"Whether we like it or not" - Page 37 - 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.
#15201193
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, none of this is clear.

Sure it is. I even got a Like for it.
I started reading it, and the grammar was so twisted, I knew it would be too much trouble trying to figure out what it meant.

Bull$#!+.
Please rewrite this into a clear rebuttal.

It's already perfectly clear.
#15201211
Truth To Power wrote:Sure. Just not on surface temperature or climate.

You again cruelly expose the fact that you do not even know what IR saturation is.

It shows the impact is minimal, as Angstrom proved, and CO2 is therefore not a principal cause of climate variation.

Wrong again. In seeking to understand climate change, it is very useful to know that CO2 cannot be a significant factor.


@Truth To Power
You know that responding to PoD is useless if you are not responding to me.

Also, none of the above sentences are more than vague re-assertions of your opinions. No evidence or arguments are provided there to support your assertions.

Finally, maybe you are the one who doesn't know IR saturation works. You see, CO2 and H2O together do not absorb all the wavelengths of IR light/heat. There are other wavelengths. Adding more CO2 to the air could slow the ability of the energy to find a way around the absorbed sections of the IR part of the spectrum.
Besides which, you have never explained how absorbing and reradiating IR is the same as blocking IR.

Angstrom's experiment ignored a lot of effects that are going on inside his tube of gas. These things include --- changes in the temp of the gas, changes in the temp of the tube itself, the amount of IR being reradiated sideways into the walls of the tube, etc..
The energy has to go somewhere. Angstrom only showed that it didn't change much as it went straight through the tube. OTOH, I have shown that even a very tiny change can be enough to change the temp of the Earth if it is added every day for decades. You have never addressed this claim either.
.
#15201220
Truth To Power wrote:Sure it is. I even got a Like for it.

Bull$#!+.

It's already perfectly clear.


This is just a set of argument free sentence fragments.

Let me know when you want to refute the studies that show that Angstrom’s experiment does not mean that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.
#15201275
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let me know when you want to refute the studies that show that Angstrom’s experiment does not mean that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.

This sentence contains so many negatives that it should really be in therapy.

Is horrendous sentence structure "one of the cracks" that let's light get in?
#15201289
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is just a set of argument free sentence fragments.

No it isn't.
Let me know when you want to refute the studies that show that Angstrom’s experiment does not mean that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.

Angstrom's experiment doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. It means that if there is a significant anthropogenic component in climate change, it can't be due to our CO2 emissions absorbing and re-emitting more IR radiation near the earth's surface. ingliz has hypothesized some sort of Rube Goldberg butterfly effect of high-altitude CO2 involving stratospheric ozone, the jet stream, and who knows what other contrivances. But there is no credible empirical evidence for it, and the posited mechanism is inherently implausible given the paleoclimate record, which proves CO2 has far less effect on temperature than temperature has on CO2.
#15201296
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't.

Angstrom's experiment doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. It means that if there is a significant anthropogenic component in climate change, it can't be due to our CO2 emissions absorbing and re-emitting more IR radiation near the earth's surface.


It is due to CO2 emissions absorbing and re-emitting more IR radiation throughout the entire atmosphere.

ingliz has hypothesized some sort of Rube Goldberg butterfly effect of high-altitude CO2 involving stratospheric ozone, the jet stream, and who knows what other contrivances. But there is no credible empirical evidence for it, and the posited mechanism is inherently implausible given the paleoclimate record, which proves CO2 has far less effect on temperature than temperature has on CO2.


I think it would be better to discuss ingliz's argument with @ingliz , but I think he already provided evidence.
#15201307
delete
Last edited by ingliz on 07 Dec 2021 18:42, edited 1 time in total.
#15201329
@Truth To Power

How do you see that in the paleoclimate record when these extreme weather events are scattered, being more what you would call weather than climate?

Of course, I would argue persistent weather is climate: a position you would find untenable.


:lol:
#15201342
Steve_American wrote:@Truth To Power
You know that responding to PoD is useless if you are not responding to me.

I know that responding to both of you is useless, except for the potential instruction of other readers who may have some rudimentary competence in and respect for science, fact, and logic.
Also, none of the above sentences are more than vague re-assertions of your opinions. No evidence or arguments are provided there to support your assertions.

I've provided the evidence.
Finally, maybe you are the one who doesn't know IR saturation works.

No.
You see, CO2 and H2O together do not absorb all the wavelengths of IR light/heat. There are other wavelengths. Adding more CO2 to the air could slow the ability of the energy to find a way around the absorbed sections of the IR part of the spectrum.

It indisputably does. Just not significantly. You and PoD seem unable to absorb the latter word into your passive, let alone your active, vocabularies.
Besides which, you have never explained how absorbing and reradiating IR is the same as blocking IR.

Yes I have. Re-read the explanation of the blanket analogy. A blanket blocks IR heat loss from your body in much the same way GHGs block it from the earth's surface.
Angstrom's experiment ignored a lot of effects that are going on inside his tube of gas.

Because they are irrelevant. It also ignored the isotopic composition of air, the latent heat of vaporization of water, and countless other irrelevant factors, all for the same reason.
These things include --- changes in the temp of the gas, changes in the temp of the tube itself, the amount of IR being reradiated sideways into the walls of the tube, etc..

All of which are irrelevant to the fraction of IR making it through the tube.
The energy has to go somewhere. Angstrom only showed that it didn't change much as it went straight through the tube.

No, he showed that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air did not appreciably change the amount of IR getting through the tube, and no one has ever offered any credible empirical evidence to the contrary. Angstrom's result has never been refuted, and it never will be. The claims of refutation are just bald falsehoods.
OTOH, I have shown that even a very tiny change can be enough to change the temp of the Earth if it is added every day for decades. You have never addressed this claim either.

Sure I have. It's irrelevant, as Angstrom proved CO2 cannot have such an effect, and it would be false in any case, as I showed by the explanation of negative temperature feedback: if temperature rises, heat just radiates away faster.
#15201348
Truth To Power wrote:Because they are irrelevant. It also ignored the isotopic composition of air, the latent heat of vaporization of water, and countless other irrelevant factors, all for the same reason.

All of which are irrelevant to the fraction of IR making it through the tube.

No, he showed that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air did not appreciably change the amount of IR getting through the tube, and no one has ever offered any credible empirical evidence to the contrary. Angstrom's result has never been refuted, and it never will be. The claims of refutation are just bald falsehoods.


Angstrom was correct if you are not discussing climate change. If you want to discuss how IR saturation is part of anthropogenic climate change, then Angstrom's experiments are too simplistic.

The 1931 experiment showed that.

Sure I have. It's irrelevant, as Angstrom proved CO2 cannot have such an effect, and it would be false in any case, as I showed by the explanation of negative temperature feedback: if temperature rises, heat just radiates away faster.


Except we gave already seen evidence( in the form of three peer reviewed studies) showing that the atmosphere is radiating heat slower.

And the wavelengths that are emitted less are those absorbed by GHGs.
#15201392
Pants-of-dog wrote:Angstrom was correct if you are not discussing climate change.

No, he was indisputably correct no matter what the subject.
If you want to discuss how IR saturation is part of anthropogenic climate change,

Angstrom proved it isn't.
then Angstrom's experiments are too simplistic.

Nope. Flat wrong. He proved CO2 emissions can't significantly affect IR heat transfer near the earth's surface.
The 1931 experiment showed that.

No, it did no such thing. It was irrelevant garbage.
Except we gave already seen evidence( in the form of three peer reviewed studies) showing that the atmosphere is radiating heat slower.

You claimed that, but the papers only showed the emission spectrum had changed, not the heat budget.
And the wavelengths that are emitted less are those absorbed by GHGs.

The emission spectrum reflects GHG composition at the final emission altitude. Changes to the emission spectrum are not changes to the heat budget.
#15201393
@Truth To Power

If a body emits less heat than it absorbs, it warms up.

So, changes to the emission spectrum can be changes to the heat budget.

Which is the case right now with GHGs reducing emissions of energy and therefore making changes to the heat budget.

All three studies show this.
#15201394
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

How do you see that in the paleoclimate record when these extreme weather events are scattered, being more what you would call weather than climate?

The paleo record shows no significant difference in extreme weather events with either much higher or much lower CO2.
Of course, I would argue persistent weather is climate: a position you would find untenable.

I see nothing prima facie wrong with that formulation if the weather is persistent enough to cause a change in the natural vegetation.
#15201395
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

If a body emits less heat than it absorbs, it warms up.

So, changes to the emission spectrum can be changes to the heat budget.

Or not.
Which is the case right now with GHGs reducing emissions of energy

The papers you cited only showed they changed the spectrum, not total heat emission.
and therefore making changes to the heat budget.

Nope. Only the spectrum.
All three studies show this.

No they don't.
#15201397
Truth To Power wrote:Or not.

The papers you cited only showed they changed the spectrum, not total heat emission.

Nope. Only the spectrum.

No they don't.


No.

You misread.

Please quote the parts that misled you, and I will tell you what they really say.

Truth To Power wrote:The difference is at most insignificant at the altitudes where climate occurs.


Your opinion on whether or not something is significant is irrelevant to whether or not it actually is significant.
#15201417
Truth To Power wrote:The paleo record shows no significant difference in extreme weather events

It wouldn't.

Paleoclimate research has built a framework for Earth’s climate changes over the past 65 million years or even longer. However, our knowledge of weather-timescale extreme events (paleoweather), which usually occur over several days or hours, under different climate regimes is almost blank because current paleoclimatic records rarely provide information with temporal resolution shorter than monthly scale.


:)
#15201452
ingliz wrote:It wouldn't.

Sure it would.
Paleoclimate research has built a framework for Earth’s climate changes over the past 65 million years or even longer. However, our knowledge of weather-timescale extreme events (paleoweather), which usually occur over several days or hours, under different climate regimes is almost blank because current paleoclimatic records rarely provide information with temporal resolution shorter than monthly scale.

The fact that temporal resolution declines with the age of the paleo record does not alter the fact that transient events like floods and droughts are often recorded in, e.g., tree rings, sedimentary deposits or the fossil record, and there is no credible empirical evidence that their frequency or intensity is related to CO2.
#15201456
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Yes.
You misread.

No, you do (or misrepresent).

Please quote the parts that "misled" you, and I will tell you what they really say.
Your opinion on whether or not something is significant is irrelevant to whether or not it actually is significant.

No, because unlike yours, my opinion is a reasoned, informed, and impartial one.
  • 1
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 43

Biden did the exact same thing with his VP pick, o[…]

I am talking about experts and doctors silenced b[…]

Yes, China agrees with this statement of historica[…]

Please provide evidence that vitamin D is an impor[…]