13 agency report says humans are the dominant cause for climate change

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?

Non sequitur. The hotspot is a prediction based on faulty understanding of water feedbacks.

I am stating that CO2 warms the atmosphere at the boundary, which returns energy to the surface by various means and causes the equilibrium surface temperature to increase.

Discuss CO2 and stop trying to change the subject.

To change temperature at he boundary you must have competing mass/mass knowledge(atmosphere components and their respective responses). How can you determine CO2's capability if you do not have the mass/mass break down and physical evidence of reaction to prove it?

Gobbledygook. CO2 absorbs surface radiation centred on 15 microns that otherwise would escape directly to space if CO2 wasn't there.

Where is your proof that it affects the atmosphere? The theroy has never been proven. Only your models say it does while empirical evidence disproves your assumption. That missing hot spot is a *****..

 

[IanC]

CO2 has zero effect on warming.

The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.

It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.

Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.

I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.

CO2 has zero effect on warming.

The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.

It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.

Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.

I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.

As per usual, you show no familiarity with common science.

CO2 does not have a liquid state except under highly artificial conditions.

Energy residency time? Hahahaha. Are you taking about how CO2 absorbs a photon and then gives up that energy by molecular collision to the atmosphere? Warming the atmosphere?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?

Non sequitur. The hotspot is a prediction based on faulty understanding of water feedbacks.

I am stating that CO2 warms the atmosphere at the boundary, which returns energy to the surface by various means and causes the equilibrium surface temperature to increase.

Discuss CO2 and stop trying to change the subject.

To change temperature at he boundary you must have competing mass/mass knowledge(atmosphere components and their respective responses). How can you determine CO2's capability if you do not have the mass/mass break down and physical evidence of reaction to prove it?

Gobbledygook. CO2 absorbs surface radiation centred on 15 microns that otherwise would escape directly to space if CO2 wasn't there.

Residency time of energy in the CO2 molecule is less than 0.1 nanoseconds Thus it can not vibrate to warm. It must collide with other molecules to warm.

Escaping radiation in the 12-20um band has not been reduced in the last 46 years according to satellite data.

If the hypothesis were true, there must be a resulting hot spot in the atmosphere. Again, Where is it? In Order for heat to be redirected to the surface you MUST create pressures in the atmosphere to push it back towards the surface. Without those pressures (hot spot) the whole meme fails.

Above 3 meters this is impossible, with the current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, by the known physical laws of mass and energy conservation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Further, Most of that energy must return in the 20-20 latitudes (equatorial) and it must re-enter the oceans, which are a grey body and can not be affected by 12-20um energy, beyond the surface 10 microns, resulting in skin water evaporation and cooling. This results in an overall net loss of energy because it is not being absorbed by the oceans.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has zero effect on warming.

The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.

It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.

Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.

I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.

CO2 has zero effect on warming.

The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.

It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.

Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.

I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.

As per usual, you show no familiarity with common science.

CO2 does not have a liquid state except under highly artificial conditions.

Energy residency time? Hahahaha. Are you taking about how CO2 absorbs a photon and then gives up that energy by molecular collision to the atmosphere? Warming the atmosphere?

LOL...

Really?

You really don't understand it, do you?

IF the energy can not reside in the molecule you claim is causing warming then it is incapable of what you say it can do. There is a reason the earth has survived 7000ppm for millions of years, glaciated and warmed again, over and over again all while that level of CO2 remained...

 

[IanC]

Residency time of energy in the CO2 molecule is less than 0.1 nanoseconds Thus it can not vibrate to warm. It must collide with other molecules to warm

Temperature is average kinetic energy, how fast the molecules are moving.

A CO2 molecule that has absorbed a photon has more potential energy. 'Vibration' is a descriptor. Molecular collisions transform this potential energy into kinetic energy, and vice versa.

CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere. It is then converted into kinetic energy by molecular collision. The atmosphere has warmed by infusion of energy.

Absorption is not limited by temperature but emission is. CO2 can only lose radiation to space much higher up where the air is thinner and much colder. The amount of 14-16 micron radiation lost to space is much less than the amount that enters at the surface. The differential is the amount of warming influence caused by the presence of CO2.

 

[elektra]

What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. 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.

You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.

CO2 is used to keep stuff cold, it does a better job at that then ICE.

Dry ice is made by removing energy? You have zero understanding of CO2 and how it is turned into dry ice yet you claim to understand CO2 in the atmosphere?

Dry ice is made by freezing and pressurizing CO2 in its gaseous form, it then becomes a liquid, which is further pressurized, causing some of the CO2 to escape, which results in an extreme drop of temperature which freezes the liquid into a block.

If you are so naive to make a statement that is not close to being accurate about a simple process concerning CO2, you have zero understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

Escaping radiation in the 12-20um band has not been reduced in the last 46 years according to satellite data

A while back someone brought up the American Thinker article that compared outgoing radiation from a tropical ocean location, 20+ years apart. It only covered 8-14 microns, the atmospheric window where most radiation escapes directly to space.

It showed an increase in most bands, corresponding to an increased water temperature but a decrease in 14 micron radiation which is the very edge of CO2 involvement.

 

[elektra]

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.

 

[J.W.Hardin]

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.

Why not? Are you saying it’s morally wrong or something? It’s definitely possible people freeze CO2 all the time.

If you do think it’s morally wrong I️ wouldn’t really worry. The system can easily get energy back, it’s not dead forever.

 

[IanC]

What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. 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.

You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.

CO2 is used to keep stuff cold, it does a better job at that then ICE.

Dry ice is made by removing energy? You have zero understanding of CO2 and how it is turned into dry ice yet you claim to understand CO2 in the atmosphere?

Dry ice is made by freezing and pressurizing CO2 in its gaseous form, it then becomes a liquid, which is further pressurized, causing some of the CO2 to escape, which results in an extreme drop of temperature which freezes the liquid into a block.

If you are so naive to make a statement that is not close to being accurate about a simple process concerning CO2, you have zero understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I probably don't know enough about the manufacturing of dry ice. What I do know is that at normal terrestrial pressures CO2 does not exist in liquid phase.

 

[J.W.Hardin]

What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. 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.

You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.

CO2 is used to keep stuff cold, it does a better job at that then ICE.

Dry ice is made by removing energy? You have zero understanding of CO2 and how it is turned into dry ice yet you claim to understand CO2 in the atmosphere?

Dry ice is made by freezing and pressurizing CO2 in its gaseous form, it then becomes a liquid, which is further pressurized, causing some of the CO2 to escape, which results in an extreme drop of temperature which freezes the liquid into a block.

If you are so naive to make a statement that is not close to being accurate about a simple process concerning CO2, you have zero understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Didn’t read this before my previous reply to you. The problem here comes in your misunderstanding of the process of freezing.

When something freezes energy leave the system in the form of heat.

 

[IanC]

What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. 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.

You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.

CO2 is used to keep stuff cold, it does a better job at that then ICE.

Dry ice is made by removing energy? You have zero understanding of CO2 and how it is turned into dry ice yet you claim to understand CO2 in the atmosphere?

Dry ice is made by freezing and pressurizing CO2 in its gaseous form, it then becomes a liquid, which is further pressurized, causing some of the CO2 to escape, which results in an extreme drop of temperature which freezes the liquid into a block.

If you are so naive to make a statement that is not close to being accurate about a simple process concerning CO2, you have zero understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Didn’t read this before my previous reply to you. The problem here comes in your misunderstanding of the process of freezing.

When something freezes energy leave the system in the form of heat.

It's rearrangement of energy. The other thing to consider is entropy. Useful energy has been used up and waste heat produced.

 

[J.W.Hardin]

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.

You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Absorption is not limited by temperature but emission is. CO2 can only lose radiation to space much higher up where the air is thinner and much colder. The amount of 14-16 micron radiation lost to space is much less than the amount that enters at the surface. The differential is the amount of warming influence caused by the presence of CO2.

Your only partially right. Absorption is not a factor of temperature where radiation is directly related to the temperature of the object radiating. SO it is also with water vapor in our atmosphere. Water vapor is SIGNIFICANTLY cooler than the gases near surface and thus once they absorb energy it is emitted at a much longer wave length. Energy loss totals at TOA (top of atmosphere) have not changed thus the energy leaving the system is the same. And this is where the alarmists lose the battle. There is no "differential" because you do not take into account the losses caused by water vapor near surface. You put on your blinders and look solely at a narrow band while forgetting about the gorilla in the room.

A simple 0.02% increase of the water cycle in just 300 feet of the atmosphere, near surface, removes all the energy you think your 'holding". Again a MASS/MASS ratio of a trace gas.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.

You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the 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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The United States government is the largest polluter.

Therefore, less government will make the world a better place to live.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.

You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the 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.

Then why do you choose to ignore 96.8% of the window?

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.