Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

The questions are about the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not if CO2 absorbs IR photons, while letting visible light through.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The questions are about the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not if CO2 absorbs IR photons, while letting visible light through.

I still have no clue why you have problems with it?

 

[r-j]

I've never claimed any "problem with it", I wanted to see if anyone here understood the physics of how CO2 acts to warm both the surface and the atmosphere.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I've never claimed any "problem with it", I wanted to see if anyone here understood the physics of how CO2 acts to warm both the surface and the atmosphere.

Depends how detailed you want to know. I know up to the physics class at Rose-Hulman I took 30 years ago as a freshman. But Physics can potentially get as detailed and complicated as you want. Far beyond what I know.

ETA Wouldn't you say that your claim that we don't know is simply an obfuscation? Do I have to know all the physics of light in photosynthesis to grow a tomato? Or is it enough to know I need a sunny area, then deal with other requirements like water and fertile soil?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post
. If we don't know the mechanism of how CO2 causes warming, there is no way to attribute causation to an increase in CO2.

don't try attribute your ignorance of basic physics off on others. You were given the links many times

Timeline (Milestones)
Here are gathered in chronological sequence the most important events in the history of climate change science. (For a narrative see the Introduction: summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself. Following it is a list of other external influences.

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.

1824
Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere. =>Simple models

1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change. =>Other gases
1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. =>Simple models http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M018

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

Now will you let people who actually have something to contribute have a conversation about climate change science without constant repetitious questions from you that have already been answered. Is that really too much to ask.

This thread is not about you it's about climate science....you have been provided with enough links for a lifetime of exploration and you continue to waste everyone's time without showing any indication of the having read or comprehended any of the material.

 

[r-j]

Depends how detailed you want to know.

I was very simple with my questions.

In the pursuit of education, please describe the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth. And the lower troposphere.

Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy, or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR?

Is there a difference between the two?

The only person who simply answered said, "Yes, yes and yes".

I don't think they understood the questions.

 

[r-j]

I'll probably need to explain that.

Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy, or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR?

Is there a difference between the two?

Yes, yes and yes

So we see the questions and answers as, "Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy?" Yes

"or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR" yes

"Is there a difference between the two?" yes

You can't say the only way CO2 warms is by re-radiating IR, and also say it does so by translational kinetic energy, that isn't possible.

Which is why I said he didn't understand the questions.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'll probably need to explain that.



So we see the questions and answers as, "Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy?" Yes

"or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR" yes

"Is there a difference between the two?" yes

You can't say the only way CO2 warms is by re-radiating IR, and also say it does so by translational kinetic energy, that isn't possible.

Which is why I said he didn't understand the questions.

OK so fine. You nit picked an answer. And what? Because of a minor linguistics trick AGW isn't scientific? Because I have got to say, it sounds like you are obfuscating again.....or still.......

I'll tell you why it bothers me. You can sit there at your keyboard and argue minor debate points forever. To someone who actually has no basic physics and depends on scientists to do the analysis of AGW, they might even think you have a valid point in that mass of obfuscation. Then what? You convince people there is nothing happening? What does that solve besides causing a whole lot of unnecessary suffering due to a failure to act?

I have seen you complain about the so called "doom and gloom" posts some people make. Well? It's only doom and gloom if we don't act. Your obfuscation along with many more with your agenda is causing the failure to act! The very rejection of the "doom and gloom" argument is making it valid, simply because you are rejecting it incorrectly! The way you prove the "doom and gloom" wrong is by acting to make it wrong, not by ignoring it or endlessly arguing.

I'll make it real simple. A lion is running at you. A friend says, "Hey! Here comes a lion, run, climb a tree, grab a gun! The lion will eat you." Most wise people would do all three and right away. But even if they can't do all three, they will do SOMETHING. If they react they prove the lookout wrong. The lion won't eat anyone, because they reacted. But if they stand there and argue the lion might eat something else, or it might step on a poison snake, or it might get afraid and stop its charge, or they argue it can only eat one person and the rest will be fine.....that's the surest way to make the "doom and gloom" prediction true! The lion will eat you, because you were obstinate and did nothing.

Our lookouts in this case are the climate scientists. They have done their duty in warning you. Instead of arguing with them, find a way to act. You don't like their gloom and doom predictions? Then prove them wrong by acting and encouraging others to act as well. Don't prove them right by arguing over nothing but a silly debate point. It's foolish.

 

[DC]

Nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from solving the problem of fossil fuels. Or discussing how bad it will all be, or really saying anything at all.

aaah you are still running away from my questions, very very telling.

so you blatantly lied. or have you found a part here http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
that shows people here do not understand GHG's?
why do you need to blatantly lie

 

[DC]

I've never claimed any "problem with it", I wanted to see if anyone here understood the physics of how CO2 acts to warm both the surface and the atmosphere.

and people explained it to you very well and in detail. yet you then falsely claimed people here do not understand GHG's. why did you lie?

 

[a_unique_person]

The questions are about the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not if CO2 absorbs IR photons, while letting visible light through.

That's kind of the physics, too.

 

[DC]

That's kind of the physics, too.

it is, but he does not know what he is talking about, he is totally clueless.

 

[Belz...]

You see? Nobody can stop you from discussing the state of the doomed planet.

Planet's fine.

 

[Belz...]

It's just humor, even when you see somebody who is serious about it, it's still just a joke.

Hard to tell sometimes.

Seriously, do we get this kind of denialism outside of North America ?

 

[DC]

It's just humor, even when you see somebody who is serious about it, it's still just a joke.

That isn't supported by any evidence.

and another lie. this is very well supported by evidence, and several people here have already linked you to the evidence, your denial does not change that fact in any way.

why do you need to lie so often?

 

[r-j]

Or maybe the total inability to Wikipedia articles:
Greenhouse effect

Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed (the overlap between the incident solar spectrum and the terrestrial thermal spectrum is small enough to be neglected for most purposes). Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface.

What I want to know, which was stated clearly in the questions, is if that is true or not. Is that the only way CO2 warms the planet? By warming the surface?

Because if the greenhouse effect from CO2 is only IR being "sent back down" to the surface, that is a certain type of warming. The CO2 keeps IR from escaping back to space, and that certainly would be considered "trapping" the energy. The energy keeps getting sent back down, rather than escaping.

But does it also somehow warm the atmosphere, the air itself? Obviously this would not be from the IR re-radiated. If it does actually warm the nitrogen and oxygen molecules of the air, that is a different type of effect.

And if that is going on, then obviously the Greenhouse effect article is wrong.

None of this changes that CO2 absorbs IR photons. It's what happens after that I am wondering about.

 

[Belz...]

But does it also somehow warm the atmosphere, the air itself?

"Somehow" ?

 

[r-j]

OK so fine. You nit picked an answer. And what? Because of a minor linguistics trick AGW isn't scientific?

You are missing several points. First, I really want to know what happens, and I certainly don't doubt that CO2 absorbs IR, does anybody doubt that? I want to know if, and how, CO2 warms the air itself, rather than just the surface of the world.

Second, some of the people here are exceedingly insulting, act like answering a question is a terrible thing to ask of them, and they insist they are smart and everybody else is below them, or up to no good. It's quite enjoyable when they display their ignorance. All the more so when nobody else calls them on it. They can dish it out, but they seem very upset when they have to take it.

I'll tell you why it bothers me. You can sit there at your keyboard and argue minor debate points forever.

I don't consider the mechanism of how CO2 warms the world a "minor point". In fact, it's quite the major issue. How much it will do so is also a major issue. If we don't understand how CO2 acts, how can you even guess at the effects?

Then what? You convince people there is nothing happening?

How do you jump to that conclusion? Understanding the physics of how CO2 is changing the heat balance is a critical issue. How in the world would understanding this convince anyone that "nothing is happening?". As if anything could do that in the first place?

Are you kidding me? You would have to overturn the laws of physics to convince anyone that global warming isn't happening, good luck with that.

No, as I said, I actually want to know, and find a science topic about global warming to be the perfect place to discuss CO2 and how it warms the world.

It's much more scientific that blaming people, judging others and leaping about crying "They are destroying the world!". I don't find any of that scientific in the least.

And remember, I certainly am 100% against coal, and the pollution from oil, and the dirty mess fossil fuels create, and I fully support any and all efforts to use renewable clean energy sources. This inquiry into the physics of greenhouse warming has nothing to do with fossil fuels, which I have stated multiple times, I despise.

 

[r-j]

"Somehow" ?

Yes, don't act dense. Obviously if it warms the surface by IR radiation, that will increase warming of the air at the surface.

But does it warm the air directly? And if so, how?

If you know the answer, it isn't a hard question.

 

[DC]

Yes, don't act dense. Obviously if it warms the surface by IR radiation, that will increase warming of the air at the surface.

But does it warm the air directly? And if so, how?

If you know the answer, it isn't a hard question.

why do you not look up this yourself? numerous sources have been provided to you that explains this in great Detail. all you have to do is actually read it. then you sure can ask us about the Details you did not understand, and People surely are glad to help you. but you have to atleast Show some effort and willingness to actually read the stuff People provide to you.

and why do you constantly ignore questions posed to you?
why do you Need to be so extremely dishonest? that is also very unscientific.....