Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
simple.. He made the assumption that all BB radiation would be absorbed by CO2 ignoring all other atmospheric components. that is a very incorrect assumption when water vapor is 400 times that of CO2 and its absorption band includes that wave length. How have you stopped other gases or matter.You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.
This claim violates the laws of physics
How?
my understanding was correct, thank youIt is heat that keeps the nucleus together? Energy is only, simply, heat? All energy is removed by cooling something?We can not remove energy from CO2, period.
You can, by cooling it.
It is heat that keeps the nucleus together?
Nope.
Energy is only, simply, heat?
Nope.
All energy is removed by cooling something?
Nope. Only heat.
Weaker than the energy that entered, if they claim co2 is making it warmer, that is pretty hard to do, considered that heat will be lost. When it is absorbed or emitted. People were and are speaking of energy. I know there is more energy than simply heat.Of course, we can not forget about all the water in the atmosphere, that literally surrounds and shields the co2. Any energy re-emitted from co2 will be weaker and be absorbed by the water in the atmosphere.
What is the energy that binds CO2 together? Heat? And only heat?Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
I have never read anything that is as stupid as this, honestly.
We can not remove energy from CO2, period.
We can not remove energy from CO2, period.
You can, by cooling it.
Any energy re-emitted from co2 will be weaker
Weaker than what?
What is the energy that binds CO2 together? Heat? And only heat?
Who's talking about bonds? You can remove heat from CO2, or anything, by cooling it.
And all those other molecules surrounding CO2, how are they attenuating the heat? There is a ton of water surrounding CO2, in the atmosphere, on any given day.
so many little details
simple.. He made the assumption that all BB radiation would be absorbed by CO2 ignoring all other atmospheric components. that is a very incorrect assumption when water vapor is 400 times that of CO2 and its absorption band includes that wave length. How have you stopped other gases or matter.You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.
This claim violates the laws of physics
How?
simple.. He made the assumption that all BB radiation would be absorbed by CO2 ignoring all other atmospheric components. that is a very incorrect assumption when water vapor is 400 times that of CO2 and its absorption band includes that wave length. How have you stopped other gases or matter.You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.
This claim violates the laws of physics
How?
So I read the Exec Summary and can’t find any government agency putting its name on this. All I read is typical alarmist BS.Apparently Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and The Mango Mussolini himself were just too tired from defending themselves and one another to fight it.
WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.
Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.
The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.
“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”
Continued:
U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials
So I read the Exec Summary and can’t find any government agency putting its name on this. All I read is typical alarmist BS.
Ah. So the report is from a sub committee of a sub committee with a representative from agencies such as the Dept of Transportation and Smithsonian Institute. I’m sure the DOT and Smithsonian can tell us all about manmade Gorebal Warming.So I read the Exec Summary and can’t find any government agency putting its name on this. All I read is typical alarmist BS.
You didn't look hard enough
2. The USGCRP is made up of 13 Federal departments and agencies that carry out research and support the Nation’s response to global change. The USGCRP is overseen by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS), which in turn is overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The agencies within USGCRP are the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (NOAA), the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Back
Climate Science Special Report: About this Report
Apparently Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and The Mango Mussolini himself were just too tired from defending themselves and one another to fight it.
WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.
Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.
The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.
“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”
Continued:
U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials
Very stupid, Silly Billy, as usual. The residency of CO2 in the atmosphere was addressed at the links in the post. As for the known laws of physics, take it up with a physicist, for you certainly are unaware of those laws.This article violates Known Physics of the gas.... Tell me old Crock what is the residency time of the energy in a CO2 molecule? Further, What is the real residency time of this trace gas in our atmosphere? What fraction of the atmosphere is capable of making the earths atmosphere "run away"?You are unaware of much of anything, stupid ass. CO2 does not create heat, it absorbs outgoing radiative heat from the Earth. Demonstrated by Tyndall in 1859. Absorption spectra of CO2.I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.
Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?
Contents
Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?
- CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue
- CO2 sticks around
- What about water vapor?
- Too much of a good thing: the carbon overload
- Long-term perspective
Please provide the links to your work or their quantifiable, repeatable science...
Lordy, lordy, can anyone top that for stupidity? LOL So how do you make ice in your refrigerator? LOL CO2 is just another chemical compound, same as H2O. Energy can be taken from or added to either compound, and each will react according to the properties of that compound. Atmospheric physicist? Damn, Silly, you could not even pass a third grade physics test. The only person that might agree with you is Mr. Westwall.Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
I have never read anything that is as stupid as this, honestly.
We can not remove energy from CO2, period.
Because we are causing this change, and we can make that change rapid enough that it causes severe stress on our agriculture, which feeds the 7+ billion people on this planet. Not to mention extreme weather events like Houston this year. You put more energy into the atmosphere, and the atmosphere will be more energetic.Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.
We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.
If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.
The hockey stick graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies, using different proxies, in different localities, by different researchers. You may not like the results, but they have stood up very well to independent research.Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.
We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.
If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.
Our current crop of alarmists do not like the word "CONTEXT"...
All temperature variations need to be looked at in context. One of the biggest problems is the spatial resolution of long term records (one data point for 500 years. this averages the whole record to one point and all of the trends within are lost). Most people who are not trained in science do not understand this. This is how Michael Mann created his infamous Hockey Stick. 99% of his record was made from 250-500 year data point plots and then he tacked the yearly plots on the end of it. The data on the end would be gone if it were properly placed in an averaged point. IT was pure deception.
Again we need the context they are unwilling to provide to easily duped people.
Now who is ignoring that? That is the problem with many of the industrial gases that we are putting into the atmosphere, is that they are blocking in the area that was previously not blocked.Then why do you choose to ignore 96.8% of the window?You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.
Good grief! Physicists and chemists have been measuring absorption by different substances, in different wavelengths, for hundreds of years.
Why are you bringing H2O into discussion? Water vapour is a poor absorber in almost all wavelengths between 14-16 microns. Or 8-14 microns as well. That is why it is called the atmospheric window. Without CO2 being present the AW would be considered as 8-16 microns, and a lot more radiation would directly escape to space.
Water (liquid) is a poor absorber but water vapor is a relatively good one as it is a semi-gas state. It also holds (retains) the energy for upwards of 6 seconds before emitting at a much longer wave length. This process is seen well in ocean skin evaporation creating a consumption of energy and heat loss.
Trained scientists are not missing a thing. You are, because of your ignorance of what we are seeing happening right now.Here is an example:Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.
We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.
If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.
View attachment 160069
This graph is a plot in 10,000 year points covering 4.5 million years. No real wild and crazy things happening here..
View attachment 160070
This Graph is in 1,000 year plots and covers just 450 million years. But we see that our current crop of warming is not unusual or out of the norm.
View attachment 160071
This one is in 50 year point plots covering our current interglaical of about 16,000 years and our little blip is on the end of the record. Our current temperature rise is not unusual or fast.
I find it weird that people, especially formally trained scientist, don’t understand this. I always feel like I’m missing something in these conversations because it seems so simple to me.
