Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where is your proof that it affects the atmosphere? The theroy has never been proven. Only your models say it does while empirical evidence disproves your assumption. That missing hot spot is a bitch..To change temperature at he boundary you must have competing mass/mass knowledge(atmosphere components and their respective responses). How can you determine CO2's capability if you do not have the mass/mass break down and physical evidence of reaction to prove it?Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?
Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?
It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?
Non sequitur. The hotspot is a prediction based on faulty understanding of water feedbacks.
I am stating that CO2 warms the atmosphere at the boundary, which returns energy to the surface by various means and causes the equilibrium surface temperature to increase.
Discuss CO2 and stop trying to change the subject.
Gobbledygook. CO2 absorbs surface radiation centred on 15 microns that otherwise would escape directly to space if CO2 wasn't there.
I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.CO2 has zero effect on warming.
The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.
It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.
Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.
I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.CO2 has zero effect on warming.
The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.
It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.
Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.
To change temperature at he boundary you must have competing mass/mass knowledge(atmosphere components and their respective responses). How can you determine CO2's capability if you do not have the mass/mass break down and physical evidence of reaction to prove it?Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?
Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?
It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?
Non sequitur. The hotspot is a prediction based on faulty understanding of water feedbacks.
I am stating that CO2 warms the atmosphere at the boundary, which returns energy to the surface by various means and causes the equilibrium surface temperature to increase.
Discuss CO2 and stop trying to change the subject.
Gobbledygook. CO2 absorbs surface radiation centred on 15 microns that otherwise would escape directly to space if CO2 wasn't there.
LOL...I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.CO2 has zero effect on warming.
The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.
It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.
Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio.CO2 has zero effect on warming.
The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.
It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.
Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.
As per usual, you show no familiarity with common science.
CO2 does not have a liquid state except under highly artificial conditions.
Energy residency time? Hahahaha. Are you taking about how CO2 absorbs a photon and then gives up that energy by molecular collision to the atmosphere? Warming the atmosphere?
Residency time of energy in the CO2 molecule is less than 0.1 nanoseconds Thus it can not vibrate to warm. It must collide with other molecules to warm
You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
Escaping radiation in the 12-20um band has not been reduced in the last 46 years according to satellite data
Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
I have never read anything that is as stupid as this, honestly.
We can not remove energy from CO2, period.
You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
CO2 is used to keep stuff cold, it does a better job at that then ICE.
Dry ice is made by removing energy? You have zero understanding of CO2 and how it is turned into dry ice yet you claim to understand CO2 in the atmosphere?
Dry ice is made by freezing and pressurizing CO2 in its gaseous form, it then becomes a liquid, which is further pressurized, causing some of the CO2 to escape, which results in an extreme drop of temperature which freezes the liquid into a block.
If you are so naive to make a statement that is not close to being accurate about a simple process concerning CO2, you have zero understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
CO2 is used to keep stuff cold, it does a better job at that then ICE.
Dry ice is made by removing energy? You have zero understanding of CO2 and how it is turned into dry ice yet you claim to understand CO2 in the atmosphere?
Dry ice is made by freezing and pressurizing CO2 in its gaseous form, it then becomes a liquid, which is further pressurized, causing some of the CO2 to escape, which results in an extreme drop of temperature which freezes the liquid into a block.
If you are so naive to make a statement that is not close to being accurate about a simple process concerning CO2, you have zero understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You are disagreeing with something I did not say, your comprehension suffers a bit.What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.
CO2 is used to keep stuff cold, it does a better job at that then ICE.
Dry ice is made by removing energy? You have zero understanding of CO2 and how it is turned into dry ice yet you claim to understand CO2 in the atmosphere?
Dry ice is made by freezing and pressurizing CO2 in its gaseous form, it then becomes a liquid, which is further pressurized, causing some of the CO2 to escape, which results in an extreme drop of temperature which freezes the liquid into a block.
If you are so naive to make a statement that is not close to being accurate about a simple process concerning CO2, you have zero understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Didn’t read this before my previous reply to you. The problem here comes in your misunderstanding of the process of freezing.
When something freezes energy leave the system in the form of heat.
You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.
Absorption is not limited by temperature but emission is. CO2 can only lose radiation to space much higher up where the air is thinner and much colder. The amount of 14-16 micron radiation lost to space is much less than the amount that enters at the surface. The differential is the amount of warming influence caused by the presence of CO2.
You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.
Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.
We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.
If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.
Then why do you choose to ignore 96.8% of the window?You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.
Good grief! Physicists and chemists have been measuring absorption by different substances, in different wavelengths, for hundreds of years.
Why are you bringing H2O into discussion? Water vapour is a poor absorber in almost all wavelengths between 14-16 microns. Or 8-14 microns as well. That is why it is called the atmospheric window. Without CO2 being present the AW would be considered as 8-16 microns, and a lot more radiation would directly escape to space.
