How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Toddsterpatriot]

All atoms and molecules "hold" energy when exposed to direct sunlight. Co2 isn't special in that regard, absorbing weak infrared but nothing else. That's why the satellites and balloons show no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2. Co2 is just another gas. The whole concept of a "Greenhouse Gas" is bullshit. All gasses absorb sunlight, and the differences are minor.

All gasses absorb sunlight,

Really? How can we see the Sun?

 

[LaDairis]

Really? How can we see the Sun?

IF we lived on Jupiter, or even Venus, we couldn't. "Clear" atoms and molecules make it easier to see the visible spectrum. Density is a huge issue. "Clear" atoms and molecules like Co2 do absorb EM from the Sun, just not the visible portion....

 

[Wyatt earp]

Really? How can we see the Sun?

IF we lived on Jupiter, or even Venus, we couldn't. "Clear" atoms and molecules make it easier to see the visible spectrum. Density is a huge issue. "Clear" atoms and molecules like Co2 do absorb EM from the Sun, just not the visible portion....

How could we live on those planets to much C02 ..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? How can we see the Sun?

IF we lived on Jupiter, or even Venus, we couldn't. "Clear" atoms and molecules make it easier to see the visible spectrum. Density is a huge issue. "Clear" atoms and molecules like Co2 do absorb EM from the Sun, just not the visible portion....

"Clear" atoms and molecules make it easier to see the visible spectrum.

If "all gasses absorb sunlight", how does sunlight make it to the surface....unabsorbed?

Clear" atoms and molecules like Co2 do absorb EM from the Sun, just not the visible portion....

What does O2 and N2 absorb?

 

[LaDairis]

If "all gasses absorb sunlight", how does sunlight make it to the surface....unabsorbed?

DENSITY, and which atoms and molecules are absorbing which bands of EM. If the atmosphere was 100% Co2 and 400 miles thick, very little if no IR would reach Earth from sunlight.

What does O2 and N2 absorb?

They absorb something, otherwise they'd be at -459F...

 

[LaDairis]

How could we live on those planets.

We can't.

Venus is too hot and has a sulfur based environment toxic to human life.

Jupiter kills humans multiple ways, including by magnetic field.... temperature, pressure, poison atmosphere of METHANE.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If "all gasses absorb sunlight", how does sunlight make it to the surface....unabsorbed?

DENSITY, and which atoms and molecules are absorbing which bands of EM. If the atmosphere was 100% Co2 and 400 miles thick, very little if no IR would reach Earth from sunlight.

What does O2 and N2 absorb?

They absorb something, otherwise they'd be at -459F...

They absorb something, otherwise they'd be at -459F...

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Hmmmmm.....no mention of 02 or N2 absorbing incoming solar energy.

 

[LaDairis]

According to that, Co2 doesn't even absorb IR....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to that, Co2 doesn't even absorb IR....

I think the incoming IR is only a tiny portion of total solar radiation and
CO2's absorption wavelength is mostly too long to affect it.

 

[SSDD]

All atoms and molecules "hold" energy when exposed to direct sunlight. Co2 isn't special in that regard, absorbing weak infrared but nothing else. That's why the satellites and balloons show no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2. Co2 is just another gas. The whole concept of a "Greenhouse Gas" is bullshit. All gasses absorb sunlight, and the differences are minor.

CO2 is invisible to short wave radiation and visible radiation which is what sunlight is mostly made up of...CO2 only absorbs infrared radiation in a few narrow wavelengths.

 

[SSDD]

You have totally misunderstood. Try reading more slowly. CO2 can heat up. It can hold energy as heat..

Sorry guy..but it can't...not at atmospheric temperatures and pressure.

Again you are confusing energy with power. 17 Watts is power not energy. Power is energy transferred per unit of time.

The only one who is confused is you...it is because you buy into the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis...understandable mistake among dupes..

 

[LaDairis]

I think the incoming IR is only a tiny portion of total solar radiation

Correct

CO2's absorption wavelength is mostly too long to affect it

Translation - IR doesn't have "energy" like UV and X-Ray.... and hence is not the main source of EM energy from the Sun. It is minuscule as a percent of it.


But make no mistake, if you put Co2 in a glass jar and put it in space orbiting around Earth, the Co2 will warm some.... because it does absorb some energy from the EM generated by the Sun. All gasses do. And that's the real point...

 

[Wuwei]

You have totally misunderstood. Try reading more slowly. CO2 can heat up. It can hold energy as heat..

Sorry guy..but it can't...not at atmospheric temperatures and pressure.

Wrong wrong wrong. A container of CO2 at 200 F holds more energy than a container of CO2 at 100 F. The molecules in the first container have a higher average kinetic energy. It is absolutely astounding that you deny that very simple physics.

Again you are confusing energy with power. 17 Watts is power not energy. Power is energy transferred per unit of time.

The only one who is confused is you...it is because you buy into the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis...understandable mistake among dupes..

[/QUOTE]
You seem to be saying power and energy are the same thing? They are not!
Power is the amount of energy transferred per unit of time. Read a physics book!

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have totally misunderstood. Try reading more slowly. CO2 can heat up. It can hold energy as heat..

Sorry guy..but it can't...not at atmospheric temperatures and pressure.

Wrong wrong wrong. A container of CO2 at 200 F holds more energy than a container of CO2 at 100 F. The molecules in the first container have a higher average kinetic energy. It is absolutely astounding that you deny that very simple physics.

Again you are confusing energy with power. 17 Watts is power not energy. Power is energy transferred per unit of time.

The only one who is confused is you...it is because you buy into the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis...understandable mistake among dupes..

You seem to be saying power and energy are the same thing? They are not!
Power is the amount of energy transferred per unit of time. Read a physics book!

.

He can't do that, he'd be reminded of his many errors.

 

[Confounding]

It is absolutely astounding that you deny

Really? After everything you've seen you're surprised? By the way the person you're speaking to claims to understand the climate better than climate scientists do. He is a complete fool.

 

[SSDD]

Suppose you set an object on an source that was powered by 17 Watts. If you sealed it in a container with a perfect vacuum around it, it would continue to absorb energy at the rate of 17 Joules per second and increase in temperature until radiation heated the container hot enough to the point that the outside of the container radiates 17 Watts externally.

Where do you get these ideas...the lightbulb glows, not because it is absorbing energy and retaining it. It is glowingt because of high resistance... the current is being run through a very tiny filament. The filament doesn't have enough surface area to bleed off the energy being run through it. If you run the same amount t of energy through a heavy gage filament which provides little to no resistance, you could run the same current through it ill the end of time and never get even the smallest bit of a glow.

If you need it, I can provide you with instructions to build your own light bulb using different thicknesses of filaments to see how wrong you are.

Yet one more example of your complete misunderstanding of the physics of how and why things work...

 

[SSDD]

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

I totally agree. But you totally missed my point.

You totally agree? Then why do you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect? You see the box at the bottom of the image...239.7 + 239.7 + sigma T^4?

Now look at the second line...what does it say that T equals? That equation is stating that the temperature is equal to precisely what I just said could not happen above and you agreed totally. There is the mechanism by which your radiative greenhouse effect supposedly works and you just agreed that it doesn't happen...thanks.

 

[SSDD]

It is absolutely astounding that you deny

Really? After everything you've seen you're surprised? By the way the person you're speaking to claims to understand the climate better than climate scientists do. He is a complete fool.

Sorry guy....but you are the one who has been fooled...

Obviously you neither read, nor understood anything he has said...

Further up in the post, I said"

"If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C.."

To which wuwei said:

"I totally agree. But you totally missed my point."

He totally agrees...and that is damned interesting because the radiative greenhouse effect is based on the same thing that we both just stated can not happen...you can't add a bucket of water at 100F to a bucket of water at 100F and expect the temperature to rise a single degree higher than 100C.

And that is true..you can try it yourself with some warm water and a thermometer...

And yet, here is the basis of the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn, man made global warming.

You see the Red arrow pointing down? And the red arrow pointing up? See the explanation of what they represent? Energy emitted by the top layer of the atmosphere and energy emitted by the bottom layer of the atmosphere...see that? Both the same.

Now look at the equation in the box at the bottom of the image...It says that T....T stands for temperature equals the energy indicated by the red arrow plus the energy indicated by the blue arrow....mathematically, they just claimed that if you pour a bucket of water at 100F into an equal amount of water at 100F, that the resulting temperature will be 200F.

Now do I expect for you to understand this? Of course not...but just so you know that your apparent hero of the minute agrees with me regarding what happens to the temperature of a thing, when you combine it with another thing at the same temperature...NOTHING...because temperatures are not additive. The equation which describes the radiative greenhouse effect is claiming that temperatures are additive...that if you add some energy at one temperature to some more energy at the same temperature that the temperature will be the sum of the two....

It doesn't happen..

 

[Confounding]

It is absolutely astounding that you deny

Really? After everything you've seen you're surprised? By the way the person you're speaking to claims to understand the climate better than climate scientists do. He is a complete fool.

Sorry guy....but you are the one who has been fooled...

Obviously you neither read, nor understood anything he has said...

Further up in the post, I said"

"If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C.."

To which wuwei said:

"I totally agree. But you totally missed my point."

He totally agrees...and that is damned interesting because the radiative greenhouse effect is based on the same thing that we both just stated can not happen...you can't add a bucket of water at 100F to a bucket of water at 100F and expect the temperature to rise a single degree higher than 100C.

And that is true..you can try it yourself with some warm water and a thermometer...

And yet, here is the basis of the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn, man made global warming.

You see the Red arrow pointing down? And the red arrow pointing up? See the explanation of what they represent? Energy emitted by the top layer of the atmosphere and energy emitted by the bottom layer of the atmosphere...see that? Both the same.

Now look at the equation in the box at the bottom of the image...It says that T....T stands for temperature equals the energy indicated by the red arrow plus the energy indicated by the blue arrow....mathematically, they just claimed that if you pour a bucket of water at 100F into an equal amount of water at 100F, that the resulting temperature will be 200F.

Now do I expect for you to understand this? Of course not...but just so you know that your apparent hero of the minute agrees with me regarding what happens to the temperature of a thing, when you combine it with another thing at the same temperature...NOTHING...because temperatures are not additive. The equation which describes the radiative greenhouse effect is claiming that temperatures are additive...that if you add some energy at one temperature to some more energy at the same temperature that the temperature will be the sum of the two....

It doesn't happen..

Show the climate scientists. I'll read about you in the paper.

 

[Wuwei]

Suppose you set an object on an source that was powered by 17 Watts. If you sealed it in a container with a perfect vacuum around it, it would continue to absorb energy at the rate of 17 Joules per second and increase in temperature until radiation heated the container hot enough to the point that the outside of the container radiates 17 Watts externally.

Where do you get these ideas...the lightbulb glows, not because it is absorbing energy and retaining it. It is glowingt because of high resistance... the current is being run through a very tiny filament. The filament doesn't have enough surface area to bleed off the energy being run through it. If you run the same amount t of energy through a heavy gage filament which provides little to no resistance, you could run the same current through it ill the end of time and never get even the smallest bit of a glow.

For god's sake. Another concept that went over your head. I'm trying to show you the difference between Power and Energy and you go off into a tangent.

Not only do you not understand power and energy, your tangent is also wrong. A light bulb glows because it is absorbing energy and retaining much of it in a vacuum. If the bulb were broken and the filament were intact and immersed in water it would not retain much of the 17 Watts of continuous energy input would it. With your misunderstanding of the simplest science, no wonder you are such a science denier.

.