"Whether we like it or not" - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15194763
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide a link to a peer reviewed study.

https://www.justproveco2.com/papers/Ang ... nglish.pdf
Quote the relevant text.

"From these studies and calculations, it is clear, first, that no more than about 16 percent of earth’s radiation can be absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide, and secondly, that the total absorption is very little dependent on the changes in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content, as long as it is not smaller than 0.2 of the existing value."
No, you must have misread.

No, you did, as proved by the fact that I provided a quote to support my reading and you cannot provide a quote to support yours.
#15194766
Truth To Power wrote:https://www.justproveco2.com/papers/Angstrom1900English.pdf

"From these studies and calculations, it is clear, first, that no more than about 16 percent of earth’s radiation can be absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide, and secondly, that the total absorption is very little dependent on the changes in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content, as long as it is not smaller than 0.2 of the existing value."


This does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming.

Heat in the atmosphere is regulated by heat absorption and heat loss.

This study only discusses the first.

See, the amount of heat that a body has is dependent on both how much heat is being introduced to the body and how heat escapes the body. If the amount of heat going into the body stays the same (or even decreases!), the body can still be heating up if the heat loss is reduced significantly.

No, you did, as proved by the fact that I provided a quote to support my reading and you cannot provide a quote to support yours.


As long as we agree that the study showing that the sun was responsible for global warming was wrong, then the fact that you misread is not relevant.
#15194767
Steve_American wrote:For what it is worth Truth to Power, in another thread, claimed that some scientist around 1900 showed that adding CO2 to sea level air did NOT cause that air to absorb more infrared light being radiated out to space, AND this meant that adding CO2 to the Earth's air doesn't and can't cause that Earth's air to absorb more heat being radiated into space.
. . . I responded that that is true, however, adding CO2 to the Earth's air also adds CO2 to all the other higher air not just to sea level air, AND that the additional absorbing happens at higher elevations. So, it is possible that adding CO2 to the air does cause it to absorb more heat being radiated out to space. We know that it does adsorb more heat being radiated up and out to space.
. . . He just stopped responding.

I didn't respond because I had already covered that point many times. But, here it is again: the additional IR absorption by increased CO2 at altitudes above where water vapor condenses out is irrelevant to surface temperature because the same absorption occurs on the way down as on the way up. Therefore, it has no significant effect on surface temperature, and the only significant effect is on the altitude and temperature of the final IR emission to outer space.
This entire argument about more people dying from heat or from cold is besides the point.

No it isn't, because it shows the benefit of global warming in addition to the benefit of increased CO2.
The numbers are very small compared to the numbers who are now finding that they can't live where they ancestors have lived for 10k years.

No they aren't, and you have offered no evidence that any significant number of people can't live where their ancestors lived because the climate is too warm.
They can't survive there because climate change means they can't grow crops.

You mean a change to colder climate? Drier climate? Where is your evidence that any significant number of people can't grow crops because global climate has warmed?
Billions will be displaced in the next 10 years according to computer projections.

Computer projections say whatever their assumptions imply.
And, it is likely that when the Earth heats up by 4 deg. C more, there will be no place on Earth that people can live (and this condition will go on for 1K to 10K years).

That is nothing but an absurd fabrication. Where do you get such nonsense?
The Earth will go on, and some life somewhere will also. It is just that we care more about our own species, than all the others.

And quite rightly.
#15194769
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming.

Right. Because that is not what I said, and not what you asked for evidence of. I said CO2 is not a SIGNIFICANT driver of global temperature, and the referenced paper is good evidence for that fact.
Heat in the atmosphere is regulated by heat absorption and heat loss.

This study only discusses the first.

See, the amount of heat that a body has is dependent on both how much heat is being introduced to the body and how heat escapes the body. If the amount of heat going into the body stays the same (or even decreases!), the body can still be heating up if the heat loss is reduced significantly.

Right. And the Angstrom paper I cited demonstrates that additional atmospheric CO2 cannot significantly reduce the earth's heat loss.
As long as we agree that the study showing that the sun was responsible for global warming was wrong, then the fact that you misread is not relevant.

Which study? The one about imagined changes in the earth's orbit? There are lots of studies showing the sun is responsible for global warming. Here's one:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1
#15194770
Truth To Power wrote:Right. Because that is not what I said, and not what you asked for evidence of. I said CO2 is not a SIGNIFICANT driver of global temperature, and the referenced paper is good evidence for that fact.


Then this claim also fails for the same reason: the study you cited does not support your claim because you are ignoring heat loss.

Right. And the Angstrom paper I cited demonstrates that additional atmospheric CO2 cannot significantly reduce the earth's heat loss.


No.

The text you quoted does not mention heat loss at all. I suggest reading your posts more carefully.

Which study? The one about imagined changes in the earth's orbit? There are lots of studies showing the sun is responsible for global warming. Here's one:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1


Please note that the cited study does not show that is responsible for the observed global warming.

It discusses how ionization of the atmosphere has temporary effects on cloud formation.
#15194804
Truth To Power wrote:I didn't respond because I had already covered that point many times. But, here it is again: the additional IR absorption by increased CO2 at altitudes above where water vapor condenses out is irrelevant to surface temperature because the same absorption occurs on the way down as on the way up. Therefore, it has no significant effect on surface temperature, and the only significant effect is on the altitude and temperature of the final IR emission to outer space.

Here, you are just showing your ignorance.
The sun is so very, very hot that very little of the 'light' energy it radiates is in the heat part of the spectrum.
OTOH, almost all of the 'light' energy radiated up to space by the surface of the Earth is in the form of heat, i.e. infrared. Visible light is not absorbed much by air, while infrared is absorbed by CO2, methane, water vapor, etc.

The rest of your reply is also useless. You are so deep in denial, that no evidence can reach you down there. You don't like it, so you just reject it. So far, people are mostly being displaced by droughts, and it is easy to deny that droughts are a result of ACC. The evidence is only the computer models, and they are not convincing because no lay person understands them.

No it isn't, because it shows the benefit of global warming in addition to the benefit of increased CO2.

No they aren't, and you have offered no evidence that any significant number of people can't live where their ancestors lived because the climate is too warm.

You mean a change to colder climate? Drier climate? Where is your evidence that any significant number of people can't grow crops because global climate has warmed?

Computer projections say whatever their assumptions imply.

That is nothing but an absurd fabrication. Where do you get such nonsense?

And quite rightly.
#15194807
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then this claim also fails for the same reason:

No. You were and are just WRONG. Wrong. Do you understand? You are WRONG. OBJECTIVELY WRONG. There is no kind of verbal dance you can now perform that will somehow make your wrongness into rightness. Kindly remember that.
the study you cited does not support your claim because you are ignoring heat loss.

No, that claim is just another false claim from you. You merely do not know enough atmospheric physics to understand that infrared absorption is precisely the relevant factor that GOVERNS heat loss. So far from offering any argument that my claim has "failed," you have only succeeded in proving you are NOT QUALIFIED to participate in a discussion of this subject. You are ignorant of even the most basic terms and premises. Now that you have proved you don't possess any relevant knowledge, and are furthermore not willing to learn from someone who does, just run along and leave the discussion to someone who actually possesses some understanding of the relevant science.
No.

Yes.
The text you quoted does not mention heat loss at all.

Yes it does. It is ALL ABOUT heat loss. You just don't know enough of the subject to understand that.
I suggest reading your posts more carefully.

<yawn> I suggest finding a willingness to know the fact that I have proved I am reading both mine and yours more accurately than you.
Please note that the cited study does not show that is responsible for the observed global warming.

That is not what you asked for. You like shifting the goalposts when you know you have been scored on, don't you?
It discusses how ionization of the atmosphere has temporary effects on cloud formation.

And when that ionization is greater or lesser over an extended period...?

Come on. You can do it. Try.
#15194811
Truth To Power wrote:No. You were and are just WRONG. Wrong. Do you understand? You are WRONG. OBJECTIVELY WRONG. There is no kind of verbal dance you can now perform that will somehow make your wrongness into rightness. Kindly remember that.

No, that claim is just another false claim from you. You merely do not know enough atmospheric physics to understand that infrared absorption is precisely the relevant factor that GOVERNS heat loss. So far from offering any argument that my claim has "failed," you have only succeeded in proving you are NOT QUALIFIED to participate in a discussion of this subject. You are ignorant of even the most basic terms and premises. Now that you have proved you don't possess any relevant knowledge, and are furthermore not willing to learn from someone who does, just run along and leave the discussion to someone who actually possesses some understanding of the relevant science.

Yes.

Yes it does. It is ALL ABOUT heat loss. You just don't know enough of the subject to understand that.

<yawn> I suggest finding a willingness to know the fact that I have proved I am reading both mine and yours more accurately than you.

That is not what you asked for. You like shifting the goalposts when you know you have been scored on, don't you?



Then provide evidence for this claim that CO2 does not affect the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere. Quote the relevant text.

Note that the text you quoted does not support this claim.

And when that ionization is greater or lesser over an extended period...?

Come on. You can do it. Try.


It creates a whole series of effects. To argue that the net effect is to significantly increase global warming is not supported in the text to which you linked.

If I am incorrect, then quote the relevant text.
#15194894
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then provide evidence for this claim that CO2 does not affect the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.

The claim that you made up and are now trying falsely to attribute to me, you mean? That claim? Why would I provide evidence for claims you made up? I made no such claim.
Quote the relevant text.

Quote me, directly, verbatim, and in-context, claiming that CO2 does not affect the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere, or apologize for your disingenuous and disgraceful attempt to deceive readers about what I have plainly written. Now.
Note that the text you quoted does not support this claim.

Right: it supports the claim I actually made, not the one you made up and falsely attributed to me.
It creates a whole series of effects. To argue that the net effect is to significantly increase global warming is not supported in the text to which you linked.

The net effect of alternating greater and lesser ionization is of course negligible. But the net effect of a sustained decrease, such as characterized the 20th century because of its high solar activity, must be to significantly increase global warming.
If I am incorrect, then quote the relevant text.

"Here it is shown that the average of the five strongest week-long decreases in atmospheric ionization coincides with changes in the average net radiative balance of 1.7 W/m2 (median value: 1.2 W/m2) using CERES satellite observations."

"Solar activity modulates the flux of cosmic ray particles on time scales from days to millennia,"

"It is shown that a ∼10% decrease in cosmic ray ionization of the five strongest FDs results in a global top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing of 1–2 W/m2 with a delay of ∼ 5–7 days caused by mainly low liquid clouds over the oceans."

Put them together, and the effect of sustained high solar activity is global warming greatly exceeding the TSI signal. Which is exactly what the historical record shows.
#15194895
Truth To Power wrote:The claim that you made up and are now trying falsely to attribute to me, you mean? That claim? Why would I provide evidence for claims you made up? I made no such claim.

Quote me, directly, verbatim, and in-context, claiming that CO2 does not affect the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere, or apologize for your disingenuous and disgraceful attempt to deceive readers about what I have plainly written. Now.

Right: it supports the claim I actually made, not the one you made up and falsely attributed to me.

The net effect of alternating greater and lesser ionization is of course negligible. But the net effect of a sustained decrease, such as characterized the 20th century because of its high solar activity, must be to significantly increase global warming.

"Here it is shown that the average of the five strongest week-long decreases in atmospheric ionization coincides with changes in the average net radiative balance of 1.7 W/m2 (median value: 1.2 W/m2) using CERES satellite observations."

"Solar activity modulates the flux of cosmic ray particles on time scales from days to millennia,"

"It is shown that a ∼10% decrease in cosmic ray ionization of the five strongest FDs results in a global top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing of 1–2 W/m2 with a delay of ∼ 5–7 days caused by mainly low liquid clouds over the oceans."

Put them together, and the effect of sustained high solar activity is global warming greatly exceeding the TSI signal. Which is exactly what the historical record shows.


Since you have no evidence for your claim that CO2 is not a significant driver of global warming (since your evidence ignores heat loss), that claim is now dismissed as unsupported.

Since the quotes from the ionization study do not discuss any significant effect on global warming, it is logical to assume that you misread these passages as supporting your claim when they do not.
#15194998
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have no evidence for your claim that CO2 is not a significant driver of global warming (since your evidence ignores heat loss), that claim is now dismissed as unsupported.

Since the quotes from the ionization study do not discuss any significant effect on global warming, it is logical to assume that you misread these passages as supporting your claim when they do not.

Actually, he does have evidence.
His problem is that the people and studies he relies on have been proven wrong decades ago.
For example, he claims that Anstron [spelling?] showed that sea level air already has enough CO2 to absorb the infrared heat radiating up and so adding more CO2 makes no difference. MY source says that the additional absorbing happens at higher altitudes.
Then he claims that all the heat is absorbed incoming as well as out going, so they cancel out. I responded that the incoming energy is in the form of visible light which is very little absorbed, hits the ground or water and absorbed, heating them, then the energy must be reradiated out to space as infrared. Now, is when the CO2 absorbs the heat on its way up & out, acting like a blanket. He has yet to respond to that.

Again, debate club rules are fine in HS debate contests and also in a court of law when both sides have good lawyers who poke holes in the other side's points. These rules don't work as well to inform the public about policy matters because the public often never hears the other side.
. . . In a court the witnesses are sworn to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Lawyers are not allowed to put on witnesses who they know are lying. It is really sad that the USSC ruled that news media can lie through their teeth. This made public discussions like courtrooms where the lawyers can put up testimony that they knew are lies. IMO, courts are the way they are because it was found in the past that allowing lies didn't help them get to the truth. It is sad that the USSC didn't grok that point and ruled the way it did. It is really sad that the public didn't grok that therefore FOX News was not to be trusted at all. It had been given a green light to just lie through their teeth. It didn't help that the law was changed to allow all network news shows to need to make a profit. The law should be that there can be no ads at all during, before, and after a news show. None. But, networks must still have news shows, that are to be supported by ads at other times. Then, networks can tell more of the truth.
. . . The need of the public to know the truth IMHO out weights the right of free speech of the corps. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We can now see the result of losing sight of the importance of the public's NEED to know what the real truth is, and not be confused by deluge of "alternate facts".
. . . Maybe we can use the method of the Texas abortion law to let anyone sue the networks for any 'fact' they present that is not a true fact. $10K and legal fees if you win. I really mean this last idea.
Last edited by Steve_American on 20 Oct 2021 02:33, edited 2 times in total.
#15195019
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have no evidence for your claim that CO2 is not a significant driver of global warming (since your evidence ignores heat loss),

Yes, I have, and I have posted it, because no, it doesn't.
that claim is now dismissed as unsupported.

That claim is false.
Since the quotes from the ionization study do not discuss any significant effect on global warming,

I already posted the quotes that prove they do.
it is logical to assume that you misread these passages as supporting your claim when they do not.

No it isn't. It's simply what you have decided to believe, because the facts prove your beliefs are false.
#15195021
Steve_American wrote:Actually, he does have evidence.
His problem is that the people and studies he relies on have been proven wrong decades ago.
For example, he claims that Anstron [spelling?] showed that sea level air already has enough CO2 to absorb the infrared heat radiating up and so adding more CO2 makes no difference. MY source says that the additional absorbing happens at higher altitudes.

But neglects to identify a mechanism for that heat to find its way back down to the surface, because there isn't one.
Then he claims that all the heat is absorbed incoming as well as out going, so they cancel out. I responded that the incoming energy is in the form of visible light which is very little absorbed, hits the ground or water and absorbed, heating them, then the energy must be reradiated out to space as infrared. Now, is when the CO2 absorbs the heat on its way up & out, acting like a blanket. He has yet to respond to that.

I'm not on here 24/7, and if you respond to a post of mine without hitting the Reply button or quoting me by name using the quote function, I am not notified that you have responded and may simply never see your message.

You simply got the physics hilariously wrong again. The IR absorption that prevents IR radiation absorbed by CO2 in the upper troposphere from getting back down to the surface is absorption of downward IR radiation from CO2, not visible light from the sun.
#15195022
Steve_American wrote:Here, you are just showing your ignorance.

No. I know incomparably more of the relevant science than you, and I will thank you to remember it.
The sun is so very, very hot that very little of the 'light' energy it radiates is in the heat part of the spectrum.
OTOH, almost all of the 'light' energy radiated up to space by the surface of the Earth is in the form of heat, i.e. infrared. Visible light is not absorbed much by air, while infrared is absorbed by CO2, methane, water vapor, etc.

Right, but what's your point? Where did I say anything different? The GHG mechanism revolves around IR radiation emitted from the earth's surface, not visible light from the sun. The false claim is that absorption of IR radiation from the earth's surface by CO2 in the upper troposphere and higher will somehow result in that IR getting back down to the surface. But it can't, because it is absorbed by water vapor and CO2 long before it gets there, as Angstrom proved, and re-radiated upward. So all that happens with increased CO2 is that the final emission altitude rises and the characteristic temperature of the emission falls, restoring the thermal equilibrium. The effect on the earth's surface temperature is derisory.
The rest of your reply is also useless. You are so deep in denial, that no evidence can reach you down there. You don't like it, so you just reject it.

<yawn> Lack of factual and logical content noted.
So far, people are mostly being displaced by droughts, and it is easy to deny that droughts are a result of ACC.

Right, because there is no credible empirical evidence that droughts are any worse now than they have been for thousands if not millions of years.
The evidence is only the computer models, and they are not convincing because no lay person understands them.

No, they are not convincing because they can't make reliably accurate predictions.
#15195051
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, I have, and I have posted it, because no, it doesn't.

That claim is false.

I already posted the quotes that prove they do.

No it isn't. It's simply what you have decided to believe, because the facts prove your beliefs are false.


This is poorly written.

Please use complete sentences with a clear subject.

And since this post also does not contain the evidence for which you have been asked, this post is also dismissed.

To be clear:

You argued that additional CO2 would not drive global warming because it already absorbs pretty much all the infra red radiation from the surface of the Earth, so it could not absorb more.

I then pointed out that you are ignoring heat loss from the atmosphere. So far, you have ignored that and simply claimed that you already discussed that, even though your quotes do not discuss heat loss from the atmosphere at all.
#15195053
Truth To Power wrote:1] No. I know incomparably more of the relevant science than you, and I will thank you to remember it.

2] Right, but what's your point?
. . a] Where did I say anything different?
. . b] The GHG mechanism revolves around IR radiation emitted from the earth's surface, not visible light from the sun. The false claim is that absorption of IR radiation from the earth's surface by CO2 in the upper troposphere and higher will somehow result in that IR getting back down to the surface. But it can't, because it is absorbed by water vapor and CO2 long before it gets there, as Angstrom proved, and re-radiated upward. c] So all that happens with increased CO2 is that the final emission altitude rises and the characteristic temperature of the emission falls, restoring the thermal equilibrium. The effect on the earth's surface temperature is derisory.

3]<yawn> Lack of factual and logical content noted.

4] Right, because there is no credible empirical evidence that droughts are any worse now than they have been for thousands if not millions of years.

5] No, they are not convincing because they can't make reliably accurate predictions.


1] I disagree with your claiming more science knowledge that I have. See below for the proof.

2] . a] Well, you may not have said that the energy that reaches the surface of the Earth from the sun is mostly in the form of visible light. However that is just a scientific fact. If you don't know this fact, then you are lacking in your scientific knowledge.
. . . b] Well, again you're showing your lack of scientific knowledge. When a molecule absorbs heat=infrared light it doesn't reradiate it in the same direction. If it did it would have little effect as you say. However, the direction it is reradiated is totally random. So, is rediated down as much as up.
. . . c] The GHG story is that the energy reaches the Earth's surface in the form of visible light from the sun. Over the course of a day or a year the energy either heats up the Earth or it is sent somehow back to space. Energy is conserved, it can't disappear. Either it leaves, or it heats things, or it makes something move faster.
. . . So, the heated up earth/dirt/rocks/oceans is hotter which causes it to radiate more infrared light upwards (down too but it can't go far before it is stopped and sent up, eventually.
. . . So, the infrared light is absorbed by CO2 in the air and reradiated up, down or sideways. If the energy is trapped at any altitude by any process it can't just be there. It must heat up the air at that altitude. This not happening much. We know this because we can feel the heat of the sun and so we know that it is enough to heat things up, like a piece of metal in the sun. Therefore, the fact that we don't see the temp of air at many altitudes heating up 2 dec. C per day, everyday, all summer, proves that the heat is mostly escaping out into space. And some is heating the ground and the oceans. But, mostly it must escape to space. It simply MUST! Again you are showing your lack of scientific knowledge.
. . . Lurkers, frankly I'm not sure why the infrared light tends to be sent up more but it must be because otherwise as I just showed it would either heat up the air or heat up the dirt & oceans. He doesn't want to have it heat the dirt and we can agree it isn't heating the air that much, so it must go up more than down.
. . . However, some can be sent back down to be causing the dirt to be heated a little year after year.
. . . Anyway, as we go up in altitude the concentration of CO2 is reduced as the air pressure is reduced. Therefore, the level where the CO2 stops all the infrared rises, and this reduces the amount of the energy that finally escapes out into space. So, less energy escapes, so more stays in the air or in the dirt/oceans/etc. And, that more energy must show up as heat, which we see as increasing temps. It isn't a lot, but the small change heats the Earth year after year. BTW --- the Earth is never in temp. equilibrium because the temp does up and down during the day and during the months. The ave. temp. changes every year a little. Sometimes it has changed going down for decades, sometimes it has gone up a little each year for decades, and sometimes it has done little for decades, but it is always changing at least a little.
#15195059
Steve_American wrote:
I disagree with your claiming more science knowledge that I have.




Are you still talking to that shill?

You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. He gets paid for it, so I don't see that changing.
#15195067
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is poorly written.

No it isn't. You are just gaslighting again. Anyone reading my posts knows they are clear, grammatical, and incomparably better written than yours.
Please use complete sentences with a clear subject.

Please learn some English grammar, and then apologize for gaslighting your readers.
And since this post also does not contain the evidence for which you have been asked, this post is also dismissed.

No, my post was a rejoinder to your fallacious, absurd, ill-informed, and disingenuous denials of indisputable facts, not a mere repetition of the post you were replying to.
You argued that additional CO2 would not drive global warming because it already absorbs pretty much all the infra red radiation from the surface of the Earth, so it could not absorb more.

No, that's false, like pretty much everything else you have had to say about my arguments. I identified the fact that CO2 cannot drive global warming because adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air does significantly alter its infrared transmission properties, a fact that has been known and not seriously disputed for over 100 years, since Angstrom demonstrated it in 1900. Presumably adding CO2 has such little effect in part because its absorption spectrum is already well saturated by the natural level of CO2 in the air, but mainly because water vapor is an even more powerful IR absorber than CO2, and it is 50 times as abundant in the lower atmosphere as CO2.
I then pointed out that you are ignoring heat loss from the atmosphere.

And I corrected your error. IR absorption by water vapor and CO2 GOVERNS heat loss from the atmosphere.
So far, you have ignored that and simply claimed that you already discussed that, even though your quotes do not discuss heat loss from the atmosphere at all.

No, that is just another objectively false claim from you. Any mention of IR absorption in the atmosphere is a clear and direct reference to heat loss from the atmosphere because -- although you do not know enough basic physics to understand it -- IR absorption is precisely the inverse of heat loss.
#15195073
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't. You are just gaslighting again. Anyone reading my posts knows they are clear, grammatical, and incomparably better written than yours.

Please learn some English grammar, and then apologize for gaslighting your readers.

No, my post was a rejoinder to your fallacious, absurd, ill-informed, and disingenuous denials of indisputable facts, not a mere repetition of the post you were replying to.

No, that's false, like pretty much everything else you have had to say about my arguments.


Irrelevant.

I identified the fact that CO2 cannot drive global warming because adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air does significantly alter its infrared transmission properties, a fact that has been known and not seriously disputed for over 100 years, since Angstrom demonstrated it in 1900. Presumably adding CO2 has such little effect in part because its absorption spectrum is already well saturated by the natural level of CO2 in the air, but mainly because water vapor is an even more powerful IR absorber than CO2, and it is 50 times as abundant in the lower atmosphere as CO2.


This completely ignores the rate heat loss from the atmosphere.

Just like the text you quoted.

And I corrected your error. IR absorption by water vapor and CO2 GOVERNS heat loss from the atmosphere.

No, that is just another objectively false claim from you. Any mention of IR absorption in the atmosphere is a clear and direct reference to heat loss from the atmosphere because -- although you do not know enough basic physics to understand it -- IR absorption is precisely the inverse of heat loss.


No.

The heat loss from a body is not always the inverse of its absorption.

This would mean that nothing ever gets warmer or colder.

Think about it: my house is losing heat to the outdoors. At the same time, it is absorbing heat from the burning fuel in the furnace. If heat loss was magically the exact inverse of heat absorption, I would not need a thermostat to regulate this.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 34
Key Rasmussen Polls

It is sad, but for context, I live a mere 20 minu[…]

CBD vs sars'cov'2

... more and more studies ... when will authoriti[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Wouldn't that be desking? If drumming is when you[…]

Why is it insulting to tell a woman there’s no st[…]