|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 24, 2023 20:24:13 GMT
Zanygame said: " Well they might think you mean the IPCC are currently lying and that we can dismiss AGW.
On Co2 causing warming, the evidence is overwhelming that is causes warming, and as you state overwhelming evidence is considered to be fact". You're so ignorant about science that it's a bit difficult to have a rational discussion with you. Let's have a look at the basics (pre-O-level). Science is based on facts. The facts that it's based on are "observed data" - which are the only facts we have. Scientists look at the facts and try to divine "relationships" between them - correlations and causation if you like. When they find a causal relationship they try to explain "why" - and that's called a theory. Theories are never facts - although some become "laws" (e.g. Newton's laws of motion). But some are so well accepted that they are almost regarded as facts and can be used as the foundation for other theories. And that's about it. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, i.e. it is known to trap the Sun's heat. This was discovered by Tyndall in about 1850 (IIRC) and is now an accepted fact and we have equations to represent its effects. However, the Earth's system is highly complex - the most complex system known to man - and CO2 also has many other effects in the Earth's system. In particular CO2 can also cause cooling by promoting photosynthesis in plants which locks up the Sun's energy and eventually leads to fuels like oil. And that's the problem with trying to ascribe warming to CO2. There are a huge number of factors that determine our weather/climate and most of them we don't understand - and don't have any equations to represent their effects. And the "attribution" - i.e. the analysis of the various amounts of warming/cooling attributable to each factor - has NEVER been done because we don't have either the equations OR the data to do it. We do NOT know that CO2 has an overall warming effect on the planet and it is not "considered to be a fact" by scientists. It's a theory - and at the moment it's fairly dubious theory because the models built on the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming (which is what the IPCC models assume) do NOT work. As I've pointed out before there has been a virtually identical period of warming that occurred in the '20's (the Early Twentieth Century Warming ETCW) that happened without any significant increase in CO2. There has also been the "hiatus" more recently when global temperatures did NOT increase for many years - which was even accepted by the IPCC as a cause for concern. Unfortunately they chose to eliminate the pause by deleting data that they didn't like (Pausegate). There is also a body of scientists who say that the current patterns of warming can better be explained by the Sun's activities - and have the data to back up their claims. So I'm afraid the evidence for CO2 warming is NOT "overwhelming". In fact it's non-existent. When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat. (Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.) These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded. Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere. from the Sun reaches Earth as mostly visible light. Earth reradiates that energy as infrared energy, which has a longer, slower wavelength. Whereas oxygen and nitrogen do not respond to infrared waves, greenhouse gases do. With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 25, 2023 7:02:37 GMT
Utterly insane: as Britain crumbles, the UK government has just given £680 MILLION to help build a new high-speed railway... in Turkey!
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 25, 2023 7:05:25 GMT
I think we all know how the greenhouse effect works zany - and, more to the point, no one is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and retains the Sun's energy via this effect. But, as I said, CO2 ALSO causes cooling because plants use CO2 for photosynthesis which involves using vast amounts of the Sun's energy to create sugars from CO2 in the air and water and oxygen. And the more CO2 you have in the air the faster plants grow and the more cooling you get from CO2.
The Earth is a very complex system and many substances have dual effects. Water vapour - which is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas (by about 80 times) than CO2 - and present in vastly greater concentrations than CO2 - also has multiple effects on the planets temperature. For example it causes cooling when it forms clouds and reflects sunlight. This is why it's so difficult to model the Earth's system.
The other problem is that the Earth is a stochastic system - i.e. it doesn't obey deterministic laws. Yet these are all we have in the models. That's why the results from the models are always wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 25, 2023 19:49:20 GMT
I think we all know how the greenhouse effect works zany - and, more to the point, no one is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and retains the Sun's energy via this effect. But, as I said, CO2 ALSO causes cooling because plants use CO2 for photosynthesis which involves using vast amounts of the Sun's energy to create sugars from CO2 in the air and water and oxygen. And the more CO2 you have in the air the faster plants grow and the more cooling you get from CO2. The Earth is a very complex system and many substances have dual effects. Water vapour - which is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas (by about 80 times) than CO2 - and present in vastly greater concentrations than CO2 - also has multiple effects on the planets temperature. For example it causes cooling when it forms clouds and reflects sunlight. This is why it's so difficult to model the Earth's system. The other problem is that the Earth is a stochastic system - i.e. it doesn't obey deterministic laws. Yet these are all we have in the models. That's why the results from the models are always wrong. You've told that lie before. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 26, 2023 6:20:33 GMT
You don't even know the fundamentals, zany. It's astonishing how you retain such ignorance when so many people have told you the facts. Plants store vast amounts of the Sun's energy in the form of sugars which eventually become oil - which we've been using to provide energy for years. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 13:25:40 GMT
You don't even know the fundamentals, zany. It's astonishing how you retain such ignorance when so many people have told you the facts. Plants store vast amounts of the Sun's energy in the form of sugars which eventually become oil - which we've been using to provide energy for years. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun. You have no idea about the carbon cycle. oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/carbon-cycle.html#transcript |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 6:02:33 GMT
You don't even know the fundamentals, zany. It's astonishing how you retain such ignorance when so many people have told you the facts. Plants store vast amounts of the Sun's energy in the form of sugars which eventually become oil - which we've been using to provide energy for years. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun. You have no idea about the carbon cycle. oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/carbon-cycle.html#transcript The storage of CO2 by plants in the form of sugars and the subsequent release of that CO2 by combustion (accompanied by some of the energy that was absorbed from the Sun) is an example of the carbon cycle. Plants take CO2 from the air and use the Sun's energy to drive the reaction that eventually forms oil - which is very energy dense. We then use oil for energy and release the CO2 that was originally absorbed by the plants. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun. There is no cleaner energy. Like zany you just don't understand this stuff. As a general rule, if you need to google stuff, you probably don't know enough to post. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 7:13:28 GMT
You don't even know the fundamentals, zany. It's astonishing how you retain such ignorance when so many people have told you the facts. Plants store vast amounts of the Sun's energy in the form of sugars which eventually become oil - which we've been using to provide energy for years. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun. By so many people, you mean you and Jonsky. Jeez. The reason your claim is a lie is not because photosynthesis doesn't extract Co2 and use energy to do so. It certainly does. The lie is the implication that it matches Co2 production in some way, or steps up to meet the increases. Which it certainly does not. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 8:07:22 GMT
You don't even know the fundamentals, zany. It's astonishing how you retain such ignorance when so many people have told you the facts. Plants store vast amounts of the Sun's energy in the form of sugars which eventually become oil - which we've been using to provide energy for years. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun. By so many people, you mean you and Jonsky. Jeez. The reason your claim is a lie is not because photosynthesis doesn't extract Co2 and use energy to do so. It certainly does. The lie is the implication that it matches Co2 production in some way, or steps up to meet the increases. Which it certainly does not. Ah, I see. I was thinking you were either joking or stupid. BTW it's not just me and Jonksy - it's almost everyone on the thread except you. And SP has made a lot of very good points and provided some very good links (from genuine scientists) that you have dismissed as "from bloggers" without reading or understanding. However, on the point you make about the cooling effect of CO2 not matching its greenhouse effect maybe you'd like to give me the figures? As far as I know the calculations have never been done - in fact none of the "attribution" has ever been done. What we do know is that no one has ever been able to show CO2 warming in the Earth's system except in deserts or polar ice caps. Whenever there's any plant life around it doesn't seem to happen. Which seems to indicate that the greenhouse effect and the cooling effect are pretty well matched - which is what you'd tend to expect in a stable system. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 9:05:51 GMT
By so many people, you mean you and Jonsky. Jeez. The reason your claim is a lie is not because photosynthesis doesn't extract Co2 and use energy to do so. It certainly does. The lie is the implication that it matches Co2 production in some way, or steps up to meet the increases. Which it certainly does not. Ah, I see. I was thinking you were either joking or stupid. BTW it's not just me and Jonksy - it's almost everyone on the thread except you. And SP has made a lot of very good points and provided some very good links (from genuine scientists) that you have dismissed as "from bloggers" without reading or understanding. However, on the point you make about the cooling effect of CO2 not matching its greenhouse effect maybe you'd like to give me the figures? As far as I know the calculations have never been done - in fact none of the "attribution" has ever been done. What we do know is that no one has ever been able to show CO2 warming in the Earth's system except in deserts or polar ice caps. SP is one of the few actually knowledgeable people on this forum on this subject. We were at a point of almost common ground on the subject when he disappeared and then the thread got shut down. Calculations have never been done, but individual experiments in exposing plants to increased Co2 have. Further proof it that Co2 levels are increasing faster than photosynthesis and plant growth. There is no doubt that planting more trees (cutting down less) is part of the equation, but its not a natural solution the earth will use to fix itself. Calculations on using tree planting to stop increased atmospheric Co2 are calculated at around 300 extra trees per person on the planet. So such a fix is not considered practical. I'm sure you don't mean this but you appear to be saying forests aren't getting warmer? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2023 9:56:31 GMT
It is not very often that I would agree with Jeremy Corbyn, but I do totally agree with him here ...
TWEET > Without bold action, the fires in southern Europe will become the new norm.
So will the fires, floods, droughts, smog and crop failures in the Global South that our media largely ignores.
Those who sneer at radical change are letting our planet die.
It's time to fight back.
---------------------------------------------
Its about time that the mainstream political parties in this country got their heads together and agree on a common pathway.
It seems to me that both the major parties are frightened of the dumb electorate, who do not seem to understand the seriousness of what is happening, and Climate Change deniers are almost as detestable as Holocaust Deniers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2023 10:51:39 GMT
It is not very often that I would agree with Jeremy Corbyn, but I do totally agree with him here ... TWEET > Without bold action, the fires in southern Europe will become the new norm. So will the fires, floods, droughts, smog and crop failures in the Global South that our media largely ignores. Those who sneer at radical change are letting our planet die. It's time to fight back. --------------------------------------------- Its about time that the mainstream political parties in this country got their heads together and agree on a common pathway. It seems to me that both the major parties are frightened of the dumb electorate, who do not seem to understand the seriousness of what is happening, and Climate Change deniers are almost as detestable as Holocaust Deniers. Imprisoning the arsonists might help. That's a bold action, Sid. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 27, 2023 12:23:57 GMT
The storage of CO2 by plants in the form of sugars and the subsequent release of that CO2 by combustion (accompanied by some of the energy that was absorbed from the Sun) is an example of the carbon cycle. Plants take CO2 from the air and use the Sun's energy to drive the reaction that eventually forms oil - which is very energy dense. We then use oil for energy and release the CO2 that was originally absorbed by the plants. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun. There is no cleaner energy. Like zany you just don't understand this stuff. As a general rule, if you need to google stuff, you probably don't know enough to post. It's called supporting your claim with a link. You should try it. Fossil fuels are locked carbons. They are only released into the atmosphere when you burn them. If you don't want to release that carbon you must leave it in the ground where it can do no harm. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 13:01:39 GMT
However, on the point you make about the cooling effect of CO2 not matching its greenhouse effect maybe you'd like to give me the figures? As far as I know the calculations have never been done - in fact none of the "attribution" has ever been done. What we do know is that no one has ever been able to show CO2 warming in the Earth's system except in deserts or polar ice caps. 1. SP is one of the few actually knowledgeable people on this forum on this subject. We were at a point of almost common ground on the subject when he disappeared and then the thread got shut down. 2. Calculations have never been done, but individual experiments in exposing plants to increased Co2 have. Further proof it that Co2 levels are increasing faster than photosynthesis and plant growth. 3. I'm sure you don't mean this but you appear to be saying forests aren't getting warmer? 1. I never noticed that you and SP were reaching agreement. Maybe he could comment? 2. As you say "calculations have never been done" - for the simple reason that no one has the data or the equations to calculate this. In fact the models do NOT include any calculations about the photosynthesis effect. They simply include an assumption that a certain increase in CO2 concentration causes a certain increase in global temperature. I've told you this several times but you continue to disseminate misinformation. As for "further proof is that Co2 levels are increasing faster than photosynthesis and plant growth", this is meaningless nonsense. CO2 levels have continued to increase for many decades as we all know. The Earth's global average temperature has NOT continued to increase at the same rate. There have been periods when temperature has increased without an increase in CO2 and periods when it hasn't increased with an increase in CO2. You've been told this so many times but you just ignore the facts is they don't fit your illogical ideas. Also "photosynthesis and plant growth is NOT measured - as you've already admitted. 3. I'm saying that in areas of the Earth where there is significant plant growth increases in CO2 do NOT lead to a rise in temperature. And no one has ever managed demonstrate that there is. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 27, 2023 13:17:22 GMT
The storage of CO2 by plants in the form of sugars and the subsequent release of that CO2 by combustion (accompanied by some of the energy that was absorbed from the Sun) is an example of the carbon cycle. Plants take CO2 from the air and use the Sun's energy to drive the reaction that eventually forms oil - which is very energy dense. We then use oil for energy and release the CO2 that was originally absorbed by the plants. Oil is pure green energy from the Sun. There is no cleaner energy. Like zany you just don't understand this stuff. As a general rule, if you need to google stuff, you probably don't know enough to post. It's called supporting your claim with a link. You should try it. Fossil fuels are locked carbons. They are only released into the atmosphere when you burn them. If you don't want to release that carbon you must leave it in the ground where it can do no harm. The trouble is "Montegriffo" that your link doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that I "have no idea about the carbon cycle". And then you post a random article about the carbon cycle. Just a pointless insult really. You need to try writing what you mean - if you can . As I said, the CO2 that's released from burning oil originally came from the atmosphere. And it was converted to oil by the Sun's energy. So it's entirely green energy. |
|
