World Leaders Producing 300,000 Tons of Carbon By Traveling To Climate Summit In Paris

[jem]

No one here is denying co2 does some warming. You seem to miss the entire point of the discussion. You are thinking in the sub 120 IQ range. You need to think in terms of systems.

Secondly... 31,000 scientists are on record saying there is no scientific evidence showing that man made co2 causes warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/


NASA threw Hansen out after a bunch of respected scientists and astronauts signed this...
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4


For there to be no question you would have to advance some peer reviewed science (not now failed models) showing man made co2 is causing warming outside natural variation.

Why can't you produce science if there is no question?

But more wavelengths come in at higher frequencies than are reradiated from the earth and it's atmosphere because as they interact with earth and atmosphere they tend toward becoming lower frequencies which are then intercepted by the CO2. So CO2 acts to warm the earth on balance. Because it is relatively transparent to all but long wavelengths.


Look pie, you can pretend to be a climate scientist, but you're not. James Hansen would make look like a fool in a debate about it.

There is no question at all that cigarettes kill and that man is causing rapid global warming. None.

 

[piezoe]

But more wavelengths come in at higher frequencies than are reradiated from the earth and it's atmosphere because as they interact with earth and atmosphere they tend toward becoming lower frequencies which are then intercepted by the CO2. So CO2 acts to warm the earth on balance. Because it is relatively transparent to all but long wavelengths.


Look pie, you can pretend to be a climate scientist, but you're not. James Hansen would make look like a fool in a debate about it.

There is no question at all that cigarettes kill and that man is causing rapid global warming. None.

"More wavelengths come in at higher frequencies" ???

I am not sure what you intended to say here. The total irradience of the Earth and its atmosphere by the sun is greater in the infrared than in the visible region of the solar emission spectrum. You can see this is true by integrating the spectrum -- the one I posted in this forum will do-- in the visible region (I use 400-800 nm) and in the IR region (I use 800nm and above) and comparing the integrals.

You respond to posts in these forums in a way that leads me to believe that you are totally ignorant about all the many phenomena that affect the earths temperature except one, CO2's greenhouse effect. In the case of the Earth, the other factors, collectively, are more important than CO2's greenhouse effect, so it would be worth your while to find out about them.

 

[futurecurrents]

"More wavelengths come in at higher frequencies" ???

I am not sure what you intended to say here. The total irradience of the Earth and its atmosphere by the sun is greater in the infrared than in the visible region of the solar emission spectrum. You can see this is true by integrating the spectrum -- the one I posted in this forum will do-- in the visible region (I use 400-800 nm) and in the IR region (I use 800nm and above) and comparing the integrals.

You respond to posts in these forums in a way that leads me to believe that you are totally ignorant about all the many phenomena that affect the earths temperature except one, CO2's greenhouse effect. In the case of the Earth, the other factors, collectively, are more important than CO2's greenhouse effect, so it would be worth your while to find out about them.

I meant to say that the solar input is at a higher frequency than the reradiated energy. Thus, CO2, acts as one way mirror. How's that? Understand now?

Nothing is more important to the temperature of the planet than the levels of CO2. You really should learn some of the latest science.

There is no question that the levels of CO2 are the most important factor in the temp. Do you dispute that? Not that it matters what you think. The experts say that it is.


And of course other factors are involved with climate, I never said otherwise. These other factors are superimposed onto the rising temps due to the increasing greenhouse effect.

The effect can clearly be seen in this chart. Which, btw, you never seem to use hard data. Why is that? You seem to be merely hot air. lol

 

[piezoe]

I meant to say that the solar input is at a higher frequency than the reradiated energy. Thus, CO2, acts as one way mirror. How's that? Understand now?

Nothing is more important to the temperature of the planet than the levels of CO2. You really should learn some of the latest science.

There is no question that the levels of CO2 are the most factor in the temp

"...the solar input is at a higher frequency than the reradiated energy."

That's both correct and incorrect . There is solar input at both higher and lower frequencies, and also at the same frequency, as the "reradiatd energy" from the greenhouse effect.

The re-radiated energy is over a wide frequency region. I's broadband. CO2 absorbs just a small part of this. Go to the Solar spectrum I posted and look under CO2. There you will see a small notch in the red area. That's where CO2 absorbs.

 

[futurecurrents]

"...the solar input is at a higher frequency than the reradiated energy."

That's both correct and incorrect . There is solar input at both higher and lower frequencies, and also at the same frequency, as the "reradiatd energy" from the greenhouse effect.

The re-radiated energy is over a wide frequency region. I's broadband. CO2 absorbs just a small part of this. Go to the Solar spectrum I posted and look under CO2. There you will see a small notch in the red area. That's where CO2 absorbs.

No it IS correct. The incoming solar energy is on average at a higher frequency than the reradiated energy. Thus atmospheric CO2 acts like a one way mirror. If you don't understand this basic climate science it will be very difficult to speak with you intelligently on the subject.

 

[Ricter]

The several things about Venus that set it apart and make it very hot are its day length, its high geothermal activity, its blanketing of sulfuroxides including sulfuric acid, and its small axial tilt of only a few degrees. All of these things, together with its location close to the sun, are going to make for a very hot planet. Its mean temperature is similar to the high temperature on mercury .It is popular to attribute its high temperature to a runaway greenhouse effect, but I think these other factors are probably more important.

You won't be able to get Venus just by covering the moon with a dense layer of CO2.

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2, the sulfur oxides do squat to warm it, instead they increase its albedo! The axial tilt and day length are irrelevant, the planet is as hot on its night side as it is on its day side. I do agree that Venus does not have a runaway greenhouse effect: it has a stable greenhouse effect. Until something changes, like adding more CO2 to the planet.

While we couldn't make another Venus of our moon, it's clear that, going back to our original argument, digging up CO2 and spewing it into the Earth's atmosphere is not going to cool the planet, nor would adding CO2 to the moon cool it (though it might act as a heat sink and cool the actual surface). By the way, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is going to increase the pressure, guess what that does. (Admittedly small.)

 

[jem]

your are living in the propaganda past. the studies are showing water vapor to be a far more important greenhouse gas.

I meant to say that the solar input is at a higher frequency than the reradiated energy. Thus, CO2, acts as one way mirror. How's that? Understand now?

Nothing is more important to the temperature of the planet than the levels of CO2. You really should learn some of the latest science.

There is no question that the levels of CO2 are the most important factor in the temp. Do you dispute that? Not that it matters what you think. The experts say that it is.


And of course other factors are involved with climate, I never said otherwise. These other factors are superimposed onto the rising temps due to the increasing greenhouse effect.

The effect can clearly be seen in this chart. Which, btw, you never seem to use hard data. Why is that? You seem to be merely hot air. lol

 

[Max E.]

 

[piezoe]

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2, the sulfur oxides do squat to warm it, instead they increase its albedo! The axial tilt and day length are irrelevant, the planet is as hot on its night side as it is on its day side. I do agree that Venus does not have a runaway greenhouse effect: it has a stable greenhouse effect. Until something changes, like adding more CO2 to the planet.

While we couldn't make another Venus of our moon, it's clear that, going back to our original argument, digging up CO2 and spewing it into the Earth's atmosphere is not going to cool the planet, nor would adding CO2 to the moon cool it (though it might act as a heat sink and cool the actual surface). By the way, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is going to increase the pressure, guess what that does. (Admittedly small.)

Is the fact that the absorptivity of SO2, SO3 and H2SO4 in the IR region much greater than the absorptivity of CO2 irrelevant?. Is the 100 times greater atmospheric pressure on Venus irrelevant? Is Venus's geothermal activity irrelevant?

I agree with you that adding a few hundred more ppm CO2 to the earth's atmosphere is not going to cool the planet nor warm it. And I don't think it would cool nor warm the moon much either . you would need a much higher concentration. There is an optimum CO2 level and we may currently be a little below that.

 

[piezoe]

No it IS correct. The incoming solar energy is on average at a higher frequency than the reradiated energy. Thus atmospheric CO2 acts like a one way mirror. If you don't understand this basic climate science it will be very difficult to speak with you intelligently on the subject.

I simply took you to mean what you wrote. You wrote " solar input' and I foolishly took you at your word. (I should know better) Now I find that what you were really referring to was something else. Let me say it for you. When light in the uv and visible region strikes matter and is absorbed, the energy (E=hv) equivalent of this light is converted into heat and emitted as infrared radiation. This emitted light is the longer wavelength, lower frequency light that greenhouse gases partially absorb. Is that what you meant? But of course this emitted light falls within the spectral region supplied by the solar input. That is something you may not be understanding.

Regardless. your statement was incorrect the "solar input" is what comes from the sun, And that is nicely described by the solar irradience spectrum I posted. You will note from that that the solar input is approximately that that would be emitted by a black body. It ranges from the uv region through the infrared region, with the majority of energy in the "solar input" lying in the infrared region.