- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is there proof that CO2 causes warming?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:13 pm to kingbob
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:13 pm to kingbob
quote:
CO2 does have the ability to trap sunlight more so than oxygen and nitrogen.
It doesn't trap sunlight.
It absorbs IR radiation that the surface emits as it warms. It then re-emits it in all directions. A fraction of which, is reflected back to the surface vs radiated through the atmosphere. The fact you can identify CO2 using IR spectroscopy illustrates this. O2 and N2 do not.
quote:
However, it has not been proven to be the causative factor of warming, and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know their arse from a hole in the ground.
There's debate to the sensitive of CO2 concentration to observed temperature change, but not that increasing concentrations won't warm the system. It's an energy balance. Solar radiation in - solar radation out. Lower the amount let out, you have more heat remaining in the system.
*I realize how oversimplified the energy balance is, as it just considers increasing CO2 concentration.
1
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:17 pm to BamaAtl
This is why you loose the argument every time. You dont read what you link.
Not to mention the link says the first data point is estimated.
quote:
However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.
Not to mention the link says the first data point is estimated.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:17 pm to Duke
quote:
It absorbs IR radiation that the surface emits as it warms. It then re-emits it in all directions. A fraction of which, is reflected back to the surface vs radiated through the atmosphere. The fact you can identify CO2 using IR spectroscopy illustrates this. O2 and N2 do not.
This.
We can debate the actual degree of anthropgenic climate change all day, but this is basic physics.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:17 pm to GumboPot
At some concentration, absolutely...at others, IDK.
Check out slides 16>
https://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf
Check out slides 16>
https://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:20 pm to Gaston
Thanks for the link.
Will read but later.
Will read but later.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:20 pm to Dday63
I think they look at man as a cancer on Earth, but let's go w your view; how is more co2 bad for human life on Earth?
Cold, not heat, is the real threat to plants and human life.
Cold, not heat, is the real threat to plants and human life.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:24 pm to GumboPot
quote:Yes there is.
Is their proof that CO2 causes warming?
Venus' atmosphere is proof.
Of course concentration of CO2 in the Venetian atmosphere runs about 220,000 that of earth.
Not so much with Mars, despite its 14-fold greater CO2 concentration.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:24 pm to stuntman
quote:
Cold, not heat, is the real threat to plants and human life.
During cold climatic periods man really regressed as a species. Famine. Plague. War (because tribes were looking for food/resources).
During warm climatic periods man thrived. The Renaissance. Now.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yes there is.
Venus' atmosphere is proof.
Of course concentration of CO2 in the Venetian atmosphere runs about 220,000 that of earth.
Not so much with Mars, despite its 14-fold greater CO2 concentration.
Venus also has 90 times more pressure than the earth's atmosphere at sea level. Venus surface temperature can be predicted with precision simply using PV=nRT.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:25 pm to GumboPot
quote:
the radiative forcing from 378 ppm of CO2 to 440 ppm is 0.24 W/m^2.
I'm glad we can agree that an increase in CO2 causes warming.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:26 pm to wt9
quote:
there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.
...which is why they did the study and showed direct evidence of that.
How fricking stupid are you?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:34 pm to BamaAtl
quote:quote:
the radiative forcing from 378 ppm of CO2 to 440 ppm is 0.24 W/m^2.
I'm glad we can agree that an increase in CO2 causes warming.
Please note. That is 0.24 W/m^2 out of approximately 259 W/m^2 for a 22 ppm rise in CO2 concentration from 378 ppm to 400 ppm.
That is a very tiny contribution. Very tiny. And the contribution logarithmically gets lower with increasing concentration. For example a 22 ppm increase from 378 ppm to 400 ppm has a greater impact than a 22 ppm increase from 400 ppm to 422 ppm.
I'm using 22 ppm as an example because the study you linked used that concentration increase.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:38 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
...which is why they did the study and showed direct evidence of that.
How fricking stupid are you?
Don't get mean.
I think we are on to something here.
We came to an agreement about the impact in terms of radiative forcing.
We just disagree on what should be done about that impact. A 0.0722% impact is not worth moving heaven and earth IMO. The good news is that the impact logarithmically gets lower with higher CO2 concentrations. What an amazing feedback effect. It's like the earth is self regulating.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:39 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
I'm glad we can agree that an increase in CO2 causes warming.
Is it's ability to warm unlimited or is there a rapid "point of diminishing returns" for that ability?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:44 pm to GumboPot
quote:
And the contribution logarithmically gets lower with increasing concentration.
That^ is the point.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:54 pm to GumboPot
all carbon based gases are going to trap heat. There are much worse than CO2 like methane. CO2 should be considered a renewable.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:Pressure assuredly accounts for some of the differential. DOes it account "with precision" for the entirety of it though? Can I impose on you to do that math for this chem/bio major?
Venus surface temperature can be predicted with precision simply using PV=nRT.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:25 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Reminds me of "The Human Centipede" . . . . . shite consumed = shite excreted
Always happy to show you evidence that you're wrong.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:28 pm to GumboPot
No
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:28 pm to GumboPot
If there is a correlation between co2 and global temperatures, how do we know warmer temperatures don’t cause additional co2 to come out of the oceans or wherever to achieve equilibrium?
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News