-->
@Vegasgiants
We can debate the accuracy of the subject.
Accept my challenge.:
Climate change is getting worse
Posts
Total:
126
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Can't accept rated debates
-->
@Vegasgiants
Did you notice that Sir.Lancelot is Con on his Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax topic?
-->
@TWS1405_2
Why wouldn’t you want votes???
It's concession to a fallacy. The best argument wins, and ad populum isn't the best argument.
There is no problem with structured critique, running a poll; but so long as there is text to the effect of "winner" that is determined by votes I will not participate.
Also bigotry against my sexual orientation biases people against me. I suppose I could always take the wrong side of the issue, but that would be torture for me; knowing there is a way to beat my arguments but not being able to explain? *shiver*
-->
@FLRW
Yeah I don't think he understands what he did there
-->
@Vegasgiants
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Afraid for you to do it? Lol
I only engage in debates I am invested in.
I have zero interest or investment in the unhinged ignorant climate change issues.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Then I accept your concession
Move along
-->
@Vegasgiants
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Then I accept your concessionMove along
Having zero interest in a subject ≠ concession.
What a foolish understanding of another’s position on a subject.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Move along. Nothing for you here
-->
@Vegasgiants
👌🐇🦇💩🤮
Ah well.
Things will sort themselves out.
-->
@TWS1405_2
The kids sure do.love emojis. Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Man I don’t think that humans are the driving force of climate change. However I am a geoscience major and currently work in the field of environmental health. You are simply wrong about what you said about CO2. It is physically impossible for CO2 not to warm the atmosphere. You said something about the laws of physics, so let’s talk about it.
I don’t feel like re typing all of this so I’m taking this from a previous debate. So if anything sounds out of context it probably is.
The data have proven that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses warm the environment. That is not arguable. It’s actually basic physics. Let’s take look at how this works physically. CO2 absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers. Infrared light falls within that spectrum of energy. When the CO2 absorbs the infrared energy it excites an electron into a different shell. When that electron is done vibrating it comes back to its normal state and shoots the infrared in random direction. Not all of it will be shot back towards earth, some will be shot into space. However the more CO2 added to the atmosphere the more infrared will be shot back towards the earth. When that infrared bounces back off the earth it will then be absorbed by CO2 again the cycle repeats. The more CO2 there is the more bouncing between earth and the atmosphere occurs, therefore warming the planet.
Scientists don’t just make up terms like greenhouse gasses because they’re bored, that name was made because of this phenomenon. Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, but it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long and fluctuates daily. That is your humidity level. Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent in its infrared trapping abilities than CO2 but it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long either. CO2 stays the atmosphere for 300-1,000 years. We obviously should try to cut down on CO2 as much as possible without actively harming people. The poor would lose the most if we cut started really cracking down on CO2 so we need to take it slowly, but work towards it nonetheless.
Also, it is very much proven that CO2 has had a big role to play in warming the climate times in our past. This is a link to a graph that shows the changes in both temperature and CO2 over the past 400,000 years. Using molecular Proxies. You can see that CO2 and the global temperature are connected at the hip. One rises as the other does, at least in the past 400,000 years that has been the case.
Another reason this cycle isn’t good, is because glaciers trap enormous amounts of CO2 as they freeze. As they begin to thaw, they release that CO2 into the atmosphere. Which can cause huge, nonlinear changes, in the temperature and climate. It becomes a self feeding cycle. Obviously there are other factors that contribute to warming the planet than just CO2 but it’s very obvious it’s not something we should just ignore.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I respect you and consider you a friend, but you can’t just say climate change doesn’t exist. There are so many examples of climate exchange throughout the history of earth. We can have another debate on that topic if you like. I don’t even believe humans are the driving force of climate change. It’s impossible to say it doesn’t exist though.
-->
@Mps1213
The data have proven that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses warm the environment. That is not arguable.
It is and I will argue such.
Let’s take look at how this works physically. CO2 absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers.
Let's be a bit more precise:
(Note top graph is in terms of photons not power)
Infrared light falls within that spectrum of energy. When the CO2 absorbs the infrared energy it excites an electron into a different shell. When that electron is done vibrating it comes back to its normal state and shoots the infrared in random direction. Not all of it will be shot back towards earth, some will be shot into space. However the more CO2 added to the atmosphere the more infrared will be shot back towards the earth. When that infrared bounces back off the earth it will then be absorbed by CO2 again the cycle repeats. The more CO2 there is the more bouncing between earth and the atmosphere occurs, therefore warming the planet.
If there wasn't another course the energy could take it wouldn't do much warming. To warm requires an increase in kinetic energy of gas-on-gas interaction, simply having a modification of the electron cloud energy would be meaningless.
So you must then grant that if a molecule of carbon dioxide strikes another particle while in an excited state the shells interact with each other in such a way that no secondary photon is transmitted, instead the energy becomes bulk kinetic energy as the particles push off each other harder than they would have absent an excited electron.
Although it would be helpful if we could isolate the elements of the system as we can sometimes in a lab, here we must concede that energy does not merely move by scattering or blackbody radiation but also by convection and conduction.
Leading to my question for you: If you could detect the average altitude of origin for the photons leaving Earth in the carbon dioxide absorbance bands what do you think it would be?
Scientists don’t just make up terms like greenhouse gasses because they’re bored, that name was made because of this phenomenon.
I won't comment on the motivations or pasttimes of those with academic credentials, that would serve only to distract from the proper arguments over the science itself.
CO2 stays the atmosphere for 300-1,000 years.
Carbon dioxide as a molecule would be stable for billions of years in Earth's atmosphere and radiation. This statement is of questionable meaning and relevance.
It could refer to the average time that a single molecule spends in the atmosphere before being captured by a plant stomata, but why should we care about that? A single water molecule may spend a fifty thousand years in the ocean on average before it evaporates, and lands in again as a raindrop. That doesn't mean the rain is any less reliable.
The carbon dioxide levels will continue to drop so long as there is stable biomass to construct or carbon is buried. The previous level was not intrinsic to Earth geology but to Earth life, the plants will eat it up until it is so sparse that they cannot bury it with their rotting corpses (as happened in the carboniferous when this system was established).
Ironically one of the so called effects of "man made global climate change" will indeed result from increased carbon dioxide, worse forest fires; but not because carbon dioxide causes warming which causes things to dry out a little faster. Rather plants will grow faster which will increase the rate at which dead-fall and brambles build up. While wet areas will see only an increase in decomposition the dry areas (that have always had wildfires) will see more violent fires which means wider fires as faster combustion allows for more water to be boiled off than before.
Of course humans continue to bury captured carbon with wild-abandon in landfills and if we tried I'm sure we could bury it faster; but it would be better for those who live in areas with wildfires to get used to them either by building fireproof civilization or starting their own wildfires regularly.
Also, it is very much proven that CO2 has had a big role to play in warming the climate times in our past. This is a link to a graph that shows the changes in both temperature and CO2 over the past 400,000 years. Using molecular Proxies. You can see that CO2 and the global temperature are connected at the hip. One rises as the other does, at least in the past 400,000 years that has been the case.
Correlation is not necessarily causation. From first principles there are always four options:
- Coincidence
- A causes B
- B causes A
- A and B are both caused by some common cause C (through some chain of causation)
Coincidence can be ruled out by large sample sizes (and for now I won't question the quality of the data). The other three are not so easily excluded.
One way to distinguish between 2 and 3 is order of events, take as a given that events in the future cannot cause things in the present or past. Then B comes after A, B cannot cause A.
That leaves us with A causing B, or a common cause.
So let's overlay and zoom in on that data (I'm pretty sure this is the same icecore data your link graphs):
This isn't an artifact of the ice core data (but even that would need to be explained very thoroughly before the dates of the ice core data could be trusted again). It's happening now too:
Another reason this cycle isn’t good, is because glaciers trap enormous amounts of CO2 as they freeze. As they begin to thaw, they release that CO2 into the atmosphere.
A drop in the bucket compared to the oceans which also contain dissolved carbon dioxide, perfectly leading to my second question: Can you think of a way increasing surface temperatures could cause increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels? (A causes B)?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
“So let's overlay and zoom in on that data (I'm pretty sure this is the same icecore data your link graphs):”
The first thing I have to clear up is that you’re entirely over simplifying this topic. Of course CO2 isn’t the only cause of warming, so just saying the temperature doesn’t perfectly match the increase in CO2 doesn’t mean anything. There are many events that cool the earths average temperature for certain periods of time. Like large volcanic eruption, ocean circulation disruptions, etc.
“Carbon dioxide as a molecule would be stable for billions of years in Earth's atmosphere and radiation.”
This would be true if it were in a perfectly stable environment, obviously the earth isn’t perfectly stable. There are constant changing happening, including to small scale fluctuations in CO2 levels. Nothing is perfectly constant.
“Ironically one of the so called effects of "man made global climate change" will indeed result from increased carbon dioxide, worse forest fires; but not because carbon dioxide causes warming which causes things to dry out a little faster. Rather plants will grow faster which will increase the rate at which dead-fall and brambles build up. While wet areas will see only an increase in decomposition the dry areas (that have always had wildfires) will see more violent fires which means wider fires as faster combustion allows for more water to be boiled off than before.”
This doesn’t really mean anything. The only reason there are more plants is because there is more CO2 in the atm. Which is due to humans, so yes that is still a side effect of human emissions.
“To warm requires an increase in kinetic energy of gas-on-gas interaction, simply having a modification of the electron cloud energy would be meaningless.”
This isn’t true. That’s only if you are trying to increase heat into an open system. If you close the system off, trapping heat, especially when heat is still being pumped into the system, the temperature will begin to increase without gas on gas interaction. That’s what a jacket on a cold sunny day does. That’s a pretty simply way of breaking down why blankets don’t get you up, they trap the heat. But if you were blowing a hair dryer into the blanket the temperature beneath the blanket would be hotter than it would with the blanket alone or the hair dryer alone.
“If you could detect the average altitude of origin for the photons leaving Earth in the carbon dioxide absorbance bands what do you think it would be?”
I’m not really sure what you’re asking here or why it is important. CO2 layers stretch a wide range in the atmosphere. And this reflection of infrared light will be occurring at all levels.
“Correlation is not necessarily causation. From first principles there are always four options:”
You’re right, unless you can prove an action causes another action. It can and has been proven that CO2 causes a warming effect on the earth.
“Can you think of a way increasing surface temperatures could cause increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?”
Yes, I said it in the sentence you quoted. Glaciers contain CO2, when they melt due to increased surface temperature CO2 is released. that doesn’t mean that the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise. It means that the two are connected at the hip. When one rises, the other follows. They both influence each other. And easy way to disprove the idea that CO2 warms the atmosphere is to find a time in ice core graphs where the CO2 rises sharply, but the temperature doesn’t follow. However it is more complex than that, because you’d also have to find a time where you can prove particulate matter also didn’t have a large pulse.
and I have no problem admitting that this isn’t my strongest topic. I do not believe humans are the driving force of climate change. By that same token CO2 is considered one of the most important gases in our atmosphere because of its ability to trap and release heat, without it, the earth would be much colder and not very hospitable. You can also look at the planet Venus, that has runaway greenhouse effect 90+% of that atmosphere is CO2 and it’s the hottest planet in our solar system, that isn’t a coincidence.
I study geoscience, but my real area of expertise is pharmacology. In the field of environmental science, my area of expertise is meteorology and the history of climate changes. Like I can give you 25 examples of severe climate change. That doesn’t mean I’m knowledgeable enough to combat every claim you make, that also doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I trust the data given by the IPCC. They don’t even claim the climate is anything to panic over yet, if you read their full reports which I do. There is a very strong consensus on the mechanisms for CO2 warming the atmosphere, even people like Stephen Kunin who argue we aren’t the driving force, or at least there isn’t enough certainty in the data to make that claim, agrees that we have had a warming effect on the planet. He was a physicist before his transfer to climate sciences. So trust the physics that are out there for us to read, and I don’t think it’s as easy to disprove as you’re making it out to be.
For example, when I first learned about how CO2 works in my physical chemistry class. It took probably 35 minutes of math to explain why this happens, you have provided no math in your rebuttals, it requires math to prove or disprove physical properties of particles, especially when dealing with heat transfer. If you can find a way to disprove it mathematically then I will value your statements more.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Another thing I will say is that it isn’t just one party of scientists coming to this conclusion. Mathematicians, biologists, geoscientists, atmospheric scientists, chemists, and physical scientists all see that CO2 warms the atmosphere and all have proven it using their methods of science. So you’re not just disagreeing with politicians(who do spread a lot of nonsense about this topic) you’re disagreeing with a lot science in general. You’re disagreeing with physics, not the people practicing it, but the laws of it. You’re disagreeing with chemistry, not the people who practice it, but the science of it.
That’s a very tall ask for people to agree with you, when you’ve provided no science, math, equations, laws, etc.
-->
@Mps1213
Of course CO2 isn’t the only cause of warming, so just saying the temperature doesn’t perfectly match the increase in CO2 doesn’t mean anything.
That appears to contradict your previous statement:
You can see that CO2 and the global temperature are connected at the hip.
You can't have it both ways. Carbon dioxide and temperature are definitely correlated, then and now. Time delays provide information crucial to narrowing down physical theories that could explain it.
“To warm requires an increase in kinetic energy of gas-on-gas interaction, simply having a modification of the electron cloud energy would be meaningless.”This isn’t true. [... talking about the concept of insulation ....]
It is true, and I think you missed the point. Given the same number of possible states greater temperature is defined as greater energy. This is not and cannot be a purely optical phenomenon or else it would not invoke thermodynamics at all. A perfect mirror or window doesn't get warmer.
“If you could detect the average altitude of origin for the photons leaving Earth in the carbon dioxide absorbance bands what do you think it would be?”I’m not really sure what you’re asking here or why it is important. CO2 layers stretch a wide range in the atmosphere. And this reflection of infrared light will be occurring at all levels.
There are photons emitted and absorbed in a solid object, but those aren't the ones that radiate out into the system. Only the skin of the solid object does. The situation with Earth must necessarily be between the extreme of emitting from a layer a few atoms thick (a solid) or emitting from the surface without impedance (for any given wavelength).
I would suggest to you that the atmosphere is already opaque to the bands in question and all emission of radiation within those bands originates from the upper atmosphere where it can escape without striking more gas. Furthermore it has been this was for a long time, and that if our atmosphere was 100% carbon dioxide it would serve only to thin the emission layer at the top of the atmosphere.
“Correlation is not necessarily causation. From first principles there are always four options:”You’re right, unless you can prove an action causes another action. It can and has been proven that CO2 causes a warming effect on the earth.
I just proved that cannot be the case since effect cannot precede cause.
“Can you think of a way increasing surface temperatures could cause increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?”Yes, I said it in the sentence you quoted. Glaciers contain CO2, when they melt due to increased surface temperature CO2 is released. that doesn’t mean that the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise
It certainly means, temperature rise caused some CO₂ rise, but again this is small scale compared to the effect I refer to.
They both influence each other.
A differential equation then. As a geoscience major have you been shown any such equation that has been fit to the data?
And easy way to disprove the idea that CO2 warms the atmosphere is to find a time in ice core graphs where the CO2 rises sharply, but the temperature doesn’t follow.
The ice-core data shows that CO₂ follows temperature. Each instance where it does temperature doesn't follow CO₂ and the burden you set is met. Therefore it disproves the idea that CO₂ warms the atmosphere.
Here is the graph again: https://larouchepub.com/special_report/2019/co2_reduction_is_mass_murder/Images/24.jpg
Notice how huge the scale of time is, some of those delays are hundreds if not thousands of years.
By that same token CO2 is considered one of the most important gases in our atmosphere because of its ability to trap and release heat, without it, the earth would be much colder and not very hospitable.
CO₂ is important because it is intrinsically linked to our biosphere metabolism. As a thermodynamic component it is insignificant, convection accounts for the vast majority of heat transfer away from the surface and always has. Water particulate (not just vapor) is the overwhelming factor in radiative insulation and since we are the cold side of this blanket insulation cools.
If you could block the entire blackbody radiation of Earth via atmospheric gasses (210-310k, see second curve) that would cool our planet because convection would continue as it always has but that band of solar radiation would be blocked in the upper atmosphere and never reach the surface.
If you look at a temperature graph of the atmosphere you can see hot layers, that is precisely what is happening already and it would only happen more.
You can also look at the planet Venus, that has runaway greenhouse effect 90+% of that atmosphere is CO2 and it’s the hottest planet in our solar system, that isn’t a coincidence.
Yes it is.
Thermal mass matters whether it is solid, liquid, or gas. Venus has a lot of atmosphere and his highly volcanic. i.e. it has a thick blanket and a heater inside it. Any planet with a hot core is going to be warmer the deeper you go into the thermal mass, it's a coincidence (with respect to the composition of Venus' atmosphere) that Venus's solid surface is so deep into the thermal mass.
Example: Jupiter, some say there is a rocky or icy core down there. If there is let's call that its surface. There is not carbon dioxide to speak of, and certainly no solar radiation getting to this surface. What is the estimated temperature? 24,000°C
That would make Jupiter a hotter planet than Venus wouldn't it?
How about Mars? Also has an atmosphere which is almost entirely carbon dioxide, not a contender for the warmest planet. In fact it's cold as hell. They say its core is frozen and much more importantly the atmosphere is thin. It gets less sun than we do, and we get less than Venus but that is an eminently calculable factor and does not explain these differences.
Below you lament the lack of equations, although I answer that complaint let's do some math for fun. Let's calculate whether Mars has a greater partial pressure of carbon dioxide than Earth. In the "greenhouse" theory our nitrogen and oxygen make no difference. In Mars we have the perfect experiment of this proposition. If there is more carbon dioxide molecules for radiation to strike it should produce a greater warming regardless of the presence of other gasses.
Mars average surface pressure: 610 Pa
CO₂ composition (assumed by moles): 95%
Earth average surface pressure: 101 kPa
CO₂ composition: 417.06 ppm = 0.0417%
Despite the thin atmosphere Mars has more carbon dioxide than Earth's atmosphere, 13 times more to be quantitative. The solar irradiance of Mars's orbit is 43.1% of Earth's.
13 times Earth's "greenhouse gas" and about half its input power. If these things were linear (which they most certainly are not) 13*43.1% = 5.9.... Mars is not 5.9 warmer than Earth. Why do a back of the napkin ratio that I know is physically irrelevant? To prove a point about a false sense of rigor. The fact that I did math doesn't mean I didn't trample over and ignore critical details of the physical system.
Saying "Look Venus is hot and there is a lot of CO₂" tramples over critical details of the physical systems without even the veneer of math.
That doesn’t mean I’m knowledgeable enough to combat every claim you make, that also doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
The fact that the dataset you cited doesn't fit the hypothesis advanced does.
You’re disagreeing with physics, not the people practicing it, but the laws of it. You’re disagreeing with chemistry, not the people who practice it, but the science of it.
Nowhere have I implied or invoked a contradiction of any independently verifiable experiment or law of physics or chemistry. You seem dead set on moving away from the science itself towards discussing authority, motivations, and what it would take to convince you to abandon your trust in institutions.
I will allow myself to be tugged in that direction and speak on it briefly after this, but I note in no uncertain terms: It was you who stopped debating the science.
They don’t even claim the climate is anything to panic over yet, if you read their full reports which I do.
There are those who debate only because they wish to avoid draconian de-industrialization. They are content with a compromise where they accept bad science so long as it isn't turned into suicidal policy.
I am not one such person, I do not compromise on the truth. I do not care who is panicking over what or what the solutions might be. The problem (of too much CO₂) does not exist.
The problem of climate change may exist, but we didn't cause it and we can't stop it; so the sooner we drop the disproved theories and start looking for accurate predictions the faster we can prepare... but in all honesty the preparations for every scenario look much the same: We need more power (scotty).
There is a very strong consensus on the mechanisms for CO2 warming the atmosphere, even people like Stephen Kunin who argue we aren’t the driving force, or at least there isn’t enough certainty in the data to make that claim, agrees that we have had a warming effect on the planet.
If only here were here to debate it I could ask him why temperature lags carbon dioxide concentration.
So trust the physics that are out there for us to read, and I don’t think it’s as easy to disprove as you’re making it out to be.
One would certainly hope that is the case, but since no one has yet been able to debunk my arguments and I never hear these experts challenged with the arguments (or counter arguments) I make that hope is so far unfounded.
I suspect there is a tendency to overestimate how much has actually been reviewed by peer review. If the positive argument was public perhaps there would be more scrutiny, as it is the models and the data remain shrouded in an unjustifiable fog.
If that wasn't the case, why is it that for nearly a decade of attempted debates it always comes down to this:
Another thing I will say is that it isn’t just one party of scientists coming to this conclusion. Mathematicians, biologists, geoscientists, atmospheric scientists, chemists, and physical scientists all see that CO2 warms the atmosphere and all have proven it using their methods of science.
If the argument was public, accessible, salient, and sound why can no one argue for it? Why does it always end in an appeal to authority?
That is a red flag.
For example, when I first learned about how CO2 works in my physical chemistry class. It took probably 35 minutes of math to explain why this happens, you have provided no math in your rebuttals, it requires math to prove or disprove physical properties of particles, especially when dealing with heat transfer. If you can find a way to disprove it mathematically then I will value your statements more.That’s a very tall ask for people to agree with you, when you’ve provided no science, math, equations, laws, etc.
That which was "proven" without equations needs no equations to disprove. In fact there is no requirement either way. An argument with an equation can disprove an argument without an equation and an argument without an equation can disprove an argument with an equation.
You set before me a false standard. No matter how much math or time it took you to learn something, if what you learned is not being contested and is irrelevant to my arguments I need not defeat or replace those theories. My arguments stand.
I debate, I don't "ask people to agree with me"; I challenge their reasons against my own. If they provide no reasons, there is nothing more I can do.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Alright like I said I’m not an expert enough to argue about this much.
However you’re just over simplifying everything and are just blatantly wrong about some stuff. The average temperature of Jupiter is not 24,000 degrees C. I’m not sure where you saw that or who told you that. The average temperature of that planet is -234 degree C.
Also You’re too smart to say what you judt said about mars man. You admitted the atmosphere is very thin, so of course it being primarily CO2 won’t cause a warm planet because the atmosphere is so thin It has little effect. That’s like saying “blankets don’t help warm you up” and using a piece of paper with holes in it as you example.
also, again, show me math, laws of physics, equations, etc. that support your claim that it’s impossible for CO2 to warm the atmosphere. Math that is solid enough to over write the many ways of proving it does. You’re doing what’s called anomaly hunting. Where there’s piles and piles of evidence to support that CO2 warms the atmosphere and you’re finding little anomalies and saying “look see you’re wrong.” Even though I’ve already explained that there are also events that cool the planet that can skew data if you’re only looking at CO2 and temperature. Put particulate matter on the graph, put sulfur in the graph. You have to have every variable accounted for, and there are thousands. You’re only accounting for two and think you are disproving something. Science simply doesn’t work like that.
Show me equations, show me math, show me laws of physics that over rise the equations, math, and laws of physics. If you can’t do that, then you’re not doing science and are just anomaly hunting.
-->
@Mps1213
However you’re just over simplifying everything and are just blatantly wrong about some stuff. The average temperature of Jupiter is not 24,000 degrees C. I’m not sure where you saw that or who told you that. The average temperature of that planet is -234 degree C.
That is the top of the atmosphere of Jupiter (actually measurable from a distance).
To keep the comparison fair you would need to compare the outermost layers of Venus' atmosphere and Earth's outermost layers. In other words compare with no thermal mass insulation.
This would be a boring comparison as the emitted energy will always be balanced with the solar irradiance in the respective orbit (with slight over-emission due to bleeding geothermal). That is the definition of the equilibrium point.
You admitted the atmosphere is very thin, so of course it being primarily CO2 won’t cause a warm planet because the atmosphere is so thin It has little effect.
The density of carbon dioxide is higher on Mars. That is the number of CO₂ struck on average by a photon radiated from the surface is greater than Earth.
That’s like saying “blankets don’t help warm you up” and using a piece of paper with holes in it as you example.
No, it's like you're claiming that in the combined system of: a thin piece of paper with holes in it + a layer of wool, the thin piece of paper with holes in it is the only insulating factor.
I am showing you an example of a slightly thicker piece of paper with holes in it (Martian atmosphere) and showing you that it doesn't insulate.
The thin piece of paper = a small amount of carbon dioxide, the "greenhouse blanket"
My theory, and I say "my" with a smirk because it's basic thermodynamics; is that the wool is the enormous (by comparison) mass of oxygen and nitrogen on Earth. These gasses do not participate in the IR scattering that "greenhouse" gasses do, but they have kinetic energy, they move, and they interact with those "greenhouse" gasses, the surface, and even space (yes they will dump energy to space too, it's not a superpower).
You point to Venus with its 10x layer of recycled paper insulation even thicker than Earth's wool and say "look how hot that is", but that fits my theory perfectly. Lots of thermal mass means lots of insulation. The fact that it's CO₂ has got nothing to do with it as Mars (and physical theory) proves.
also, again, show me math, laws of physics, equations, etc. that support your claim that it’s impossible for CO2 to warm the atmosphere.
The laws of physics which describe how can CO₂ block some of the solar radiation is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer. You don't need to calculate anything to have an intuitive understanding. Standing in fog is an analogous situation and if the fog is thick enough it becomes dark and the net effect of greater scattering density can easily be seen to approach reflection.
i.e. clouds look like solid white objects when they are dense enough and you are far enough away.
There is no math or experiment to prove that causes must precede effects, this is implied by the pure logic of the definitions of those concepts. You are asking for the equation that proves contradictions don't exist or time is real. It is nonsensical and (no offense) obtuse.
Math that is solid enough to over write the many ways of proving it does.
Contradictions don't exist. If one argument proves X and another proves ~X one of the arguments is wrong. If is inductive it might be merely be wrong, but if it is deductive it is necessarily unsound.
I've seen no way that proves it deductively nor any strong arguments concluding it does.
The deductive argument that cause must precede effect defeats the inductive (and IMO weak) argument based on the naive assumption that Earth's thermodynamics can be reduced to radiative equilibrium in a few bandwidths and even then that the scattering effects all work only to warm the Earth and not to cool it.
You’re doing what’s called anomaly hunting. Where there’s piles and piles of evidence to support that CO2 warms the atmosphere and you’re finding little anomalies and saying “look see you’re wrong.”
There were about a dozen peaks of CO₂ concentration which followed peak temperature in the graphs I posted. Are you claiming there are an overwhelming number of examples where the situation is reversed? Is it so hard to find them? Wouldn't it be an amazing coincidence that the examples I showed all happened consecutively?
Put particulate matter on the graph, put sulfur in the graph. You have to have every variable accounted for, and there are thousands. You’re only accounting for two and think you are disproving something. Science simply doesn’t work like that.
Yet science seemed to work that way when you said CO₂ concentration and temperature were joined at the hip and posted a graph (of the same data) with only two variables.
Doesn't your own argument here defeat your original contribution to this thread?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
“
The density of carbon dioxide is higher on Mars. That is the number of CO₂ struck on average by a photon radiated from the surface is greater than Earth.”
Over simplifying man. Mars’ atmosphere has less than 1% the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. So yes it does have a higher concentration of CO2 in its total mass of the atmosphere but it has a much, much smaller atmosphere. You’re nit picking and bending evidence.
“Yet science seemed to work that way when you said CO₂ concentration and temperature were joined at the hip and posted a graph (of the same data) with only two variables.
Doesn't your own argument here defeat your original contribution to this thread?”
No, because you can see they are joined at the hip. When rises the other rises. If there are disturbances in that pattern, something else caused it, when you are not bringing that secondary cause into the correlation between the two, then you aren’t painting the whole picture. Instead you are anomaly hunting and bending evidence. There’s a difference between saying “we know how this works physically, we can prove it with math, chemistry, and physics. This graph shows a good idea of what we are talking about”
And you saying “no all of your math, physics and chemistry are wrong look at this anomaly I found”
The response is “yes that is an anomaly but can be explained with X, the variable you didn’t include while making your point is the only reason your point exists.”
And yes there are example of CO2 rising first. They’re called Dansgaard Oeschger events. Temperature rises 5-15 degrees Celsius in under 25 years. That’s what must happen for an event to be labeled as one of those. The latest one was the Bolling-Allerod ~14,000 years ago. Not all DO events have CO2 rise first, but most of them do. All them have CO2 rising simultaneously with the temp, because it is a self feeding cycle. As the glaciers melt, more is released, and the heating cycle continue until enough ice melts to throw the Atlantic Ocean circulation off that cools the earth back down, often just as rapidly. Which is why when you look at graphs of these events there’s always an intense cold spell right afterward.
So it ebbs and flows, like every other part of the atmosphere.
Yet again you have provided no math, no equations, no laws of physics to explain why the other math, equations, laws of physics are wrong. Until you provide that I will find this debate useless and circular. Prove the concrete math, physics and chemistry wrong. Using the same parameters they have to use, which are the laws of physics. If it’s so obvious it should be very easy to do.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Also when you’re talking about thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. You’d be very lucky for a single point on the graph not to span a century or two. So you asking for a graph that shows a release of CO2 before a big jump in temperature is a tall ask. When you see them simultaneously jump, you have no way of proving or knowing which one came first on a 50-200 year time span. It’s borderline impossible on these old graphs. Which is why you see carbon dates for objects spanning 50-200 years for an estimated date. So you’re just trying to abuse the limitations of science to fit your narrative. You’re also just abusing evidence and bending the data. Which is why you can’t show any concrete math, chemistry, or physics equations, to fit your idea. If you can’t do that then you are likely wrong. If you can do that then you better make sure your math is bullet proof. Send it in to a physics of chemistry professor and have them look at it and see what he says.
-->
@Mps1213
“The density of carbon dioxide is higher on Mars. That is the number of CO₂ struck on average by a photon radiated from the surface is greater than Earth.”Over simplifying man. Mars’ atmosphere has less than 1% the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. So yes it does have a higher concentration of CO2 in its total mass of the atmosphere but it has a much, much smaller atmosphere. You’re nit picking and bending evidence.
The mass is irrelevant, we're talking about #particles here. Do you want me to give it in moles rather than partial pressure? Is the average temperature the factor you think is missing because it will only skew the numbers further in my favor.
This is no more a nitpick than mentioning Venus.
Yet science seemed to work that way when you said CO₂ concentration and temperature were joined at the hip and posted a graph (of the same data) with only two variables.Doesn't your own argument here defeat your original contribution to this thread?No, because you can see they are joined at the hip. When rises the other rises.
Agreed, but how is that you are allowed to conclude that with only two variables?
If there are disturbances in that pattern, something else caused it, when you are not bringing that secondary cause into the correlation between the two, then you aren’t painting the whole picture.
You assume the pattern I pointed out is a disturbance. Why is it that the alternative is not a disturbance? Is it fair to say the more prevalent case is the one that is not disturbed? In that case which is the anomaly and which is the norm?
And you saying “no all of your math, physics and chemistry are wrong look at this anomaly I found”
Only two problems with that story:
1.) Carbon lagging temperature is the norm not the anomaly. We have about a dozen examples, with several being consecutive. I'm sure I can out-number the inverse scenario for as long as you have patience.
2.) You haven't provided math or chemistry, and the physics you provided isn't wrong it's just a factoid that you never crafted into a complete argument.
The response is “yes that is an anomaly but can be explained with X, the variable you didn’t include while making your point is the only reason your point exists.”
Why would I have the BoP to dispute what the data shows?
And yes there are example of CO2 rising first. They’re called Dansgaard Oeschger events. Temperature rises 5-15 degrees Celsius in under 25 years. That’s what must happen for an event to be labeled as one of those. The latest one was the Bolling-Allerod ~14,000 years ago.
There are examples (seemed like every peak to me) in the last century, I posted the graph.
All them have CO2 rising simultaneously with the temp, because it is a self feeding cycle.
Perfect simultaneity rules out either causing the other, and there is no reason to believe such a thing has ever happened. The error bars are days even with modern data.
Well I kept waiting for you to figure it out, but you haven't shown any curiosity about it. The the reason CO₂ follows temperature is that warmer oceans can dissolve less CO₂. It's not the glaciers, I mean yes the glaciers will release CO₂ but that's like blaming the pilot light for the house warming up.
It's not a self-feeding cycle (differential equation) because the CO₂ has a tiny effect and it's almost certainly a cooling effect.
Prove the concrete math, physics and chemistry wrong. Using the same parameters they have to use, which are the laws of physics. If it’s so obvious it should be very easy to do.
I will attempt to prove your mathematical, physical, and chemical arguments wrong (or more more likely irrelevant) just as soon as you provide some (more).
Also when you’re talking about thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. You’d be very lucky for a single point on the graph not to span a century or two. So you asking for a graph that shows a release of CO2 before a big jump in temperature is a tall ask.
If you're claiming that the ice-core data doesn't have the temporal accuracy required to determine which came first then we can agree to discard it. Again, I posted a recent much more temporarily accurate graph.
Send it in to a physics of chemistry professor and have them look at it and see what he says.
Since you told me I was wrong despite the fact that my arguments remain standing perhaps you are the one who needs to go find a professor so you can make new arguments, or better yet just have them log into your account and debate for you.
As far as I'm concerned I met any BoP that I may have incurred by ruling out a possibility using the solar blocking argument. I'm not going to guess about which particular part you found unconvincing.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
See this is the problem with debating science with non-scientists.
“The mass is irrelevant, we're talking about #particles here. Do you want me to give it in moles rather than partial pressure? Is the average temperature the factor you think is missing because it will only skew the numbers further in my favor.”
Of course the mass matters dude. That’s literally what regulates the atmosphere is the mass of it. Which is why I brought up the blanket analogy. Even if you make a blanket with the most hest trapping substance in the world if it’s extremely thin with holes in it (as the Martian atmosphere has) it will not trap heat as effectively as a thicker blanket with a less effective heat trapping substance.
“ I will attempt to prove your mathematical, physical, and chemical arguments wrong (or more more likely irrelevant) just as soon as you provide some (more).”
You are the one who made the claim that CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere. What is your mathematical, chemical, and physical evidence for that? State sound evidence (that doesn’t fly in the face of established chemistry, physics and math) and you can end this debate.
“Since you told me I was wrong despite the fact that my arguments remain standing perhaps you are the one who needs to go find a professor so you can make new arguments, or better yet just have them log into your account and debate for you.”
Lol, dude I have taken more atmospheric science classes and chemistry and physics classes than you have even considered taking. I have talked to many professors about this very topic. They all have the same answer. Simply put, it is physically impossible for increasing CO2 concentrations to not have a warming effect on the climate. No since I know you’re going to over simplify this topic I will break it down further. That doesn’t mean that temperature will rise 100% of the time CO2 rises. Because there are other factors, including volcanic eruptions which have a cooling effect. However in a scenario where CO2 and Particulate matter is rising, the temperature drop will be less severe than it would have been if CO2 didn’t rise along side it, or if CO2 dropped with it. You can still be exerting a warming effect even if the temperature is dropping. It’s just the factors that push the temperature to cool are over powering the factors exerting a warming effect. A good anology is pushing against a car. Even though the car will push you backwards, you are still exerting a force on the car. The car would push you backwards harder, if you were not exerting that force. That doesn’t mean you aren’t doing anything in the equation.
So, what I recommend if you want to talk about schooling and saying i need to go. Enroll in the degree I’m enrolled in. Geoscience with a focus on data analytics, but first complete more than half of a chemistry degree and take all the way up to physics 3. then maybe you will have the ability to talk down to me about speaking to professors about a scientific topic. I wasn’t even talking down to you. I was telling you if you can actually disprove this established science, you should have a scientist look at it to make sure it makes sense.
Until you can provide me with concrete chemical, mathematical, and physical evidence all working in unison that doesn’t fly in the face of established science in each of those fields I will not respond. If you can do that I will give you the email address to my physical Chemistry, my atmospheric science, and my physics 3 professor for you to speak to about the topic. They’d be very happy to have a conversation with you about it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And like I said I’m no expert in this topic. However, I know enough to say that what you are claiming is literally in contrast to established math and physics and chemistry. Not the opinions of the people conducting the science, but the data and results the science they conduct reveals. Go have this conversation with an actual physicist or atmospheric scientist. All of them will tell you CO2 exerts a warming effect. Now the question after that is how much of a warming effect does it exert. But denying it causes a warming effect is as backwards as saying the earth is flat. Especially when you can provide no equations, chemical, or physical evidence of your claim. I keep harping on that because all three of those things usually all have to support the same answer before it is considered an established theory or law of physics. All three of those things support CO2 exerting a warming effect. You have done nothing to event attempt to challenge that part of the debate. All you are challenging is how much of a warming effect it induces. That’s not the claim you made. You claimed it has zero effect on warming. You need very strong evidence to support that claim and have provided none. This will be my last response to you on this thread unless you provide evidence that it causes 0 effect in warming. That evidence can’t defy basic chemistry, physics, or math.
It should be easy to provide all three if you’re as right as you believe yourself to be.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And let me be clear I’m not even trying to be rude. It is just literally a waste of time to engage with some about a scientific topic who denies basic scientific facts. It’s like trying to convince a flat earther the earth is a sphere. To say that CO2 doesn’t exert a warming effect flies in the face of chemistry, math, physics, and hell even biology in some ways. So I find it pointless to try and change your mind on this topic using the science you’re so avidly denying. Go get a geoscience degree and take some high level chemistry classes. You’ll see show solid the science is.
-->
@Mps1213
Well not only have you moved away from scientific argument but you're getting a bit rude, so I'll be brief and a bit snarky:
Of course the mass matters dude. That’s literally what regulates the atmosphere is the mass of it.
In that case CO₂ on earth isn't a problem because it's not that much extra mass. You can't have it both ways.
Which is why I brought up the blanket analogy.
I was the one who pointed out that thermal mass was insulating, you used the blanket analogy in terms of radiative scattering. This is my position, you can't take it and pretend I was wrong.
You are the one who made the claim that CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere. What is your mathematical, chemical, and physical evidence for that? State sound evidence (that doesn’t fly in the face of established chemistry, physics and math) and you can end this debate.
Convection is physics. So is scattering. The absorbance spectrum of the atmosphere is theoretically predicted and empirically measured. It's 100% for the bands involving blackbody radiation from Earth and CO₂. 100% means that there was never a direct path out which means energy in these bands has always been radiated above the ground.
Convection has always been the primary means of transporting energy that would be eventually radiated out in these bands because the thermal mass of the atmosphere is enormous compared to the radiative behavior of a trace gas.
Convection = unaffected, no reduction in cooling
Absorbance of solar radiation = reduced, reduction in warming
Small effects, but the net is cooling
This is not a novel argument it's the exact same one I already made, I just condensed it. I won't repeat it again.
Lol, dude I have taken more atmospheric science classes and chemistry and physics classes than you have even considered taking.
Then I'm afraid the quality of education has deteriorated significantly. How do you expect this arrogance will serve your purpose?
Simply put, it is physically impossible for increasing CO2 concentrations to not have a warming effect on the climate.
That's a strong claim. Math, physics, chemistry please?
Enroll in the degree I’m enrolled in. Geoscience with a focus on data analytics
If they do for me what they've apparently done for you, it wouldn't be worth it if it was free.
then maybe you will have the ability to talk down to me about speaking to professors about a scientific topic.
You talked down to yourself by implying a professor was needed to make the arguments you couldn't. There were much more graceful ways to concede that you had exhausted the depth of your reasoning on this matter. You started, but you let pride get the better of you.
I was telling you if you can actually disprove this established science, you should have a scientist look at it to make sure it makes sense.
I'm not the only one with a working brain, plenty of people have noticed these things and written about them. Many of them with relevant degrees (and no "climatology" is not the only relevant degree).
The argument won't die with me, it hasn't taken off because political forces don't want it to be true. This truth is far too inconvenient for too many people. If I had seen these arguments defeated I would not be using them. They are being ignored, and it seems they aren't teaching geoscience majors how to debunk these arguments I think it's safe to say they're just ignoring them.
By "they" I mean a vanishingly small number of people to be clear, people have charted the citations. The number of people actually making predictions and claims based on their own "research" could fit in a university hall. The rest either know how to read a room and shutup or assume (like you) that if there was any merit to "climate denial" somebody would have noticed.
There you have it, my hypothesis on why the so called scientists are getting it wrong. Does this hypothesis need to be proven for me to win this debate? Not at all.
When denying the flying spaghetti monster, it is not necessary to understand the priesthood of the tomato basil sauce.
Until you can provide me with concrete chemical, mathematical, and physical evidence all working in unison that doesn’t fly in the face of established science in each of those fields I will not respond.
I don't need new evidence, the existing evidence works fine. I cannot stop you from ignoring the argument.
If you can do that I will give you the email address to my physical Chemistry, my atmospheric science, and my physics 3 professor for you to speak to about the topic. They’d be very happy to have a conversation with you about it.
If they would be so happy, why not have them sign up for this site? Why keep this valuable conversation private?
No need to make it complicated, just ask the simple question: "Why does carbon dioxide concentration lag temperature?", and then tell this person to give the answer in this thread.
See if you're claiming that is not the case, then it may behoove you to debunk the graphs I've posted. If you admit the data shows this (consistently) then you should be curious enough to get an explanation from your professor.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ok just since I came off as rude I’ll continue to engage. I truly apologize, I’m just short like that most of the time.
Look the reason I’m asking for concrete evidence outside of graphs that only show two variables in a highly multi varied system is simple. Your quality of evidence isn’t good enough. That’s it. The quality of evidence that supports CO2 warming the atmosphere is vast and backed by basic physics and chemistry.
You saying the evidence you have provided is like a flat earther saying “the evidence I have provided is fine I don’t need math” or someone saying the same thing trying to debunk general relativity. It just doesn’t work that way man. Or like someone saying the earth is 6,000 years old, they have a lot of “evidence” for that, but the quality of it is terrible. For the debate of whether CO2 causes a warming effect, the quality of your evidence isn’t good enough to make a claim with any level of confidence. However, if you’re talking about whether humans are causing the climate to change, it is worthwhile to include your evidence in the debate.
And look I have already said that CO2, right now isn’t really a problem. I’ve made that clear by saying I don’t think humans are powering the current climate change through their emission. However what I am arguing against you is that you can’t claim CO2 has no warming or greenhouse effect without evidence. And showing a lag between temperature and CO2 rising isn’t good enough. Because as I’ve said there are so many other variables that must be taken into account that could adequately explain that lag.
So, please provide evidence through physics, chemistry, and physics to support your claim that CO2 doesn’t warm the atm. That’s all you need to do. Showing a graph just isn’t good enough. It’s like someone showing a picture of the earth from the ground and saying “see it’s flat.” There are so many other variables that your graph is not taking into account, and your claim is denying a lot of other sciences that all show this phenomenon. That’s my problem with your evidence. I’d you want to use the evidence you have provided to shine doubt on the idea that humans are causing the earth to warm right now then fine, that is acceptable. But that’s isn’t the debate. The debate is you claiming CO2 does not exert a warming effect. I have asked you to back that up in a very specific way and you won’t, or more likely can’t. As ive also said scientists, completely independent from one another, in different fields, studying this in different ways, have all come to the conclusion that CO2 exerts a warming effect. Using their methods of science. So what is more likely, that you are correct in your assumption, that has no math, physics, or chemistry to back it up, and that all of these scientists who do have all of this ammo backing their claim and data are dead wrong? Or is it more likely you are wrong?
A graph that shows two variables (when talking about possibly the most complex system on earth) isn’t good enough to make a claim. It’s just not. Which is why if you read the IPCC reports they have hundreds of graphs all showing different variables and all giving a hypothesis into how much each variable is effecting the climate.
I apologize for sounding rude, I tried to clarify and explain I’m not trying to be.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
“That's a strong claim. Math, physics, chemistry please?”
I have already provided that. CO2 absorbs infrared light (heat) once the electron is done being excited from the added heat to the system, the electron drops back down and shoots the heat out of the gas and back in a random direction. Some of that light reaches earth, some of it doesn’t. It shoots of in a quantum random way so it’s impossible to predict which way the light will aim.
Some of that light will be absorbed by carbon sinks, some of it will bounce back off the ice, clouds, ground, etc. then the cycle repeats.
It doesn’t take much complex math to see that the higher concentration of CO2 the more infrared photons will be absorbed and shot back in random directions.
But I will copy and paste the math and physics behind this issue from a university website from the mathematics department.
“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.
The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).
The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth. If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F). Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.
The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).
The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth. If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F). Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.
One can see from the absorption figure that water vapor is responsible for the lion’s share of the infrared absorption at relevant wavelengths (under the blue curve), but that the CO2 absorption feature from 13–17 microns also eats some of the spectrum. A crude assessment tells me that the spectrally-weighted water absorption across the outgoing wavelength range is approximately three times as significant as the CO2 absorption feature, reassuringly in line with the 22:7 ratio.
Crudely speaking, if CO2 is responsible for 7 of the 33 degrees of the greenhouse effect, we can easily predict the equilibrium consequences of an increase in CO2. We have so far increased the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, or about 40%. Since I have some ambiguity about whether the 7 K contribution to the surface temperature is based on the current CO2 concentration or the pre-industrial figure, we’ll look at it both ways and see it doesn’t matter much at this level of analysis. If CO2 increased the pre-industrial surface temperature by 7 K, then adding 40% more CO2 would increase the temperature by 7×0.4 = 2.8 K. If we instead say that 7 K is the current CO2 contribution, the associated increase is 7−7/1.4 = 2 K. Either way, the increase is in line with estimates of warming—though the system has a lag due to the heat capacity of oceans, slowing down the rate of temperature increase.
Keep in mind that these figures are based on today’s CO2 concentrations, not the impact of continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels. We have spent about half our total conventional petroleum, and less than half of our total fossil fuel deposits. Thus the ultimate temperature climb could be well over 5 K (9°F) if we continue our practices unabated.
Using a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature change does not constitute a correct treatment, and would fail miserably for large adjustments to CO2 (like a factor of 2 or 3). But for the 40% change under consideration, it captures the direction and approximate magnitude of the effect reasonably well, which is the strength of the estimation approach: get the essential behavior without the burden of unnecessary complexity. A real treatment would acknowledge the saturated nature of the 15 micron absorption feature and use ΔT = C·ln(390/280), where ln() is the natural logarithm function, and C≈2.9–6.5 K according to the IPCC. This leads to an expected increase of 1–2 K at today’s excess concentration. But the point is already made without the fancy pants.“
That is the type of evidence I want from you. I want you to have math like this that shows the opposite.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty