CO2 is used to keep things COLD

[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

You've never taken thermo, have you.

if anything warmed co2 rises and dumps the heat into space

it certainly is not retaining the heat

--LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

And all of the physicists worldwide state that you are wrong.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[jon_berzerk]

heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body

i do not know which physicist

would disagree with that and then

claim to be a physicist with a straight face

--LOL

 

[Crick]

I know of no physicists that would reject the greenhouse effect, which is precisely what you are attempting to do.

Look, it's quite obvious that you know almost nothing of physics, chemistry or thermodynamics, while a number of other posters here do. You know that and so does everyone else. So, why do you bother with this?

 

[jon_berzerk]

the green house effect and man made global warming are two different things

--LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.

Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulneable to changes in temperature and precipitation.

 

[Crick]

I'd back up a bit. Please explain why you believe AGW and the greenhouse effect to be two different things.

 

[mamooth]

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

Crick covered your fundamental physics error here in detail, so no need to go over that part again.

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.

The sun has been cooling a bit lately. That proves changes in solar output are not driving the current warming.

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.

No. Just wrong. All the world's volcanoes combined only emit about 1% as much CO2 as humans do.

We can't affect any change in climate through trying to manipulate man-made CO2.

The science simply disagrees with you.

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.

What's more likely?

A. A vast global socialist conspiracy exists, and you're one of the elite few critical thinkers who recognizes the RealTruth.

B. Your understanding is lacking.

Non-paranoid and non-narcissistic humans will pick "B", realizing that they themselves making an error is much more likely than there being a secret global conspiracy directed against them. If you answered "A", you place yourself firmly in the category of "conspiracy theorist".

 

[Boss]

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

Crick covered your fundamental physics error here in detail, so no need to go over that part again.

There's no error. Crick double-clutched and shifted gears to another argument which wasn't being had. My argument was that CO2 doesn't cause only bad things to happen in only one direction. All the graphs and charts in the world can't change that fact.

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.

The sun has been cooling a bit lately. That proves changes in solar output are not driving the current warming.

Again, sun output is not a constant. It changes all the time. What do you mean by "cooling lately?" Because median global air temps have only risen 1 degree in 100 years. Here's the facts... The sun could shoot out a solar flare and cause more global warming than we could eliminate by closing every CO2-producing factory in the world.

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.

No. Just wrong. All the world's volcanoes combined only emit about 1% as much CO2 as humans do.

Well, all the world's volcanoes are not erupting, so you can't make this argument. I can go find statistics from Mt. St. Helen which shows how many metric tons of crap went into the atmosphere, but you've obviously been brainwashed against this.

We can't affect any change in climate through trying to manipulate man-made CO2.

The science simply disagrees with you.

No, science does not disagree with me. Show us the evidence which suggests that our efforts to manipulate man-made CO2 has resulted in actual change in climate, and I'll have a look.

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.

What's more likely?

A. A vast global socialist conspiracy exists, and you're one of the elite few critical thinkers who recognizes the RealTruth.

B. Your understanding is lacking.

Non-paranoid and non-narcissistic humans will pick "B", realizing that they themselves making an error is much more likely than there being a secret global conspiracy directed against them. If you answered "A", you place yourself firmly in the category of "conspiracy theorist".

It's not a conspiracy, it's an outright assault on free market capitalism. Most thinking and rational people realize this, or they should. You're among the NON-critical thinkers who is running around carrying the water for Socialists because you're a socialist.

 

[Boss]

I'd back up a bit. Please explain why you believe AGW and the greenhouse effect to be two different things.

Most people realize they are two different things because of the different terms. The greenhouse effect has been happening for over 3 billion years. It's what keeps our environment relatively stable, protecting us from solar radiation, enabling air pressure, enabling a weather system, allowing the evaporation process and climate to function. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a recent theory that man-made contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere is causing substantial global warming. Keyword here is Anthropogenic.... means it's cause by human activity.

 

[Boss]

OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.

Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulneable to changes in temperature and precipitation.

There is no change taking place in a short period of time. Relative surface air temperatures have only risen 1 degree in 100 years. This 'alarming' change is what we are spending trillions of dollars on and seeking trillions more from capitalism and industry in imposing more stringent guidelines.

More greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. It increases plant life which means more people can be fed per acre of farmland. Over time, deserts can even become grasslands. Forests become thicker and more lush. These are hardly results which are detrimental to humans.

 

[Tuckwolf]

I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.

CO2 is used in industry to control the quality while making breads, which gives us better food, meaning we can feed more people. Democrats in California have taxed the use of CO2, as a pollutant?

Flour Dough Cooling Systems for the Baking Industry Praxair Inc.

FLOUR & DOUGH COOLING SYSTEMS FOR THE BAKING INDUSTRY

• Share
  
• Print

Mixing consistency in every batch
Optimum dough temperature is critical to any bakery operation. Our specially designed flour and dough cooling systems provide precise, easy-to-operate methods to achieve your required temperature. Our systems use cryogens, either carbon dioxide or nitrogen, to automatically cool your product.

With direct cryogen injection, you can maintain precise control of the temperature of your flour and dough products, resulting in optimum product quality. Additionally, the use of our fully-automated systems eliminates potential human error involved in the manual addition of ice, thus providing for a reduction in labor costs, as well as consistency of batches regardless of seasonal temperature variations, batch size or production levels. Cost-effectively achieve the product quality you desire every time with Praxair’s flour and dough cooling systems.

How old are you, 9?

 

[mamooth]

The sun could shoot out a solar flare and cause more global warming than we could eliminate by closing every CO2-producing factory in the world.

Um, no. Solar flares do not significantly heat the earth; they send out high-energy subatomic particles. Across a wide array of science topics, you don't know what you're talking about.

Well, all the world's volcanoes are not erupting, so you can't make this argument. I can go find statistics from Mt. St. Helen which shows how many metric tons of crap went into the atmosphere, but you've obviously been brainwashed against this.

No, you can't, because that's a steaming pile. I'm calling your bluff on it now. And you're going to cut and run.

We've been patient with you Boss, but your belligerent ignorance is getting too much to bear. A bright sixth grader is better informed than you on this topic. Our attempts to educate are wasted on you. You want to be stupid, because non-stupid people are booted from your fringe political cult, and nothing matters more to you than your status in that herd.

It's a tragedy, sort of. Your BS meter is busted, so you had no mental defenses against being sucked in by a conspiracy cult. Another mind lost to superstition and psuedoscience. I hope the emotional gratification that your cult affiliation gets you will make enduring the resulting lifetime of ridicule worth it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.

Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulnerable to changes in temperature and precipitation.

When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place.

there is no proof in the record that in the past co2 caused the warming

the record looks like co2 lagged behind the warm periods

Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself.

no it is not bad the development of man has always done better in warm periods

vs cold periods


having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing.

it is not really warming not so in the past 15 or so years and certainly

not like the models predicted

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'd back up a bit. Please explain why you believe AGW and the greenhouse effect to be two different things.

i am quite surprised you would ask such a question

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong answer there, Jon. Explain just how the Greenhouse effect is differant from AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.

Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulneable to changes in temperature and precipitation.

There is no change taking place in a short period of time. Relative surface air temperatures have only risen 1 degree in 100 years. This 'alarming' change is what we are spending trillions of dollars on and seeking trillions more from capitalism and industry in imposing more stringent guidelines.

More greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. It increases plant life which means more people can be fed per acre of farmland. Over time, deserts can even become grasslands. Forests become thicker and more lush. These are hardly results which are detrimental to humans.

Look, Boss, apparently you think that the deniar nuts have the science right on this. They most certainly do not. First, until 2000, they stated that there was no warming happening, in spite of the obvious evidence there was. Now they are claiming that adding an additional 40+% of CO2 to the atmosphere, an additional 250% of CH4, and many industrial gases that have no natural analogs, and are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2 is not increasing the heat that the atmosphere retains.

You want to know the real facts? Go to physicists, and here is the American Institute of Physics website on this very issue.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wrong answer there, Jon. Explain just how the Greenhouse effect is differant from AGW.

if you dont know the difference between greenhouse effect and AGW then i am quite surprised at the both of you

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, are you going to keep us in suspense, or are you going to enlighten us with your brilliant hypothesis of why the greenhouse effect is differant than AGW?

 

[mamooth]

the record looks like co2 lagged behind the warm periods

That's actually very much in doubt. It's unclear whether CO2 lagged or led in the past.

If you stack the CO2 records of the ice cores up against the temperature records of the ice cores layer against layer, it looks like CO2 lags temp. However, that's not the correct thing to do.

In the ice cores, CO2 measurements come from the air bubbles in the ice, while temperature measurements come from isotope ratios in the ice itself. The problem is that the snow/ice remains air-permeable for a long time after being set down, from a thousand years to several thousand years. The air bubbles in any given layer of ice are substantially younger than the ice itself is.

This recent paper tries to resolve the age difference and correlate CO2 with temp on the correct time scale, and finds that CO2 and temperature are essentially synchronized.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
---
Abstract
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---