Trumps recent speech at Davos

Well, the point, my NPC, is that the term "global warming" was eclipsed by facts developed over two decades and shown to be false, the globe it turned out was NOT warming, instead it was cooling, or changing, or warming, or . . . .sister . . . . mother . . . . sister . . . Chinatown . . . or something.

So . . . . the new, correct term, is "climate change." Is that, NPeteN, what it is that you want to "explain it again?"
 
Last edited:
Time Warp said:
I hope you all went out and planted a tree today.

US unemployment down to 3.5%

Space junk up at 128000000.


Information correct as of January 2019

Number of rocket launches since the start of the space age in 1957:
About 5450 (excluding failures)

Number of satellites these rocket launches have placed into Earth orbit:
About 8950

Number of these still in space:
About 5000

Number of these still functioning:
About 1950

Number of debris objects regularly tracked by Space Surveillance Networks and maintained in their catalogue:
About 22 300

Estimated number of break-ups, explosions, collisions, or anomalous events resulting in fragmentation:
More than 500

Total mass of all space objects in Earth orbit:
More than 8400 tonnes

Number of debris objects estimated by statistical models to be in orbit:
34 000 objects >10 cm
900 000 objects from greater than 1 cm to 10 cm
128 million objects from greater than 1 mm to 1 cm
Click to expand...
A space scrap metal dealer would have a field day collecting all that space junk, but it's too dam expensive and impractical per mission.
 
I am willing to bet sending nuclear waste and who knows what else into deep space has been discussed..
 
xbacksideslider said:
Well, the point, my NPC, is that the term "global warming" was eclipsed by facts developed over two decades and shown to be false, the globe it turned out was NOT warming, instead it was cooling, or changing, or warming, or . . . .sister . . . . mother . . . . sister . . . Chinatown . . . or something.

So . . . . the new, correct term, is "climate change." Is that, NPeteN, what it is that you want to "explain it again?"
Click to expand...

Please provide credible scientific evidence from non-biased sources to back up your assertions.
 
NPeteN said:
Please provide credible scientific evidence from non-biased sources to back up your assertions.
Click to expand...


Weak tea. Your side says the correct term Is now “change” and no longer “warming.” That begs the question - “Why?” We all know why.

Going off about “credible scientific . . . “ is a troll’s evasion.

Ya got nuthin’
 
Last edited:
texasSlick said:
To those who fervently believe CO2 is driving the climate change:

Please explain how it does so. Slick
Click to expand...

Yes climate change and Global warming are two different things – but they are both inexplicitly entwined with one another like the Gas CO2 has a different effect on the planet than Oxygen, the CO2 gases in the atmosphere and its effect is misunderstood.

The planet earth is a very complex and changing system it is too difficult to explain if you are an average layman – it’s like a giant chemistry set that even has outside influences affecting the planet, the moon has a influence on giving two tides a day even though it only goes round the earth once every 24 hours, the sun warms it up and then the planet cools down at night, there are different places on this globe have their own ecosystem that took many, many, thousands of years to develop- and it take only one slight imbalance to tip the whole she bag in a different direction – IMO mankind has been doing a very good job of achieving this, what with chopping huge chunks of the Amazon rainforest down, and doing other various harmful thing to the planet to screw it all up and create an imbalance to the chemical mixture in a short space of time , like 500 years, that we had before. You only have go and tip it slightly off balance and then. . . . . . . . the way we are going there will be lower than 40% oxygen, making it difficult for this planet to support the 7.7 billion population, which is still expanding so it will be Goodbye world from a lot of unfortunate human begins and animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_global_cooling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth



Re; “Do I believe in climate change? Hell yes, the climate has been changing for a billion years, why should it stop now?” it won’t -but because we have changes the gas ratio we have invariably helped to speed the climate change up somewhat.
 
xbacksideslider said:
Weak tea. Your side says the correct term Is now “change” and no longer “warming.” That begs the question - “Why?” We all know why.

Going off about “credible scientific . . . “ is a troll’s evasion.

Ya got nuthin’
Click to expand...
Deniers could be beat senseless with the facts they refuse to believe and it would change nothing. Don Rumsfeld would be proud.
 
xbacksideslider said:
Going off about “credible scientific . . . “ is a troll’s evasion.
Click to expand...


Which you are unable to provide.

At this point you are just vomiting your own half baked opinions and expecting them to be taken seriously with no evidence other than your "new world order paranoia".
 
texasSlick said:
To those who fervently believe CO2 is driving the climate change:

Please explain how it does so.

Slick
Click to expand...

Not driving. Contributing.
We have added 42% more CO2 (among othert gasses) into the atmosphere and temperatures have risen.
The link?
When measuring the exact wavelengths of long wave radiation reaching the Earth's surface we see that increased concentration of CO2 and other GHG are adding heat. This is called radiative forcing.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Since the majority of temp change has occured since 1975 we have a reliable way of measuring incoming and outgoing long wave radiation. Satellites.

When temps increased, upward radiation decreased through radiative trapping at EXACTLY the same number as they increased for downward radiation.
Again, CO2 is not the only gas responsible. Ozone, methane, water vapor contribute as well. It is well known these gasses trap heat, adding more of them heats the planet. It's simple.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

CO2 is a major contributing factor to the warming of the planet, but NOT the only factor and NOT the most impactful.
 
Allow me to address your points (arguments?) in the order you have presented. The white text is yours, the orange, mine:

Not driving. I am glad you agree with me. Contributing. Perhaps. I will concede for the moment that CO2 is contributing ... OK, by how much? Is it 1% or 51% .... Oh wait! It cannot be 51% ... that would make it driving, and we agree that it is not driving. But it could be 49%. If it is only 1%, or even 10%, Nature is solidly in control, and if we were to reduce that percentage by 1/2, Nature would hardly notice. Of course if it is 49%, or even 25%, action is justified. Here is the crux: no one knows or has come to a reliable estimate of the percentage.
We have added 42% more CO2 (among othert gasses) into the atmosphere and temperatures have risen. This statement implies that it is a given that adding CO2 results in rising temperature. Where did you get this information? From the glass box greenhouse model? That model proves only one thing ..... that if you add CO2 to a glass box, having a lid on it, and radiate the box, the temperature inside the box rises. This model does not apply to the earth's atmosphere .... there are no glass walls enclosing the atmosphere, nor is there a lid on it.
The link?
When measuring the exact wavelengths of long wave radiation reaching the Earth's surface we see that increased concentration of CO2 and other GHG are adding heat. This is called radiative forcing. OK, I suppose this is where you are coming from when you assert it is a given that CO2 results in rising temperature. Truthfully, I am not acquainted with this branch of physics to authoritatively comment on it. However, I am an authority on the First Law of Thermodynamics which states energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if it is moved around in one form to another, it is IMPOSSIBLE to end up with more energy than before. Thus, your statement "... adding heat" violates the First Law. Then there is the fact that whatever energy CO2 may absorb from incoming radiation, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth, another consequence of the First Law.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
I will endeavor to read this when I have more time.

Since the majority of temp change has occured since 1975 we have a reliable way of measuring incoming and outgoing long wave radiation. Satellites.

When temps increased, upward radiation decreased through radiative trapping at EXACTLY the same number as they increased for downward radiation. These effects may be the result of changes in the solar output, sunspots, and solar flares. How are you so sure they are directly related to CO2?
Again, CO2 is not the only gas responsible. Ozone, methane, water vapor contribute as well. It is well known these gasses trap heat, adding more of them heats the planet. It's simple. No, not so simple. and your statement " ... It is well known these gasses trap heat," is completely, and scientifically bunko! Allow me to give you a brief lesson in molecular gas dynamics. Those gasses you mention are polar gasses. Polar gasses absorb radiation. Absorb is not the same as trap, which implies the energy is retained forever. Let us consider a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. When it absorbs radiation, the First Law says this energy MUST be manifested in some form. The CO2 molecule manifests this increase in energy by increasing its translational velocity. Translational velocity is the speed at which the molecule is moving at a particular instant. An increase of velocity, increases the molecule's kinetic energy, thus the absorbed radiation is manifested as an increase in kinetic energy .... The First Law is satisfied.

This increase in kinetic energy is short lived for this CO2 molecule. It collides with its neighbor gas molecules, and after a few collisions, the faster CO2 molecule transfers its energy to its slower neighbor molecules. Overall, the sum total of translational velocities of all the gas molecules is slightly increased, resulting in a slightly increased overall kinetic energy, and an increased kinetic energy results in an increase in temperature. Aha! you say! There it is .... the smoking gun ...proof CO2 increases the planet's temperature! Not so fast, let's go on.

Remember my statement "whatever energy CO2 may absorb from incoming radiation, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth,"? Thus, while the atmosphere may be slightly increased in temperature, the land and sea mass are slightly decreased in temperature. If the planet is considered as a system, i.e. the system incorporates the atmosphere, land and sea mass, then over time, the system comes to thermal equilibrium, at the same exact temperature it would have were there no CO2 present.

Of course this is a simple model, the simplest one I can devise, but if we cannot understand the simplest model, what hope is there to understand one more complex?

Let's go on. The earth rotates, and the atmosphere rotates with it. The CO2 molecule we have considered is now on the dark side of the earth. Yes, polar gasses absorb radiation. Did you know they also transmit, or re-radiate energy? Now on the dark side of the earth, the CO2 molecule is exposed to the cold expanse of deep space, and radiates some of its energy away, slowing down its translational velocity, and then the faster velocities of its neighbors are transferred to it, and the whole mass arrives at a slightly lower kinetic energy, and slightly lower temperature.

One can rightly argue that the sum total of energy absorbed during sunlight hours may not be transferred away during the dark hours. Good point, but go back to the point "whatever energy CO2 may absorb and not re-radiate away, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth,"

Add some clouds and this get complex in a hurry, and illustrates why noone has been able to definitively quantitize how much, if any, CO2 contributes to global warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
I will endeavor to read this when I have more time.

CO2 is a major contributing factor to the warming of the planet, but NOT the only factor and NOT the most impactful.
I agree except for the word "major" ... no one knows how much, if any.

Here is a puzzle ... the earth was in a mini ice age in the 1500's. The planet warmed in the subsequent 200 years, then came the onset of industrial revolution. Since the industrial revolution, many have been blaming CO2 for the global temperature rise since then. What caused the first stage of warming? Can't blame it on CO2, can we?

Slick
 
texasSlick said:
Allow me to address your points (arguments?) in the order you have presented. The white text is yours, the orange, mine:

Not driving. I am glad you agree with me. Contributing. Perhaps. I will concede for the moment that CO2 is contributing ... OK, by how much? Is it 1% or 51% .... Oh wait! It cannot be 51% ... that would make it driving, and we agree that it is not driving. But it could be 49%. If it is only 1%, or even 10%, Nature is solidly in control, and if we were to reduce that percentage by 1/2, Nature would hardly notice. Of course if it is 49%, or even 25%, action is justified. Here is the crux: no one knows or has come to a reliable estimate of the percentage.
We have added 42% more CO2 (among othert gasses) into the atmosphere and temperatures have risen. This statement implies that it is a given that adding CO2 results in rising temperature. Where did you get this information? From the glass box greenhouse model? That model proves only one thing ..... that if you add CO2 to a glass box, having a lid on it, and radiate the box, the temperature inside the box rises. This model does not apply to the earth's atmosphere .... there are no glass walls enclosing the atmosphere, nor is there a lid on it.
The link?
When measuring the exact wavelengths of long wave radiation reaching the Earth's surface we see that increased concentration of CO2 and other GHG are adding heat. This is called radiative forcing. OK, I suppose this is where you are coming from when you assert it is a given that CO2 results in rising temperature. Truthfully, I am not acquainted with this branch of physics to authoritatively comment on it. However, I am an authority on the First Law of Thermodynamics which states energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if it is moved around in one form to another, it is IMPOSSIBLE to end up with more energy than before. Thus, your statement "... adding heat" violates the First Law. Then there is the fact that whatever energy CO2 may absorb from incoming radiation, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth, another consequence of the First Law.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
I will endeavor to read this when I have more time.

Since the majority of temp change has occured since 1975 we have a reliable way of measuring incoming and outgoing long wave radiation. Satellites.

When temps increased, upward radiation decreased through radiative trapping at EXACTLY the same number as they increased for downward radiation. These effects may be the result of changes in the solar output, sunspots, and solar flares. How are you so sure they are directly related to CO2?
Again, CO2 is not the only gas responsible. Ozone, methane, water vapor contribute as well. It is well known these gasses trap heat, adding more of them heats the planet. It's simple. No, not so simple. and your statement " ... It is well known these gasses trap heat," is completely, and scientifically bunko! Allow me to give you a brief lesson in molecular gas dynamics. Those gasses you mention are polar gasses. Polar gasses absorb radiation. Absorb is not the same as trap, which implies the energy is retained forever. Let us consider a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. When it absorbs radiation, the First Law says this energy MUST be manifested in some form. The CO2 molecule manifests this increase in energy by increasing its translational velocity. Translational velocity is the speed at which the molecule is moving at a particular instant. An increase of velocity, increases the molecule's kinetic energy, thus the absorbed radiation is manifested as an increase in kinetic energy .... The First Law is satisfied.

This increase in kinetic energy is short lived for this CO2 molecule. It collides with its neighbor gas molecules, and after a few collisions, the faster CO2 molecule transfers its energy to its slower neighbor molecules. Overall, the sum total of translational velocities of all the gas molecules is slightly increased, resulting in a slightly increased overall kinetic energy, and an increased kinetic energy results in an increase in temperature. Aha! you say! There it is .... the smoking gun ...proof CO2 increases the planet's temperature! Not so fast, let's go on.

Remember my statement "whatever energy CO2 may absorb from incoming radiation, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth,"? Thus, while the atmosphere may be slightly increased in temperature, the land and sea mass are slightly decreased in temperature. If the planet is considered as a system, i.e. the system incorporates the atmosphere, land and sea mass, then over time, the system comes to thermal equilibrium, at the same exact temperature it would have were there no CO2 present.

Of course this is a simple model, the simplest one I can devise, but if we cannot understand the simplest model, what hope is there to understand one more complex?

Let's go on. The earth rotates, and the atmosphere rotates with it. The CO2 molecule we have considered is now on the dark side of the earth. Yes, polar gasses absorb radiation. Did you know they also transmit, or re-radiate energy? Now on the dark side of the earth, the CO2 molecule is exposed to the cold expanse of deep space, and radiates some of its energy away, slowing down its translational velocity, and then the faster velocities of its neighbors are transferred to it, and the whole mass arrives at a slightly lower kinetic energy, and slightly lower temperature.

One can rightly argue that the sum total of energy absorbed during sunlight hours may not be transferred away during the dark hours. Good point, but go back to the point "whatever energy CO2 may absorb and not re-radiate away, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth,"

Add some clouds and this get complex in a hurry, and illustrates why noone has been able to definitively quantitize how much, if any, CO2 contributes to global warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
I will endeavor to read this when I have more time.

CO2 is a major contributing factor to the warming of the planet, but NOT the only factor and NOT the most impactful.
I agree except for the word "major" ... no one knows how much, if any.

Here is a puzzle ... the earth was in a mini ice age in the 1500's. The planet warmed in the subsequent 200 years, then came the onset of industrial revolution. Since the industrial revolution, many have been blaming CO2 for the global temperature rise since then. What caused the first stage of warming? Can't blame it on CO2, can we?

Slick
Click to expand...

Slick. Thank you for using science to prove your point. It is refreshing to hear someone speak intelligently on the other side.
You are obviously well versed in your field and I respect your view. I don't currently have time to refute your science with the attention it deserves.
If you find the time to read the linked articles, I would be interested to hear your take on the evidence presented.
I do appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my comment so thoroughly.
 
But where are your party policies or self policies to do something for change ?

There are none because nothing will be done and its OK to say so, there are times when honestly is the best policy when it comes to being honest.
 
The troll doesn’t have time but tells Slick to spend HIS time studying politicized watermelon pseudo-science.

Don’t fall for it Slick. As we can read, you are, in philosophical terms, a modernist, an empiricist, a man who embraces science and believes in truth.

NPeteN, as we can read, is, in philosophical terms, a post-modernist, an snti-empiricist, a man who embraces relativism and rejects truth.

Don’t waste your time, Slick, on a man who acts in bad faith.
 
xbacksideslider said:
The troll doesn’t have time but tells Slick to spend HIS time studying politicized watermelon pseudo-science.

Don’t fall for it Slick. As we can read, you are, in philosophical terms, a modernist, an empiricist, a man who embraces science and believes in truth.

NPeteN, as we can read, is, in philosophical terms, a post-modernist, an snti-empiricist, a man who embraces relativism and rejects truth.

Don’t waste your time, Slick, on a man who acts in bad faith.
Click to expand...

Shhh, adults are talking.

texasSlick said:
Allow me to address your points (arguments?) in the order you have presented. The white text is yours, the orange, mine:

Not driving. I am glad you agree with me. Contributing. Perhaps. I will concede for the moment that CO2 is contributing ... OK, by how much? Is it 1% or 51% .... Oh wait! It cannot be 51% ... that would make it driving, and we agree that it is not driving. But it could be 49%. If it is only 1%, or even 10%, Nature is solidly in control, and if we were to reduce that percentage by 1/2, Nature would hardly notice. Of course if it is 49%, or even 25%, action is justified. Here is the crux: no one knows or has come to a reliable estimate of the percentage.
We have added 42% more CO2 (among othert gasses) into the atmosphere and temperatures have risen. This statement implies that it is a given that adding CO2 results in rising temperature. Where did you get this information? From the glass box greenhouse model? That model proves only one thing ..... that if you add CO2 to a glass box, having a lid on it, and radiate the box, the temperature inside the box rises. This model does not apply to the earth's atmosphere .... there are no glass walls enclosing the atmosphere, nor is there a lid on it.
The link?
When measuring the exact wavelengths of long wave radiation reaching the Earth's surface we see that increased concentration of CO2 and other GHG are adding heat. This is called radiative forcing. OK, I suppose this is where you are coming from when you assert it is a given that CO2 results in rising temperature. Truthfully, I am not acquainted with this branch of physics to authoritatively comment on it. However, I am an authority on the First Law of Thermodynamics which states energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if it is moved around in one form to another, it is IMPOSSIBLE to end up with more energy than before. Thus, your statement "... adding heat" violates the First Law. Then there is the fact that whatever energy CO2 may absorb from incoming radiation, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth, another consequence of the First Law.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
I will endeavor to read this when I have more time.

Since the majority of temp change has occured since 1975 we have a reliable way of measuring incoming and outgoing long wave radiation. Satellites.

When temps increased, upward radiation decreased through radiative trapping at EXACTLY the same number as they increased for downward radiation. These effects may be the result of changes in the solar output, sunspots, and solar flares. How are you so sure they are directly related to CO2?
Again, CO2 is not the only gas responsible. Ozone, methane, water vapor contribute as well. It is well known these gasses trap heat, adding more of them heats the planet. It's simple. No, not so simple. and your statement " ... It is well known these gasses trap heat," is completely, and scientifically bunko! Allow me to give you a brief lesson in molecular gas dynamics. Those gasses you mention are polar gasses. Polar gasses absorb radiation. Absorb is not the same as trap, which implies the energy is retained forever. Let us consider a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. When it absorbs radiation, the First Law says this energy MUST be manifested in some form. The CO2 molecule manifests this increase in energy by increasing its translational velocity. Translational velocity is the speed at which the molecule is moving at a particular instant. An increase of velocity, increases the molecule's kinetic energy, thus the absorbed radiation is manifested as an increase in kinetic energy .... The First Law is satisfied.

This increase in kinetic energy is short lived for this CO2 molecule. It collides with its neighbor gas molecules, and after a few collisions, the faster CO2 molecule transfers its energy to its slower neighbor molecules. Overall, the sum total of translational velocities of all the gas molecules is slightly increased, resulting in a slightly increased overall kinetic energy, and an increased kinetic energy results in an increase in temperature. Aha! you say! There it is .... the smoking gun ...proof CO2 increases the planet's temperature! Not so fast, let's go on.

Remember my statement "whatever energy CO2 may absorb from incoming radiation, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth,"? Thus, while the atmosphere may be slightly increased in temperature, the land and sea mass are slightly decreased in temperature. If the planet is considered as a system, i.e. the system incorporates the atmosphere, land and sea mass, then over time, the system comes to thermal equilibrium, at the same exact temperature it would have were there no CO2 present.

Of course this is a simple model, the simplest one I can devise, but if we cannot understand the simplest model, what hope is there to understand one more complex?

Let's go on. The earth rotates, and the atmosphere rotates with it. The CO2 molecule we have considered is now on the dark side of the earth. Yes, polar gasses absorb radiation. Did you know they also transmit, or re-radiate energy? Now on the dark side of the earth, the CO2 molecule is exposed to the cold expanse of deep space, and radiates some of its energy away, slowing down its translational velocity, and then the faster velocities of its neighbors are transferred to it, and the whole mass arrives at a slightly lower kinetic energy, and slightly lower temperature.

One can rightly argue that the sum total of energy absorbed during sunlight hours may not be transferred away during the dark hours. Good point, but go back to the point "whatever energy CO2 may absorb and not re-radiate away, that exact amount of energy does not reach the land or sea mass of the earth,"

Add some clouds and this get complex in a hurry, and illustrates why noone has been able to definitively quantitize how much, if any, CO2 contributes to global warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
I will endeavor to read this when I have more time.

CO2 is a major contributing factor to the warming of the planet, but NOT the only factor and NOT the most impactful.
I agree except for the word "major" ... no one knows how much, if any.

Here is a puzzle ... the earth was in a mini ice age in the 1500's. The planet warmed in the subsequent 200 years, then came the onset of industrial revolution. Since the industrial revolution, many have been blaming CO2 for the global temperature rise since then. What caused the first stage of warming? Can't blame it on CO2, can we?

Slick
Click to expand...



Forgive me if this is unclear, I could not access the site on my computer so I am typing this on my phone. We agree on some things so I will leave them out.

Gas Dynamics:
Allow me to give you a lesson of my own. CO2 and methane are NOT polar gasses, dipoles at 180 degrees from each other cancel out. I understand the point you are trying to make and you will see later why it is not really relevant. Unfortunately, most of your CO2 kinetic energy example is also irrelevant because it hinges on the idea that CO2 absorbs incoming radiation, which it does not.

Glass Box:
Visible spectrum solar radiation hits the Earth and is absorbed by the ground, then re-emitted as infrared light. This light is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses, CO2, methane, water vapor etc... and partially radiated back at the earth (let's say 50:50). CO2 DOES NOT absorb INCOMING RADIATION.

Our atmosphere is an ebb and flow, in and out, heating and cooling. We have interrupted the outflow of reflected radiation.

This concept is often refuted with Newtons Second Law. The Earth loses heat to the coldness of space, GHG's inhibit this heat loss thus the Earth warms. If energy in is not equal to energy out an equilibrium must be reached.

Mini Ice Age:
As for the mini ice age, it is hard to say. Some will point proven increased volcanic activity at the time. I get where you are coming from but I don't think it is really relevent, just an anecdote.

I appreciate having this discussion and am interested in hearing your thoughts. I am no expert but it is important to me to understand all sides of an issue before forming an opinion, and since it seems you are the only one here capable of engaging in an intelligent debate I value your response.

Pete
 
Good. We’ve forced you into the appearance of an earnest conversation. Let’s see how it goes from here
 
Forgive me if this is unclear, I could not access the site on my computer so I am typing this on my phone. We agree on some things so I will leave them out.

Gas Dynamics:
Allow me to give you a lesson of my own. CO2 and methane are NOT polar gasses, dipoles at 180 degrees from each other cancel out. I understand the point you are trying to make and you will see later why it is not really relevant. Unfortunately, most of your CO2 kinetic energy example is also irrelevant because it hinges on the idea that CO2 absorbs incoming radiation, which it does not. So, if I understand your point, if CO2 is NOT polar, then my analysis is bunko?

Trumps recent speech at Davos

According to this reference, Page F-199, the bond angle of O--C--O is 118.5 degrees, and that is definitely polar.

Glass Box:
Visible (There are no other wavelength in solar radiation?)spectrum solar radiation hits the Earth and is absorbed by the ground, then re-emitted (how does this happen?) as infrared light (why only infared?). This light (radiation) is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses, CO2, methane, water vapor etc...(So! ... you contradict yourself! CO2 does absorb radiation!!!) and partially radiated back at the earth (why is such radiation unidirectional?)(let's say 50:50). CO2 DOES NOT absorb INCOMING RADIATION (Why unidirectional?.

Our atmosphere is an ebb and flow, in and out, heating and cooling. True We have interrupted the outflow of reflected radiation. Possibly true. IMO, if CO2 is in anyway contributing to the warming of the atmosphere, it is by altering the reflected radiation.

This concept is often refuted with Newtons Second Law. Force - Mass x Acelleration ... what has this to do with energy balance? The Earth loses heat (by radiation)to the coldness of space, GHG's inhibit this heat loss thus the Earth warms. Radiative heat transfer is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation: Q(heat) = s times T ^4. Boltzmann, IMO the smartest man who ever walked this planet, determined all the physical factors making up the constant s. If you can prove GHG's effect anyone of these factors, I would be interested. If energy in is not equal to energy out an equilibrium must be reached. True. The whole thing keeps coming down to this ....NO ONE CAN PUT A DEFINITIVE NUMBER ON HOW MUCH CO2 IS EFFECTING THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, RELATIVE TO ALL THE NATURAL FORCES. Without such a number, anyone touting the planet is going to become a cinder in the next nine years, is exactly a "Chicken Little".

Mini Ice Age:
As for the mini ice age, it is hard to say. Some will point proven increased volcanic (a natural force) activity at the time. I get where you are coming from but I don't think it is really relevent, just an anecdote.

I appreciate having this discussion and am interested in hearing your thoughts. I am no expert but it is important to me to understand all sides of an issue before forming an opinion, and since it seems you are the only one here capable of engaging in an intelligent debate I value your response.

Slick
 
1. Nope sorry, CO2 is non polar. First paragraph. Doesn't make your argument wrong but it doesn't look good either.
https://sciencetrends.com/is-carbon-dioxide-co2-polar-or-nonpolar/amp/

2. Visible light accounts for half of the solar spectrum.

3. The radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is reflected by snow, ice etc... The rest is absorbed. This heat created by shortwave radiation absorption is re-emitted as longwave, some escapes the atmosphere and some remains, thus heating the lower atmosphere and making this planet livable. Read up on the "Earths Radiation Budget" for a better understanding.

4. Now, the composition of our atmosphere warms the planet naturally by reflecting some of this radiation back at the earth, maintaining livable, comfortable conditions. Increasing the concentration of these gasses inhibits the escape of warming long-wave radiation and increased the temp of the lower atmosphere.

5. CO2 allows short wave radiation from the sun to pass, while absorbing long-wave from the Earth. This is how it is known to behave through scientific observation.

6. Long-wave reflection is not unidirectional, I stated 50:50 as an example, 50 in and 50 out. That's being generous. Note my use of the word partially.

7. I am familiar with Boltzmann but not enough to refute his claims, I'll have to read.

EDIT: After doing a bit of reading on the stefan-boltzmann law it appears that it cannot be applied to the Earth since the earth is not a black body with a single radiating layer. In fact, the Earth radiates heat from a variety of heights depending on wavelength.

8. Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy. You should have know this is what I was referring to given the context of the conversation.

9. No one is claiming the world is going to burn up. Nor has anyone ever. There will however be consequences, preparing for them is important. Denying they will exist is ignorant.

10. If 2020 science existed 600 years ago we would have a VERY good idea of what caused the mini ice age. Still it is irrelevant.

11. Yes, it is difficult to put a quantifiable number on the impact of CO2 when a variety of other gasses, activities have a part to play as well. It is afterall the entirety of our world, very complex and hard to quantify. A chain of complexities.

I am a bit miffed as to why a self described authority in a scientific field is finding himself at odds with 100% of the authorities in the scientific field we are currently debating?

You seem to have a lot of questions about the science. I hope you are taking what I am saying to heart.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top