have said that the energy inflow of the Earth cannot possibly exceed the outflow. You have supported this with statements that apply to every piece of matter. This should lead to the conclusion that nothing should have a greater energy inflow than outflow. But some objects, both manmade and in the natural world, have such an imbalance in their energy flows. Once we have disproven your statements, due to their ridiculous conclusions, your assertions have nothing to stand on. Therefore, I will have succeeded in disproving your assertions.

This is how my questions are related.

====

So you think that Venus would have the same temperature even if its atmosphere were not present?
16-09-2016 05:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Correction: The average temperature measured at the surface of Venus is higher than it would be without an atmosphere. The upper atmosphere may or may not be cooler than it would be if it did not exist, or was incredibly thin.




Join the debate Why CO2 increases temperature more than O2 and N2 do.:

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
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
▲ 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