CO2 is used to keep things COLD

[Indofred]

because of its great heat transfer ability

And heat retention ability.

CO2 retains heat a high school experiment

 

[jon_berzerk]

because of its great heat transfer ability

And heat retention ability.

CO2 retains heat a high school experiment

that is not accurate what so ever

if it retains heat it would be a poor choice to use as a coolant

in forced cooling the gas has to be able to easily throw off the heat it picks up

just sayin

co2 picks up heat fast and throws off heat fast

 

[jc456]

because of its great heat transfer ability

And heat retention ability.

CO2 retains heat a high school experiment

So curious, if you didn't have a meter to read the amount of CO2 in the bottle, how do you even know you had more? This is the stuff that lies come from. Uncontrolled tests and swear by the test. How long did it take to heat it up? Did you happen to take log that time? Why didn't it get warmer, or are you not one that believes CO2 makes the air warmer?

 

[mamooth]

the specific heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8

Specific heat or heat capacity (how much heat something holds) is a totally different thing than heat conductivity (how fast it transfers heat). Posting numbers for heat capacity doesn't make your claim about heat conductivity less wrong.

CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than air. Of course, that doesn't matter, since lower conductivity is not what makes it a greenhouse gas.

 

[mamooth]

So curious, if you didn't have a meter to read the amount of CO2 in the bottle, how do you even know you had more?

Because it would only take one bubble to double 400 ppm, and the bottle was bubbling merrily.

This is the stuff that lies come from.

You're extremely deficient in common sense and practical knowledge of how the world works.

And in Dunning-Kruger fashion, you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.

Nobody is lying. You're just an idiot.

 

[jc456]

So curious, if you didn't have a meter to read the amount of CO2 in the bottle, how do you even know you had more?

Because it would only take one bubble to double 400 ppm, and the bottle was bubbling merrily.

This is the stuff that lies come from.

You're extremely deficient in common sense and practical knowledge of how the world works.

And in Dunning-Kruger fashion, you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.

Nobody is lying. You're just an idiot.

nobody does a test without a control test. I guess high school lab tests are good for you and perhaps why you lack the ability to see the truth. But alas, it is obvious that you lie most everyday on here. You lack class. The day they handed out class, you went the complete opposite way. congrats!!!!

 

[Boss]

You guys and these experiments are playing around with phase transition of CO2. Keep in mind... ALL phase transition is done through heat transfer, regardless of element or compound. This is basic thermodynamics. What does this have to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

The thing that supposedly makes CO2 "bad" has nothing to do with phase transition. The arguments I've heard are surrounding the compound's ability to reflect heat. Now, it's true that CO2 does reflect heat, but it doesn't simply work in one direction. That's where I have a problem with the theory. As the CO2 is reflecting heat back in to earth it is also reflecting heat back out into space. While it's working to keep heat in the greenhouse, it is also working to block heat from entering the greenhouse.

We have to remember, the greenhouse effect is vitally important to us. Without it, along with air pressure, we would freeze to death at night as temperatures on our planet plunge to hundreds of degrees below zero and we would routinely have 300-degree days. Our atmosphere with our greenhouse effect work to keep our planet temperatures stable. CO2 is one of the most abundant natural compounds in the universe. Whether it is increasing in our atmosphere or whether this is helping to create more warming, it is not evidence that man-caused CO2 emissions are a significant contributing factor.

We know that our planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. This is nothing new. We've had periods of much warmer and cooler temperatures, LONG before human industrialization. The climate of our planet has changed so dramatically that we've had mass extinction events. But this beautiful amazing place has a seemingly mystical ability to readjust, to bring things back to normal again over time, and it has done so countless times.

 

[mamooth]

nobody does a test without a control test.

Which would be why the other bottle without elevated CO2 was there.

Again, nobody is lying. You're just profoundly stupid.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

The thing that supposedly makes CO2 "bad" has nothing to do with phase transition. The arguments I've heard are surrounding the compound's ability to reflect heat. Now, it's true that CO2 does reflect heat, but it doesn't simply work in one direction. That's where I have a problem with the theory. As the CO2 is reflecting heat back in to earth it is also reflecting heat back out into space. While it's working to keep heat in the greenhouse, it is also working to block heat from entering the greenhouse.

Well the heat is not coming from space, its coming from the Earth, which radiates heat from the incoming solar radiation that CO2 is transparent to. Yes, CO2 absorbs and emits this heat in all directions, but the fact that it is not 100% away from the planetary surface means there's a residual warming, which you touch on this in the latter part of your post.

 

[jc456]

nobody does a test without a control test.

Which would be why the other bottle without elevated CO2 was there.

Again, nobody is lying. You're just profoundly stupid.

How long did it take to heat up for both scenarios?

 

[Boss]

The thing that supposedly makes CO2 "bad" has nothing to do with phase transition. The arguments I've heard are surrounding the compound's ability to reflect heat. Now, it's true that CO2 does reflect heat, but it doesn't simply work in one direction. That's where I have a problem with the theory. As the CO2 is reflecting heat back in to earth it is also reflecting heat back out into space. While it's working to keep heat in the greenhouse, it is also working to block heat from entering the greenhouse.

Well the heat is not coming from space, its coming from the Earth, which radiates heat from the incoming solar radiation that CO2 is transparent to. Yes, CO2 absorbs and emits this heat in all directions, but the fact that it is not 100% away from the planetary surface means there's a residual warming, which you touch on this in the latter part of your post.

I disagree, the bulk of Earth's energy comes from the Sun, not the Earth. Heat is energy, according to the laws of physics and thermodynamics. So we can assume the vast amount of energy (or heat) is being produced by the Sun. Carbon dioxide is certainly not "transparent" to solar radiation. Solar radiation is heat energy itself, so the laws of physics still apply to carbon dioxide with regard to incoming energy. This is what enables our atmosphere to form a protective shell, which is the same thing that causes greenhouse effect.

Look... the key thing here is this, there is nothing wrong with having a vibrant greenhouse effect. Have you ever seen lifelessness in a greenhouse? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes all plant life to thrive and grow more vigorously. It enables cells in plants and trees to retain water longer, and there is nothing else in nature that does this better.

This is what is so hilarious to me about this debate... The Tree Huggers are all on board with this war on CO2! Did you ALL fail science or something?

Now.... Smarty-pants will argue; whadda we do when all the glaciers melt and flood the coast? And I say, by the time that happens, the melting ice in the ocean will have disrupted the natural convection cycles in our oceans and all the sea life will be dead. So... bigger 'fish to fry' than coastal flooding, pardon the pun. Earth's Nature is not in our ability to control, and that is really what the issue is here. Some think that it is and others realize it's not. I think this planet can destroy us before we ever come close to destroying it.

 

[Crick]

I have seen lifelessness in a greenhouse. We had one on our roof in Kansas when I was a kid. The temperature there on a summer day would be over 130. It roasted even cacti we tried to grow. Bad design.

 

[Old Rocks]

The thing that supposedly makes CO2 "bad" has nothing to do with phase transition. The arguments I've heard are surrounding the compound's ability to reflect heat. Now, it's true that CO2 does reflect heat, but it doesn't simply work in one direction. That's where I have a problem with the theory. As the CO2 is reflecting heat back in to earth it is also reflecting heat back out into space. While it's working to keep heat in the greenhouse, it is also working to block heat from entering the greenhouse.

Well the heat is not coming from space, its coming from the Earth, which radiates heat from the incoming solar radiation that CO2 is transparent to. Yes, CO2 absorbs and emits this heat in all directions, but the fact that it is not 100% away from the planetary surface means there's a residual warming, which you touch on this in the latter part of your post.

I disagree, the bulk of Earth's energy comes from the Sun, not the Earth. Heat is energy, according to the laws of physics and thermodynamics. So we can assume the vast amount of energy (or heat) is being produced by the Sun. Carbon dioxide is certainly not "transparent" to solar radiation. Solar radiation is heat energy itself, so the laws of physics still apply to carbon dioxide with regard to incoming energy. This is what enables our atmosphere to form a protective shell, which is the same thing that causes greenhouse effect.

Look... the key thing here is this, there is nothing wrong with having a vibrant greenhouse effect. Have you ever seen lifelessness in a greenhouse? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes all plant life to thrive and grow more vigorously. It enables cells in plants and trees to retain water longer, and there is nothing else in nature that does this better.

This is what is so hilarious to me about this debate... The Tree Huggers are all on board with this war on CO2! Did you ALL fail science or something?

Now.... Smarty-pants will argue; whadda we do when all the glaciers melt and flood the coast? And I say, by the time that happens, the melting ice in the ocean will have disrupted the natural convection cycles in our oceans and all the sea life will be dead. So... bigger 'fish to fry' than coastal flooding, pardon the pun. Earth's Nature is not in our ability to control, and that is really what the issue is here. Some think that it is and others realize it's not. I think this planet can destroy us before we ever come close to destroying it.

Virtually all the earths surface energy comes from the sun. And much of it gets reflected or reradiated back into space. Change the amount that is reflected or reradiated back into space, and you change the amount of heat on the surface of the earth. Since CO2 is a GHG, then increasing the amount in the atmosphere by 40% is going to increase the amount of heat on earth. Simple as that.

As for the rest of your arguements, argue that with a biologist. Most I have discussed the issue with, state that it is a very mixed bag, as far as human agriculture is concerned.

 

[mamooth]

Carbon dioxide is certainly not "transparent" to solar radiation.

Yes, it basically is. You're getting the science wrong.

Most of the energy in solar radiation is in the visible light spectrum. CO2 is transparent to that. Thus, most of the sun's energy passes through the atmosphere and hits the earth, unless clouds or aerosol particles block it.

That energy is converted to heat and leaves the earth as infrared radiation. And CO2 does block that. Hence, it only holds heat in. It does not block incoming energy. The atmosphere does not form a "protective shell", period.

 

[Boss]

Carbon dioxide is certainly not "transparent" to solar radiation.

Yes, it basically is. You're getting the science wrong.

Most of the energy in solar radiation is in the visible light spectrum. CO2 is transparent to that. Thus, most of the sun's energy passes through the atmosphere and hits the earth, unless clouds or aerosol particles block it.

That energy is converted to heat and leaves the earth as infrared radiation. And CO2 does block that. Hence, it only holds heat in. It does not block incoming energy. The atmosphere does not form a "protective shell", period.

No, basically it's not. I'm not getting the science wrong. CO2 doesn't care if something is in the visible light spectrum. It reflects all heat energy equally. Yes, most of the Sun's energy passes through our atmosphere and hits earth, unless it is blocked by clouds or by the ozone layer, as well as our thick stratosphere, where the greenhouse gases reside. Our atmosphere is a system, and yes it does provide a "protective shell" against solar radiation, if it didn't, everything would die. Now, maybe you're taking exception with terminology when I say "shell" and you'd rather hear something like "layer" instead? I don't know, but we are protected by the atmosphere, of which carbon dioxide is a part of.

There are many other factors as to how earth obtains heat energy from the Sun, most notably, the physical activity of the Sun itself. Humans have no control over this but we know that the amount of energy the Sun puts out is not a constant. This means that at any given period, our planet may encounter a warming or cooling that is totally unrelated to the atmosphere. In addition, there are a myriad of earthly (natural) phenomenon which can contribute massively to the levels of greenhouse gas in relatively short periods of time. An average volcano erupting will generate more CO2, along with methane, water vapor, sulfur, sulfur dioxide, raw carbon ash, etc. into the atmosphere, than man could produce if he worked 24/7/365 for 2k years. It's just mind-boggling at the amount of CO2 which is dispersed into the atmosphere from mother nature alone. The oceans produce CO2, but they also retain it as well.

We can't affect any change in climate through trying to manipulate man-made CO2. The whole entire thing is a scam to empower more government control over capitalism. Paying government agents a carbon offset tax does not one thing about the nature of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere. To put this bluntly, it's a Socialist con game.

 

[Crick]

Boss, do you understand this diagram?

Mamooth is correct. CO2 IS transparent to visible light but absorbs parts of the infrared spectrum. Visible light comes through the atmosphere (except for aerosols and clouds, which reflect it back up to space) and is absorbed by the surface (land or sea). The surface gets warmed which increases the energy it radiates upward in the infrared spectrum. CO2 absorbs parts of that - the peaks in its absorption spectrum above, particularly the two highest that aren't fully absorbed by water vapor - which increases it's temperature. That's how greenhouse warming works.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a socialist con game.

 

[jon_berzerk]

because of its great heat transfer ability

And heat retention ability.

CO2 retains heat a high school experiment

So curious, if you didn't have a meter to read the amount of CO2 in the bottle, how do you even know you had more? This is the stuff that lies come from. Uncontrolled tests and swear by the test. How long did it take to heat it up? Did you happen to take log that time? Why didn't it get warmer, or are you not one that believes CO2 makes the air warmer?

yeah --LOL in the mythbusters "test" co2 was greater then 7 percent of the atmosphere

--LOL

which is closer to mars then earth but who cares when advancing man made global warming

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

the specific heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8

Specific heat or heat capacity (how much heat something holds) is a totally different thing than heat conductivity (how fast it transfers heat). Posting numbers for heat capacity doesn't make your claim about heat conductivity less wrong.

CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than air. Of course, that doesn't matter, since lower conductivity is not what makes it a greenhouse gas.

other then the fact that co2 heats and cools faster then air which btw is transferring heat

just think about it for a second pudding head --LOL

 

[Crick]

The Myth-Busters video clearly states that they reproduced atmospheric conditions. They used a certified gas engineer to establish the setup and named him and his employer. They would not have allowed their names to be used on television with a fraudulent setup.

 

[Crick]

the specific heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8

Specific heat or heat capacity (how much heat something holds) is a totally different thing than heat conductivity (how fast it transfers heat). Posting numbers for heat capacity doesn't make your claim about heat conductivity less wrong.

CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than air. Of course, that doesn't matter, since lower conductivity is not what makes it a greenhouse gas.

other then the fact that co2 heats and cools faster then air which btw is transferring heat

just think about it for a second pudding head --LOL

You've never taken thermo, have you.