Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.
Briefly describe how you believe biological activity is an "indisputable" factor in the global climate equation.
I'm not here to argue about the primacy of human activity affecting global climate, but denying that human activity has ANYTHING to do with climate change demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.
Since you thought it important enough to state twice, I suppose I will ask twice...as briefly as you can, describe how you believe biological activity is an indisputable part of the global cliamte equation. How might biological activity alter the global climate?
It is an indisputable, and well established fact of reality that the atmosphere is comprised of gasses, and that IR causes gasses to warm.
Yeah..you keep saying indisputable this, and indisputable that but no one...not you, not anyone on this board, nor none of the top shelf physicists I have asked about this seems to be able to provide any actual data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
I will agree that it is indisputable that many people, in fact, most people believe that absorption of infrared by a gas leads to warming in the atmosphere..but since there is no actual observed, measured data that establishes that relationship, where does the "indisputable" element of your argument come from?
Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.
Funny how your "literally millions of hours of experiment and observation" fail to note those obvious facts of reality.
I mean, if what you're saying is not just pure bullshit, then all air temperature readings ever taken under any conditions are all entirely bullshit.
You hang a lot on assumption and readily accept things as indisputable when they simply aren't true.
I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.
The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of infrared radiation by various gasses bestowing upon them the ability to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:
“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.”
His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.
“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”
Then Svante Arrhenius, ignoring those findings hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground using the Stefan-Boltzman law..
To test Arrhenius' hypothesis (keep in mind that it was only a hypothesis) a Swedish physicist named Knut Angstrom (ever hear of him?) set up experiments and published a paper titled "On the Importance of Water Vapor and CO2 in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"
Angstrom's experiment involved filling tubes with the amount of CO2 that would be present in a column of air that reached to the top of the atmosphere. He then ran infrared radiation through the CO2. At first, he doubled the amount of CO2 in the tubes, then he cut the amount in half and repeated the test. He observed virtually zero temperature change between these different amounts of CO2.
Now here is where we come to the millions of hours of observation which bear out Angstrom's findings that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Enter engineers and physicists involved in the commercial application of radiant heating.
Here are some of the observations and findings that have come out of that industry.
“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..
“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …
“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”
So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..
“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”
I am not going to make any assumptions on your level of education so for either your benefit, or the benefit of those who read that statement and may not grasp its significance let me explain. What Tyndall is saying...and which has been proven over the centuries since he said it...is that molecules that are good absorbers of infrared radiation are also good emitters of that same radiation. In short, when you add a so called greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, you not only increase its ability to absorb infrared radiation, you also increase its ability to emit that radiation.
In short, adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. When you increase the emissivity of an object, you enhance its ability to radiatively cool itself. The claim that by adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, thereby increasing its emissivity and ability to radiatively cool itself you will cause the atmosphere to warm is ludicrous on its face...and the only reason people believe such nonsense is the abject failure of the educational system.
Imagine...believing that by enhancing an object's ability to cool itself you can cause it tto become warmer.
No it's not. Pollution obviously affects climate. Denying this is just a denial of what the term "climate" means.
So once again, as briefly as possible, describe how you believe pollution affects the global climate.
Well, at least you've finally come around to admitting that human activity affects the climate.
No...I have stated that pollution is a serious problem that we can deal with. I am still waiting for you to describe what effect you believe that pollution has on the global climate.
By the way...CO2 is not pollution.
Except the fact that no such observation and experiment that offers such proof actually exists. Otherwise you're spot on.
Provided above...so yes, it does exist...infrared radiation warms solid objects...not the air...I suppose you never considered that the thermometer you hold up in the room heated by infrared radiation is a solid object and would certainly be warmed by the infrared radiation coming from the radiator...but the fact that the thermometer was warmed by the radiation does not mean that the air was warmed.
The fact that IR has no ability to warm the air has been known for at least a hundred years but it is conveniently ignored, as so much other science is ignored for the sake of a political agenda.
And this brings me right back to my statement that not a single piece of data exists that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....of course no such data exists, but volumes of data exists that show pretty conclusively that IR, in fact, has no ability to warm the air.
You'll have to get all your people and their oppenents together on this, and you may have to do this every day for a couple of years. But, if you carefully record the temperatures around the globe every day, I think the objective data generated would inform conclusions that both sides of the issue could agree upon.
Soot, which would be the only result of burning tires would produce that could alter the climate if enough were burned is not the issue...and not the reason climate science is asking that trillions of dollars worth of production be lost down a black hole. CO2, the magic gas is the reason behind the politics of climate change...and the reason, if the belief in the magic continues, that your cost of living will skyrocket. As with all political ideas emanating from the left, the very people who can least afford to be hurt by the monetary consequences of their ideas are the people who are hurt the most.
