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 →

[–]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.

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

You got your ass handed to you.

CO2 isn't causing climate changes.

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

I suppose no one who can use a computer is actually too dumb to understand that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will increase the greenhouse effect. It's really not rocket science, and of course we've confirmed it by measuring the expected increase in temperature.

It's difficult to believe that there's still deniers now ... So you're an NPC?