The Challenge of Climate Change...

[Stryder50]

Why would Co2 need to transfer its heat to the rest of the atmosphere in order to increase the temperature of the atmosphere? If you added some black rocks to a box of white rocks would the black rocks have to transfer their heat to the white ones in order for the whole thing to heat up?

Well yeah.
Unless you can measure each individual rock and then average them all to call it a "whole" temperature.

With CO2 at one part(volume) to 2,499 other parts(volume) of the other elements/molecules in the atmosphere around it, if it doesn't heat those other 2,499 then what are we measuring. One can't single out just CO2 and exclude the others, since we are saying that the air is a certain temperature, as a whole, based on the temperature of 0.04% that is the CO2.
Could just as well flip it around and say the other 2,499 parts cool the one part CO2, by taking the heat out of it.

Consider the 2,500 as fifty rolls of 50 pennies each in a stack. If one of those pennies is five degrees warmer than the others, and the others remain unheated, than the one isn't the cause of temperature increase or decrease to the rest, 2,499.

The major premise of the Global Warming/Climate Change hypothesis is that it's CO2 levels that are causing the whole atmosphere to get warmer, and then that warmer atmosphere is causing the whole surface of the planet to get warmer. If it's not the CO2, then what is making the air warmer?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The major premise of the Global Warming/Climate Change hypothesis is that it's CO2 levels that are causing the whole atmosphere to get warmer, and then that warmer atmosphere is causing the whole surface of the planet to get warmer.

Nope.

If it's not the CO2, then what is making the air warmer?

Global average surface temperature:

Climate change is most commonly measured using the average surface temperature of the planet. Measurements of near-surface air temperature from weather stations can be combined with measurements of ocean surface temperature from ships and buoys to create a record of the planet’s surface temperature going back to the mid-19th century.

The Sun (vastly). Same as always. What's changed then? The amount of GHGs.

 

[Crick]

Well yeah.
Unless you can measure each individual rock and then average them all to call it a "whole" temperature.

With CO2 at one part(volume) to 2,499 other parts(volume) of the other elements/molecules in the atmosphere around it, if it doesn't heat those other 2,499 then what are we measuring. One can't single out just CO2 and exclude the others, since we are saying that the air is a certain temperature, as a whole, based on the temperature of 0.04% that is the CO2.
Could just as well flip it around and say the other 2,499 parts cool the one part CO2, by taking the heat out of it.

Consider the 2,500 as fifty rolls of 50 pennies each in a stack. If one of those pennies is five degrees warmer than the others, and the others remain unheated, than the one isn't the cause of temperature increase or decrease to the rest, 2,499.

The major premise of the Global Warming/Climate Change hypothesis is that it's CO2 levels that are causing the whole atmosphere to get warmer, and then that warmer atmosphere is causing the whole surface of the planet to get warmer. If it's not the CO2, then what is making the air warmer?

Modern thermodynamics has become an exercise in statistics. When you use a thermometer, its reading is a physical averaging of the thermal state of billions and billions of molecules. The energy of heated CO2 molecules will transfer to non-GHG gases via conduction at a faster rate than you're thinking because collisions happen at much higher rate than you seem to be picturing. But it doesn't really matter. The temperature of a quantity of gas is the average thermal state of all the molecules in that quantity, whether that energy is being conducted about rapidly or not.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Modern thermodynamics has become an exercise in statistics. When you use a thermometer, its reading is a physical averaging of the thermal state of billions and billions of molecules. The energy of heated CO2 molecules will transfer to non-GHG gases via conduction at a faster rate than you're thinking because collisions happen at much higher rate than you seem to be picturing. But it doesn't really matter. The temperature of a quantity of gas is the average thermal state of all the molecules in that quantity, whether that energy is being conducted about rapidly or not.

1. Conduction
2. Convection
3. Radiation

Consider a typical thermometer.

noun

1. an instrument for measuring and indicating temperature, typically one consisting of a narrow, hermetically sealed glass tube marked with graduations and having at one end a bulb containing mercury or alcohol that expands and contracts in the tube with heating and cooling.

Read one exposed to the Sun vs. one in nearby shade. Two very different readings, same atmosphere. Radiation + conduction vs. conduction alone. We take the reading from the one in the shade to eliminate any radiated portion. "Rocks" are similar. Neither thermometers nor rocks "mix" with the atmosphere significantly.

CO2 is analogous to neither a thermometer nor a rock. CO2 will absorb radiated or convected thermal energy then almost immediately release it again by reflecting, refracting, and banging into other molecules. CO2 doesn't heat the atmosphere. It does transfer heat around.

The Sun mainly heats the ground (soil and rocks) and water at the Earth's surface, which then radiates, conducts, and convects that heat around. CO2, along with other GHGs, then reflects and refracts much of the reradiated thermal energy back towards the Earth's surface. The closer to the surface the better (statistically). Much colder towards outer space.

 

[jc456]

CO2 is analogous to neither a thermometer nor a rock. CO2 will absorb radiated or convected thermal energy then almost immediately release it again by reflecting, refracting, and banging into other molecules. CO2 doesn't heat the atmosphere. It does transfer heat around.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Crick]

1. Conduction
2. Convection
3. Radiation

Consider a typical thermometer.

Read one exposed to the Sun vs. one in nearby shade. Two very different readings, same atmosphere. Radiation + conduction vs. conduction alone. We take the reading from the one in the shade to eliminate any radiated portion. "Rocks" are similar. Neither thermometers nor rocks "mix" with the atmosphere significantly.

CO2 is analogous to neither a thermometer nor a rock. CO2 will absorb radiated or convected thermal energy then almost immediately release it again by reflecting, refracting, and banging into other molecules. CO2 doesn't heat the atmosphere. It does transfer heat around.

The Sun mainly heats the ground (soil and rocks) and water at the Earth's surface, which then radiates, conducts, and convects that heat around. CO2, along with other GHGs, then reflects and refracts much of the reradiated thermal energy back towards the Earth's surface. The closer to the surface the better (statistically). Much colder towards outer space.

A critical point here is that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates primarily in the infrared while the main components of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) do not. So there is little radiative transfer between such molecules. There is a great deal of conduction between them but what I was trying to say was that it's irrelevant. Let's take two cubes of imaginary gas. In one of them, a small fraction, say 420 ppm, contains 10% more thermal energy than the other gas in the mixture. In the other cube, that extra energy is evenly divided between each and every molecule in the box. The temperatures of the two cubes are absolutely identical. Since temperature is ALWAYS the average of many, many molecules, it is not necessary that heat be transferred between constituents. The definition of a mole tells us that there are 6.022e23 molecules in 22.4 liters of a gas at STP. That volume is just a little shy of a cubic foot, so let's just use the mole. In a mole of modern air, then, there are 6.022e23 x 4.2e-4 = 252,924,000,000,000,000,000 (about 253 quintillion) CO2 molecules.

 

[jc456]

A critical point here is that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates primarily in the infrared while the main components of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) do not. So there is little radiative transfer between such molecules. There is a great deal of conduction between them but what I was trying to say was that it's irrelevant. Let's take two cubes of imaginary gas. In one of them, a small fraction, say 420 ppm, contains 10% more thermal energy than the other gas in the mixture. In the other cube, that extra energy is evenly divided between each and every molecule in the box. The temperatures of the two cubes are absolutely identical. Since temperature is ALWAYS the average of many, many molecules, it is not necessary that heat be transferred between constituents. The definition of a mole tells us that there are 6.022e23 molecules in 22.4 liters of a gas at STP. That volume is just a little shy of a cubic foot, so let's just use the mole. In a mole of modern air, then, there are 6.022e23 x 4.2e-4 = 252,924,000,000,000,000,000 (about 253 quintillion) CO2 molecules.

the problem however is that CO2 isn't more energy than what it absorbed, so it isn't creating more energy, or heat. it is what it absorbed and only that. Two co2 molecules can't increase temperature.

 

[Grumblenuts]

A critical point here is that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates primarily in the infrared while the main components of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) do not. So there is little radiative transfer between such molecules. There is a great deal of conduction between them but what I was trying to say was that it's irrelevant. Let's take two cubes of imaginary gas. In one of them, a small fraction, say 420 ppm, contains 10% more thermal energy than the other gas in the mixture. In the other cube, that extra energy is evenly divided between each and every molecule in the box. The temperatures of the two cubes are absolutely identical. Since temperature is ALWAYS the average of many, many molecules, it is not necessary that heat be transferred between constituents. The definition of a mole tells us that there are 6.022e23 molecules in 22.4 liters of a gas at STP. That volume is just a little shy of a cubic foot, so let's just use the mole. In a mole of modern air, then, there are 6.022e23 x 4.2e-4 = 252,924,000,000,000,000,000 (about 253 quintillion) CO2 molecules.

A great point well made. I'm focused more upon countering the original stupid accusations head on, i.e., that we're somehow claiming CO2 heats the atmosphere to begin with. CO2 is obviously not a heat source. Also, to point out that GW is measured at Earth's surface by definition and for damned good reason.. which I think I did. LOL.

You actually made me think for a change though. Darn you. I ended up looking at this somewhat familiar site harder than ever before and learned a thing or two:

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.

news.climate.columbia.edu

This image speaks way more than a thousand words to me:

 

[EMH]

A great point well made. I'm focused more upon countering the original stupid accusations head on, i.e., that we're somehow claiming CO2 heats the atmosphere to begin with. CO2 is obviously not a heat source. Also, to point out that GW is measured at Earth's surface by definition and for damned good reason.. which I think I did. LOL.

You actually made me think for a change though. Darn you. I ended up looking at this somewhat familiar site harder than ever before and learned a thing or two:

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.

news.climate.columbia.edu

This image speaks way more than a thousand words to me:

IR = weak

Why Co2 absorbing it doesn't warm jack...

 

[Crick]

IR = weak

Why Co2 absorbing it doesn't warm jack...

"Weak"? Where the fuck is your fucking data?

 

[EMH]

"Weak"? Where the fuck is your fucking data?

LOL!!!

LOW ENERGY = WEAK = Crick is a MORON

 

[Crick]

LOL!!!

LOW ENERGY = WEAK = Crick is a MORON

That weak IR cooks my dinner. The even weaker microwaves reheat my coffee. These even weaker shortwaves will take a voice around the planet.

THIS doesn't say that CO2 is not warming the Earth you fucking idiot. Where is your fucking data?

 

[EMH]

That weak IR cooks my dinner. The even weaker microwaves reheat my coffee

In an oven that bombards microwaves, absorbed by H2O... duh... doesn't mean we need to worry about microwaves in the Sun's EM.... they ain't warming jack shit either.

 

[EMH]

THIS doesn't tell you that CO2 is not warming the Earth you fucking idiot. Where is your fucking data?

Co2 went up.

Highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE before your side FUDGED with BULLSHIT EXCUSES

 

[Flash]

It seems these days, a lot of folks are obsessed with a phenomenon called "Climate Change". Apparently, as the phenomenon is explained, human beings are directly impacting the climate of The Earth in a way that will cause all life on Earth to go extinct in a fairly short time (historically speaking).

Like many beliefs, the belief in catastrophic climate change is based partly on observation and partly on indoctrination. The percentage of those parts vary differently from individual to individual.

Like most beliefs, there is an important drive in believers to make sure as many people as possible believe in the exact same thing. Those who can't be convinced to believe must be marginalized as "anti the belief", a "denier" of the belief", infidel, apostate, heretic, are also frequently used. The purpose of the marginalization is to assure that the tenets of the belief cannot be challenged, as anyone who might challenge the belief is already labeled and their input is therefore invalid.

As for the belief in catastrophic climate change, it is pointless to argue the minutiae of the belief such as variations in global temperature, percentage of gasses in the atmosphere, and predictions on how these may or may not affect humans on the world. It's pointless because there is no way for a normal individual to verify or disprove claims. They must be taken as articles of faith. Another reason they are pointless is that they don't change the fundamental questions of, "What is actually going on?", "What, if anything, do we do to change what is going on?, and, most important, "Is anything we actually do going to have an overall net positive or negative effect on humans?".

It's akin to arguing, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", before you've established the existence of angels and if they do in fact actually dance.

View attachment 790938

The challenge to the believers in catastrophic climate change is, without answering the fundamental questions above, there can never be any meaningful discussion about what we actually do about it.

If you are a firm believer in catastrophic climate change, you are already convinced that something (anything) needs to be done and you are challenged by the fact that you cannot take action without convincing a majority of others to agree (or, at least not actively reject) to what you want to be done.

Without a critical mass of believers, willing to do what you want, you have limited options to actual changes to society you feel need to be implemented.

You can:

A) Hold an inquisition. Make sure that people who don't believe (and have the power to resist change) are isolated and removed from any position where they might interfere with your changes.

B) Seize political power. Obtain enough political power to implement changes even in the face of resistance from the masses.

C) Seek solutions that don't require either political will or government mandate. Privately fund solutions such as commercial energy alternatives, carbon heat sinks, or alternative technologies.


However you seek to face the challenges of changing hearts and minds (as well as lifestyles) of the majority of humans on this Earth, it probably won't be solved by posting argumentative threads about how many tenths of a degree temperature difference occurred between last week and this week or how many parts per million of a particular gas is measured in Timbuktu.

Humans have lived through other major climate changes. Like a friggin major ice age. We are a very adaptable species. We can live in almost any climate.

We don't have to resort to world wide Communism like the Moon Bats demand that we do to survive.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE

Um, GW is measured at Earth's surface BY DEFINITION and..
Heat is not temperature:

 

[Crick]

In an oven that bombards microwaves, absorbed by H2O... duh... doesn't mean we need to worry about microwaves in the Sun's EM.... they ain't warming jack shit either.

You claim CO2 is not warming the planet. Show us your data.

You claim there has been no temperature increase. Show us your data.

You claim there has been no rise in sea level. Show us your data.

And typing "highly correlated balloon and satellite data" IS NOT DATA

 

[EMH]

GW is measured at Earth's surface BY DEFINITION

Um, Co2 is in the ATMOSPHERE, um...

Deliberately misinterpreting Urban Heat Sink Effect and blaming atmospheric Co2 for it.

Heat is not temperature

So that's why there is NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2... because Co2 "stores" heat but doesn't get "warmer"

LOL!!!

That's good, even for the Co2 fraud, that's hilarious....

 

[EMH]

You claim CO2 is not warming the planet. Show us your data.

You claim there has been no temperature increase. Show us your data.

You claim there has been no rise in sea level. Show us your data.

And typing "highly correlated balloon and satellite data" IS NOT DATA

All your side has is FUDGE, and we the American taxpayer pay for it. Your side claims ocean warming, but there is no breakout in canes, which clearly would happen if oceans were actually warming. Hence, when you claim you have "data" that oceans are warming, your "data" is actually FUDGE and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to understand the difference.


Sea level rise is another one. You claim sea level rise because Antarctica is "melting." You've been busted lying repeatedly about AA and your "sea level rise" is 100% pure FUDGE as usual, and is busted immediately by asking you to provide ONE SINGLE PHOTO of a landmark sinking, which you cannot....

Co2 is in the ATMOSPHERE. WE have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and everyone has seen over and over that for 30 years it showed NO WARMING in highly correlated fashion when, in 2005, your side FUDGED BOTH with laughable excuses that did not match what the FUDGE did.

YOUR SIDE has NOTHING but FUDGE and DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT...

And the REAL DATA PROVES IT...

 

[Crick]

All your side has is FUDGE, and we the American taxpayer pay for it. Your side claims ocean warming, but there is no breakout in canes, which clearly would happen if oceans were actually warming. Hence, when you claim you have "data" that oceans are warming, your "data" is actually FUDGE and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to understand the difference.

Sea level rise is another one. You claim sea level rise because Antarctica is "melting." You've been busted lying repeatedly about AA and your "sea level rise" is 100% pure FUDGE as usual, and is busted immediately by asking you to provide ONE SINGLE PHOTO of a landmark sinking, which you cannot....

Co2 is in the ATMOSPHERE. WE have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and everyone has seen over and over that for 30 years it showed NO WARMING in highly correlated fashion when, in 2005, your side FUDGED BOTH with laughable excuses that did not match what the FUDGE did.

YOUR SIDE has NOTHING but FUDGE and DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT...

And the REAL DATA PROVES IT...

THEN SHOW US YOUR REAL DATA YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT