CO2 – Dumb question

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Global warming: Another view.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 11/08/2022 23:37:20:

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 22:33:59:

An appeal to authority is a perfectly valid argument when the authority is accepted as an expert(s) in the field and has presented a valid array of data, evidence and reasoning to support their assertion, as Dunning and Kruger have done.

Richard Feynman tells us, "It doesn't matter who you are, how clever you are, how beautiful your idea is, if it disagrees with nature, with experiment, then it is wrong.

Climate experts have made many predictions and not one has passed this test so they are wrong.

Simples

Robin

It is a fact that many climate scientists have made many predictions that the empirical evidence has later agreed with. Just one example, out of many:

A 2019 study led by Zeke Hausfather evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found "14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred."

Source: LINK to Skeptical Science debunking

You should take the time to read every article on that site carefully. It will debunk the misinformation you have been reading on fossil-fuel funded pseudo-scientific websites and other ideologically driven sites with their own agenda.

No, it is not "Simples " , at all. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect making you think a very complex matter is so simple that you know more about it than thousands of the world's leading scientists when the proof is readily available to verify their findings.

Edited By Hopper on 12/08/2022 04:54:00

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by Hopper on 12/08/2022 04:51:18:

No, it is not "Simples " , at all. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect making you think a very complex matter is so simple that you know more about it than thousands of the world's leading scientists when the proof is readily available to verify their findings.

Climate science isn't Simples, it is bogus. What is Simples is a Richard Feynman explanation when he comes down to your level.

Okay, all the climate predictions are true and I missed the poles being ice-free, tropical islands disappearing under the sea, numerous extinctions, crop failures etc. There is a list if you want it.

Obviously switching from BBC to GB News means I am being fed the wrong propaganda

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 12/08/2022 10:05:16:

Posted by Hopper on 12/08/2022 04:51:18:

No, it is not "Simples " , at all. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect making you think a very complex matter is so simple that you know more about it than thousands of the world's leading scientists when the proof is readily available to verify their findings.

…

Okay, all the climate predictions are true and I missed the poles being ice-free, tropical islands disappearing under the sea, numerous extinctions, crop failures etc. There is a list if you want it.

Obviously switching from BBC to GB News means I am being fed the wrong propaganda

 

Well, polar ice caps are dwindling, with already serious effects LINK

Tropical islands are steadily being overtaken by rising sea levels LINK

Current extinction rate is over 100 times the norm of geological timescales LINK

Impacts on crops are not expected by scientists (NASA) to become serious for another 10 years yet LINK

If you have missed all this, you have not been paying attention.

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 12/08/2022 11:06:14

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Saying it might have happened a bit more than we thought it should, is not exactly the "prediction come true" scientific clincher you seem to think it is.

However, we don't need to argue. Science can be mistaken temporarily but it always sorts itself out in the end.

Robin

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

I hold not strong views on the general debate. I have already accepted that man must contribute to the ever changing climate.

I do despair at absolutists in either extreme, especially if their views are expressed in an unpleasant or disparaging way.

We must accept that motivated reasoning colours much of this forum’s content. That said I welcome members such as Hopper putting links before us. It is just a pity that his offerings are uncritical. One example,as I have not read through all on offer, is the correct comment on Antarctic ice reduction ,but no observation on the artic ice being at a 3 decade high.This is like a criminal prosecutor suppressing exculpatory information to secure conviction/ win an argument . No mention of the Norwegian Geological survey concluding from mapping sea ice ledges that the artic ocean was periodically ice free. I do not know what this means but surely it must intrigue anyone with an enquiring mind? Or, we are like medieval peasants chanting the liturgy in Latin, a language we neither speak nor understand.

Just as a parting shot…..why do these internet back and forth always talk of the “ world’s leading scientists”? What happened to the vast mass of non- leading scientists? Are they dismissed as they hold a differing view and have failed some undeclared purity test?

Off to lie in the sun now………

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 12/08/2022 12:28:40:

Saying it might have happened a bit more than we thought it should, is not exactly the "prediction come true" scientific clincher you seem to think it is.

That is not what they are saying.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Paul Rhodes on 12/08/2022 12:36:30:,,,

…One example,as I have not read through all on offer, is the correct comment on Antarctic ice reduction ,but no observation on the artic ice being at a 3 decade high.This is like a criminal prosecutor suppressing exculpatory information to secure conviction/ win an argument .

Err no.

"We lose Arctic sea ice at a rate of almost 13% per decade, and over the past 30 years, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95%.

If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040."

source: LINK

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Following the science, I'm more inclined to be guided by the details in the document I linked to a few posts ago, which states that CO2 levels are an effect of climate change, not a cause.

Martin.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Robin on 12/08/2022 12:28:40:

Saying it might have happened a bit more than we thought it should, is not exactly the "prediction come true" scientific clincher you seem to think it is.

However, we don't need to argue. Science can be mistaken temporarily but it always sorts itself out in the end.

Robin

I find it hard to understand Robin's logic. Evidence has been building in favour of climate change for over 30 years and – so far – no new evidence has contradicted the theory. And weather patterns are changing as predicted by the theory – more unusual weather more often.

The scientific foundations aren't controversial. Weather is caused by heat and there is no doubt it comes from the sun.

This is true even though no-one has physically visited the sun and taken samples. By other means, science has a good understanding of the sun's thermonuclear reactions and how much energy it radiates into space. On the ground it's trivially easy to measure how much heat arrives at the earth's surface: it averages about 1kW per square metre.

1kW per square metre hitting an area of half 510,000,000 square kilometres is a lot!!! Fortunately most of the energy reflects or radiates back out into space overnight.

Life is possible because a small proportion of the sun's energy is captured by the plants and microorganisms sitting at the bottom of the food chain. Much larger quantities of energy drive the planet's weather: between the tropics air and moisture rise from sea level into the upper atmosphere and are replaced by cool air from towards the poles causing a rotation, twisted as the earth spins. Warm and cool water in the oceans rotate in the same way.  The amount of energy being stored is enormous.

The thermodynamics driving weather is well understood. The same sums lie behind car engines and power stations. We know what causes deserts, rain, hurricanes, blizzards, water-spouts, ice at the poles, and why Britain is warmer than Chicago despite being further north. Although air-flows and sea-currents interact in complex ways when they collide, it's even possible to predict European weather fairly accurately a few months in advance by measuring what's going on in the Atlantic and crunching the numbers.

Here's the bad news: the amount of heat accumulating at the planet's surface has been slowly increasing for at least 50 years. Not obvious to the casual observer, but instruments can see it. The effects become more obvious with every passing year. Thermodynamic theory, which is well understood by science, predicts more heat will cause the weather to become more turbulent everywhere. And that's what's happening.

What's causing heat to accumulate? Measurements confirm the sun isn't putting out any extra heat and volcanos and industry don't produce enough heat to explain the rise either. Something else is causing the planet to warm up.

In the laboratory it's easy to identify gases that have a 'green-house' effect. Several have this effect, and two of the strongest are increasing in the air because of human activity. Adding tiny quantities of Methane or Carbon Dioxide to air in the lab show they both make air a much better heat insulator. The experiment can be done by anyone and the results are repeatable.

Different measurements show the rising temperatures around the world are consistent with the increasing amount of Methane and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. The extra insulation is keeping heat on earth that previously escaped into space.  

Methane and Carbon Dioxide look very much like a smoking gun, and there are no other serious suspects. Water vapour is also a green-house gas, but the correlation with temperature increase is weak.

Climate might be defined as the average weather effecting a whole region. A likely outcome of more turbulent weather is that it will shift the average enough to amount to climate change everywhere. Major change to agriculture and where people can live. Population shifts are likely. May be off-the-scale hard to imagine, but that's where the consensus suggests we're heading.

That the planet is warming up isn't something individuals can choose to believe in or not. The consequence of allowing a system to overheat isn't the gift of politicians. If you don't believe me, go for a long drive with no water in the radiator or put a couple of extra blankets on the bed tonight. (Stinking hot in the UK today!)

Floods predicted here because the ground has dried out and a burst of heavy rain is approaching. Heavy rain hitting dry ground often runs off rather than soaks in: flash floods are dangerous in many desert regions.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 14:30:35

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

How does CO2 trap the heat?

Martin.

[Chris MateParticipant @chrismate31303]

We as humans are concentrators in every way you can think of, with the result that if problems of scale develops, we study, try to solve after the fact, some of which we olny reach at over certain population numbers.

We chose to accommodate multiplication in Vertical Concentrated ways like how cities are constructed, much humans per square meter, as oppse to a farming community with open spaces, so many humans per kilometer rather, and in between we have smaller to larger towns horizontally constructed but small plots.

So our multiplication to 7 Billion plus has not taken these factors into account, now we have the problems we do. It may not fixable at this scale with our best and finest knowledge, and it certainly look this wa over last 30 years.

We may have been caught up in tunnels of complicated knowledge taking our lifetime to acquire and experience and live out, but in the process and over time we loose common sense and direction regarding the bigger picture in a closed system like Planet Earth.

I think our best knowledge cannot save us from our concentrated was of life on eart, its like a pyramid scheme of life we only started face now, not saw it coming as a race.

To make it worse quickly the Planet can play it own tricks of scale existing in the Universe.

Edited By Chris Mate on 12/08/2022 15:33:25

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

Martin’s Q “How does CO2 trap the heat?” has been answered earlier – the earth would be inhabitable unless it could lose heat by radiation – this radiation will be in the far infra red but some of this frequency is absorbed by CO2 molecules which warms that molecule which then radiates in all directions including back to earth – if there was an equilibrium earth temperature between received solar and radiated energy back into space without the presence of CO2 then with CO2 pushing some energy downwards it require the earth temperature to be a little higher to maintain equilibrium – hence ‘global warming’ – catch is small changes in temperature of enormous masses correspond to vast amounts of additional energy in the system.

Edited By Frances IoM on 12/08/2022 16:04:33

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by blowlamp on 12/08/2022 15:04:12:

How does CO2 trap the heat?

Martin.

See Martin Kyte 10/08

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by blowlamp on 12/08/2022 15:04:12:

How does CO2 trap the heat?

 

Martin.

Lots of explanations on the web, but same reason as the sea is blue and dyes have colour. The sea is blue because water absorbs red radiation (and heat) whilst reflecting blue frequencies.

The effect is molecular. Heat and light are electromagnetic waves and resonant effects occur when the vibrations match the dimensions of molecules. I imagine them like little dipole aerials. It's related to bridges resonating when soldiers march over them.

Fluorescent lamps are a good example. When a trace of Sodium vapour is excited by an electric current the molecules absorb energy at one frequency and spit it out at another. The process is very efficient; lots of light is produced from a tiny quantity of low-pressure gas.

Carbon Dioxide allows radiant energy from the sun to pass because it's not excited by incoming frequencies, but is by heat created by radiant energy hitting the atmosphere or surface. Greenhouses work the same way: more energy is allowed in than can escape. I've seen the combination of Carbon Dioxide and air described as acting like a string vest.

Carbon Dioxide is so good at absorbing heat it's used in refrigerators. Good stuff when it's compressed and decompressed tightly managed in a machine, but it can't be controlled once it's in the air.

Common-sense doesn't work in science and high-technology. Materials have to measured and endlessly studied before they're understood. It's not easy or obvious!

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 16:28:37

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by blowlamp on 12/08/2022 15:04:12:

How does CO2 trap the heat?

Martin.

I expect is somewhat exactly the same way as heat being absorbed by everything which is ‘struck ‘ by electromagnetic waves it interacts with (unless it is perfectly reflected to some other location. Heat is similarly emitted by all bodies as they cool. This is separate from conduction and convection losses. If heat losses by re-radiation were not the reason for cooling, the Earth would not be in (relative) equilibrium regarding average temperature.

Mars, which has a carbon dioxide atmosphere (what there is of it) would be a lot colder if it did not have that atmosphere. The Earth is situated at a suitable distance from the Sun to provide conditions suitable for our life-forms on the surface and in the oceans. Ten degrees Celsius hotter, and warm blooded animals would be hard-pressed to survive, let alone live as the human race does at present.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I think Frances IoM has pointed to what appears a huge sticking-point in the public spats over the issue – that many people genuinely cannot see why a mere couple of degrees Celsius should matter so much.

My suspicion is that if they were ever taught it at school, they have not grasped the difference between heat and temperature, let alone such concepts as specific heat; hence do not understand what an apparently tiny overall temperature rise shows.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Chris Mate on 12/08/2022 15:31:33:

…

So our multiplication to 7 Billion plus has not taken these factors into account, now we have the problems we do. It may not fixable at this scale with our best and finest knowledge, and it certainly look this wa over last 30 years.

…

We have to be careful not to blame climate change purely on population growth. There certainly is correlation between world population growth and increasing atmospheric CO2 levels but not such a direct causal link overall.

That is because 50 percent of the world's carbon emissions are produced by the wealthiest 10 per cent of the population (that's us), who incidentally have the lowest birth rate. The poorest 50 per cent of the world population (The teeming masses of the "developing" nations) produce only 10 per cent of the world's carbon emissions.

So if we halved the 650 million population of the richest Western nations it would cut worldwide emissions by 25 per cent. But if we halved the the over 3 billion population of those developing countries it would cut global emissions by just 5 per cent.

So obviously, the solution is a change in emission-producing behaviour, not a change in population numbers.

Either that or eat the rich.

 

Edited By Hopper on 12/08/2022 22:59:44

[RobinParticipant @robin]

It is in the nature of all creatures to breed and exceed their food supply, you can't expect people not to breed just because you don't like it. These are the days of miracle and wonder, I strongly suggest you have fun and stop worrying about stuff that will is best fixed by future technology should it ever turn out to be an actual problem

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Robin on 13/08/2022 10:26:28:

… I strongly suggest you have fun and stop worrying about stuff that will is best fixed by future technology should it ever turn out to be an actual problem

It is a problem and no-one is fixing it.

And making whoopee in the bar whilst expecting someone else to fix my problems has never worked for me.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 13/08/2022 10:26:28:

It is in the nature of all creatures to breed and exceed their food supply, you can't expect people not to breed just because you don't like it. …

Which part of my conclusion " So obviously, the solution is a change in emission-producing behaviour, not a change in population numbers" did you not understand?

I'm surprised that someone who knows more about climate science than the scientists struggles with such basic reading comprehension.

 

Edited By Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:05:38

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Life is possible because a small proportion of the sun's energy is captured by the plants and microorganisms sitting at the bottom of the food chain.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 14:30:35

The Sun's energy doesn't drive all food webs. Life existed before photosynthesis evolved. Although. we are mainly familiar with food webs that rely on photoautotrophs as producers, others rely on chemoautotrophs.

Photoautotrophs use light energy to synthesise organic chemicals, chemoautotrophs use chemical energy to do it.

Edited By Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:25:33

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:04:35:

I'm surprised that someone who knows more about climate science than the scientists struggles with such basic reading comprehension.

Climate science isn't really science, it is all about making models that wildly overestimate the effect of CO2.

There is actually very little energy left to be had for CO2 in its absorption wavelength, so they have created a positive feedback loop based on water vapour. A runaway scenario that has never happened in the past.

To explain why it has never happened in the past, they say it is currently warmer than it has ever been before.

That seems rather unlikely.

They are digging a hole for themselves that keeps getting deeper and deeper but they can't seem to stop.

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:04:35:

Posted by Robin on 13/08/2022 10:26:28:

It is in the nature of all creatures to breed and exceed their food supply, you can't expect people not to breed just because you don't like it. …

Which part of my conclusion " So obviously, the solution is a change in emission-producing behaviour, not a change in population numbers" did you not understand?

I'm surprised that someone who knows more about climate science than the scientists struggles with such basic reading comprehension.

Edited By Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:05:38

But your own argument is also too simplistic, there are more people living on the planet than it can support. Normally this would not be a problem as nature would reduce the population, lack of food, increase in predators, increase in disease etc. However, we have learnt to overcome these constraints. This has had disasterous consequences for our environment and the other organisms that we share the planet with. ignoring overpopulation ignores the cause of problems.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:24:36:

Life is possible because a small proportion of the sun's energy is captured by the plants and microorganisms sitting at the bottom of the food chain.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 14:30:35

The Sun's energy doesn't drive all food webs. Life existed before photosynthesis evolved. Although. we are mainly familiar with food webs that rely on photoautotrophs as producers, others rely on chemoautotrophs.

Photoautotrophs use light energy to synthesise organic chemicals, chemoautotrophs use chemical energy to do it.

Edited By Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:25:33

True, but do chemoautotrophs make much difference to mammals like you and me? 'Chemoautotrophs are commonly found in environments where plants cannot survive, such as at the bottom of the ocean, or in acidic hot springs.'

As such they might be the only form of life not effected by climate change – so it's not all bad news!

[Author]

Posts