Europe In Deep Freeze As Kerry Warns Of Rampant Global Warming

submitted by [deleted] from modernity.news

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Yeah. Ok. I'll play along.

So how does CO2 warm the climate?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

We're going to pretend that you don't understand the greenhouse effect?

Okay. I'll play along.

CO₂ warms the climate because it's a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gasses are those whose absorption spectrum is such that radiative energy from the sun (greatest energy spectral density in the visible spectrum) is interfered with less than radiative energy from the earth (greatest energy spectral density in the infra-red). This slows the rate of radiative heat loss to space (more than the rate of radiative heat gain from the sun), making it warmer: Similar to a greenhouse, hence the name. Of course, a greenhouse slows the rate of convective heat loss, not radiative heat loss. But both slow the rate of heat loss, and thereby increase the temperature.

The effect of a greenhouse gas is to increase the greenhouse effect, which the extent to which a planet's surface is warmer than a body with no atmosphere would be if it were in radiative equilibrium with the sun and with space. The total greenhouse effect on earth is about 33°C. We look about -18°C on average from the top of the atmosphere, but we are actually an average of about 15°C at the surface.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Ok.

1) what are the bands of spectral absorbtion for gaseous CO2?

And

2) What % of the absorption bands for gaseous CO2 inside the total visible bandwidth?

3) What percent is CO2 in the air?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Cool. Want to let anyone know what you're pretending the relevance of those questions is?

Or are we just going to do this thing where I google the specifics of commonly understood information?

1) A plot of the absorbance spectrum of CO2 is Here

It's the absorbance cluster around 600 cm-1 to 750 cm-1 that is most significant for the greenhouse effect. But the other infra red absorbance matter too.

2) It's transparent in the visible.

3) Depends on time of year, and it's growing all the time. But globally averaged as at Tuesday last week, 420.59 ppm. That's by volume. It's more by weight because CO2 has an molecular mass of 44.01 g/mol and air has a mean 28.96 g/mol if it's dry. It drops a bit as it gets wet.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Here's the graph.

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#jcamp-plot

Two small spikes, so it only absorbs narrow and discreet ranges in the infrared, which is both low freq and low energy.

Gaseous Materials can only absorb the same freq that they also emit.
That's a uniform property of a gas.

Materials in temperature equilibrium will absorb at the same rate as emitted.

So it gives off the same energy that it absorbs, for a zero-sum change. Always. Zero sum change. It doesn't store energy, or retain it.

Doesn't increase temp, because it emits what it absorbs. Period.

I noticed you used the 420.59 ppm instead of CO2 percentage of 00.042059%.

4.2 hundredths of a percent is trivial beyond accounting.
Literally a trace amounts.

Conversely, clouds act as reflectors and reflect a significant % if infrared light back to the earth during nighttime.

Up to 70% retention of infrared, if overcast with low altitude clouds.

So, why is the trivial 00.042% CO2 pushed, while ignoring the cloud cover which actually functions similar to a greenhouse?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Here's the graph.

Yes. That's the same one I linked to.

Two small spikes, so it only absorbs narrow and discreet ranges in the infrared, which is both low freq and low energy.

You might think that if you didn't know anything about it.

The earth radiates in the infrared, because it's black-body emission is for an object at 294K. The CO2 absorption band around 600-750 per centimeter is right in the middle of peak of the Earth's emissions:

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/archive/2010_schmidt_05/

It's not narrow at all on that scale and takes the biggest chunk out of radiation getting back into space of anything in the atmosphere.

Gaseous Materials can only absorb the same freq that they also emit.

More or less. You do get fluorescence in gas systems. But the reason that CO2 absorbance band doesn't reach the top of the atmosphere is because it gets emitted at any angle, so it bounces around the atmosphere, which slows it reaching the top of the atmosphere. In many cases it hits something that absorbs it like aerosols or clouds or the ground.

So it gives off the same energy that it absorbs, for a zero-sum change. Always. Zero sum change. It doesn't store energy, or retain it.

That's more or less right. But when it re-emits it might not make it into space. The longer the total path it takes the more likely something like the surface of the planet gets in the way.

Doesn't increase temp, because it emits what it absorbs. Period.

The same's true of a blanket on your bed. It only slows the rate of heat loss, not that it is lost.

So if you think about it, you can see that slowing the rate of heat loss does make it warmer.

I noticed you used the 420.59 ppm instead of CO2 percentage of 00.042059%.

Yes, it's usually put in ppm by volume.

4.2 hundredths of a percent is trivial beyond accounting.

Its the amount total amount that gets in the way of the outgoing radiation. The 3.3 trillion tonnes of CO2 is still 3.3 trillion tonnes. Which is not trivial. You can't even bench half a tonne.

This is 6.6 trillion times that. Saying it's not because the rest of the atmosphere weights about 5.5 quadrillion tonnes, is argument by bullshit hand-waving.

Obviously so, when you think about it. So why try it? Are you too dumb to realise that the other gasses in the atmosphere aren't material to that calculation, or were you hoping we all were?

Conversely, clouds act as reflectors and reflect a significant % if infrared light back to the earth during nighttime.

Yes. Clouds block a wide band of frequencies. That doesn't stop CO2 from being a greenhouse gas though does it.

So, why is the trivial 00.042% CO2 pushed, while ignoring the cloud cover which actually functions similar to a greenhouse?

Really?

Obviously clouds aren't causing global warming because clouds were there pre-industrial times. They only keep the temperature as it was.

But clouds are more complicated than that. Clouds block incoming and outgoing radiation. They operate like a greenhouse gas at night, but like an anti-greenhouse gas during the day. And for that the color matters a lot. White clouds reflect incoming radiation much more completely than dark ones.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes. Clouds block a wide band of frequencies. That doesn't stop CO2 from being a greenhouse gas though does it.

Clouds behave like a greenhouse. Like the blanket analogy you used. Actual heat reflection infrared and retention of a broad spectrum of reflected infrared.

CO2 doesn't behave like this. It's transparent for the majority of the spectrum.

It's more or less legit for clouds, but it's a false lable that's applied for political reasons to CO2.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Clouds behave like a greenhouse.

Not exactly. It's important for a greenhouse that it's made of glass or something that is transparent to visible light, so that the energy from the sun mostly enters. If you had an opaque white greenhouse, it wouldn't be warmer.

During the day clouds have a cooling effect, because a lot of the sun's energy reflects off them and doesn't make it to the surface. During the night they keep it warmer by reflecting the earth's energy back to the earth.

The total effect of clouds is a cooler surface than if we had no clouds. But the effect of a particular cloud depends on its height, its color and the time of day. High clouds warm, overall, low clouds cool, overall. Night clouds warm. Day clouds cool. Dark clouds are less reflective than light ones.

Like the blanket analogy you used.

I notice the blanket only weighs about 0.04% of your house, but you don't argue that "therefore it can't warm, because it's trivial beyond accounting."

CO2 doesn't behave like this. It's transparent for the majority of the spectrum.

FFS. The majority of the spectrum doesn't matter does it, because the earth emits as a body at 20°C: Most energy between about 300 and 1300 waves per centimeter. And peaking at about 600 waves per centimeter. So the CO2 abosrbance band from about 600 to 750 waves per centimeter is massively significant, as the graph of the emission of a black body at 20°C, and the earth's emissios measured at the top of the atmosphere that I link to above clearly shows.

Are we pretending that as part of not understanding the greenhouse effect, we don't understand black-body radiation?

The earth emits energy at greatest energy spectral density right where one of the the CO₂ absorption bands is

It's more or less legit for clouds, but it's a false lable that's applied for political reasons to CO2.

Other way around, mate:

Clouds are complicated, but overall they cool.

CO₂ warms, causing about 3°C warming per doubling at equilibrium.

And that is denied for economic reasons. The fossil fuel industry is the most lucrative on the planet.

Here's that NASA link about clouds for kids, at a level that's in keeping with us pretending we don't understand the greenhouse effect.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not exactly. It's important for a greenhouse that it's made of glass or something that is transparent to visible light, so that the energy from the sun mostly enters. If you had an opaque white greenhouse, it wouldn't be warmer.

No clouds really fits the description. Clouds are semi transparent to visible light, and even more reflective of infrared light.

Infact, clouds are their own source of infrared emission which emits down to the surface, and retains much more heat on ground, and the atmosphere by extension.

The similar claim for "greenhouse" gases is completely bullshit. It emits what it absorbs and only in 2 very narrow and discreet bands of the IR spectrum. It's bullshit.

Fewer and fewer people are fooled by this foolish fake-science nonsense.

The scamdemic hoax broke the brainwashing spell, and people are seeing that they've been lied to their entire lives.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No clouds really fits the description. Clouds are semi transparent to visible light, and even more reflective of infrared light.

Dude, I've linked to NASA's clouds for kids page.

How Do Clouds Affect Earth’s Climate?

The Short Answer:

Clouds play an important role in both warming and cooling our planet. Clouds give us a cooler climate on Earth than we would enjoy without clouds.However, as Earth’s climate warms, we won’t always be able to count on this cooling effect.

So if you're going to make headway into this "no all the scientists are wrong about clouds" line , you're going to need a really good source, because your word sits on the level of someone who has just made the argument "The greenhouse gas impact of 3.3 trillion tonnes of CO2 is trivial beyond accounting, because I can think of another set of gasses that's much heavier .. namely all the gasses on the entire planet".

The similar claim for "greenhouse" gases is completely bullshit

Absolutely not.

It emits what it absorbs and only in 2 very narrow and discreet bands of the IR spectrum.

Let's quantify "very narrow", looking at that earth's emissions graph I keep pointing you to to refute this point.

Looking at it by eye, it covers about 15% of all the Earth's radiative emissions. Is that "very narrow"? Certainly not if you are trying to imply that means "negligible". It's a significant minority of the outgoing IR that CO2 interferes with.

It's bullshit.

Look at the fucking graph. It's not as hard to understand as you're trying to pretend to everyone.

Fewer and fewer people are fooled by this foolish fake-science nonsense.

Oh, the fucking irony!

Really? That's your best argument? You claim the absorbance bands are "very narrow" based on literally no definition of "narrow", and you want to imply there's someone who's not a paid denier who goes "Ooh, all the science I know must be wrong! The band is very narrow!"

How dumb do you think we are?

The industry funded denial was only ever intended to work against the severely uneducated, because the science is nowhere near as difficult to understand as you're trying to pretend.

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

That's not how your doomsday theory works. CO2 isn't a strong enough GHG to cause any concern.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

CO2 isn't a strong enough GHG to cause any concern.

You're wrong about that.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 3°C per doubling. It's strong enough to have caused most of the observed warming.

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

False, CO2's heat trapping capacity isn't anywhere close to that. You don't even understand your own doomsday conjecture. ("Theory" is too strong a word since it's completely untestable.)

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

False, CO2's heat trapping capacity isn't anywhere close to that.

Oh, you think that all the different ways of estimating climate sensitivity are all wrong?

  • The impact of volcanoes, paleoclimate reconstructions, first principles physics, from climate models. I read one paper where it was estimated with a neural net.

And you've got the correct figure, but just haven't published yet, and it's much smaller that all the other estimates?

Brilliant. What's your new methodology, that's overturning all the science?

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Oh, you think that all the different ways of estimating climate sensitivity are all wrong?

It actually doesn't matter what anyone thinks because it's pure, untestable conjecture.

But it's clear you still don't understand how your doomsday prediction works because CO2 simply doesn't have the radiative efficiency you're claiming.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It actually doesn't matter what anyone thinks because it's pure, untestable conjecture.

Oh, you think the temperature can't be measured?

Bulb thermometers have been around for 400 years. Your mind is going to be blown when you learn about thermocouples.

We'll have to leave satellite MSUs for later. The new information might kill you.

But it's clear you still don't understand how your doomsday prediction works because CO2 simply doesn't have the radiative efficiency you're claiming.

That paper looking at CO2 sensitivity again: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200722112648.htm

Don't read it all at once. The information might disrupt your whole fixed notion of the effect of increasing CO2 on the temperature.

You haven't discussed your new methodology for calculating the ECS of CO2. Where do you get this claim from that it's "nowhere near" it's true value?

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Radiative efficiency can be determined precisely in a lab. You are using numbers that are completely made up to fit a panic narrative created by people who want to control the world.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Radiative efficiency can be determined precisely in a lab.

Not quite right. Radiative efficiency depends on the all other shit in the atmosphere, and for CO2 depends a lot on water vapor content, which varies a lot, including being related to temperature.

But also not quite relevant. Equilibrium climates sensitivity is related to radiative efficiency. But the increase in temperature due to an increase in radiative forcing encompasses a lot of feedback systems on the earth.

You are using numbers that are completely made up to fit a panic narrative created by people who want to control the world.

ECS is not made up. There's a long history of calculations by a large range of methods: Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’

But feel free to say some more wrong shit. It's getting funny.