|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 28, 2023 7:53:36 GMT
That's a theory - we do not know it's true. Like I've said several times it's never been experimentally demonstrated on Earth except in specific areas with no plant life - which is significant because plants use CO2 to produce cooling. And nobody has ever measured the amount of cooling caused by plants - which is a significant omission. " The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now". You'll notice they chose to do it in areas with little or no plant life. link
My opinion. That's to say the opinion of me. Or an opinion of mine. Whatever you think the cooling effect of plants is, its not working, the planets getting hotter. 1. "Your" opinion seems to be based on the false claims that 95% of climate scientists believe CO2 is causing most of the warming - which you have no evidence to back up BTW. 2. The cooling effect of plants seems to be working very well. As my link showed the only experimental evidence of CO2 warming in the Earth's system is in areas that have no/minimal plant life. Any attempt to show CO2 warming in other areas fails to show any warming. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 28, 2023 8:32:39 GMT
My opinion. That's to say the opinion of me. Or an opinion of mine. Whatever you think the cooling effect of plants is, its not working, the planets getting hotter. 1. "Your" opinion seems to be based on the false claims that 95% of climate scientists believe CO2 is causing most of the warming - which you have no evidence to back up BTW. 2. The cooling effect of plants seems to be working very well. As my link showed the only experimental evidence of CO2 warming in the Earth's system is in areas that have no/minimal plant life. Any attempt to show CO2 warming in other areas fails to show any warming. Already told you I'm not doing another round of prove it with you again. Its a boring game in which I have to prove beyond any doubt everything I say and you have to prove nothing. So you prove I'm wrong, give me a significant list of climatologists saying global warming is not man made. Not some stupid blog where the guest writer is also the blog owner. As for your link its proved nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 28, 2023 9:18:13 GMT
1. "Your" opinion seems to be based on the false claims that 95% of climate scientists believe CO2 is causing most of the warming - which you have no evidence to back up BTW. 2. The cooling effect of plants seems to be working very well. As my link showed the only experimental evidence of CO2 warming in the Earth's system is in areas that have no/minimal plant life. Any attempt to show CO2 warming in other areas fails to show any warming. Already told you I'm not doing another round of prove it with you again. Its a boring game in which I have to prove beyond any doubt everything I say and you have to prove nothing. So you prove I'm wrong, give me a significant list of climatologists saying global warming is not man made. Not some stupid blog where the guest writer is also the blog owner. As for your link its proved nothing. 1. You've made a statement that 95% of scientists believe CO2 is the main cause of warming. I happen to know where this claim comes from (as I've described before) and it's been completely discredited. So you need to provide a credible source for this poll of scientists. Or stop making the claim. That's the way it works. There has been NO such poll. 2. The link talks about the ONLY example of an experiment (in the Earth's system) of CO2 causing warming. And the locations chosen to do this were basically devoid of plant/life - so they might as well have performed the experiment in a box in a lab (like Tyndall did). Whenever experiments are done in locations with plant life they fail to show CO2 warming. That's called scientific method, Zanygame. The conclusion is that photosynthesis completely reverses any CO2 warming. There's no other possible conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 29, 2023 15:43:38 GMT
I also think there is exaggeration in the warming figures in part as the sensors are in built up areas and not natural areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 29, 2023 16:36:57 GMT
This statement is about as unscientific as its possible to get.
No matter how much Co2 and how little vegetation, photosynthesis completely reverses any CO2 warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 30, 2023 7:38:01 GMT
This statement is about as unscientific as its possible to get. No matter how much Co2 and how little vegetation, photosynthesis completely reverses any CO2 warming. Not what I said. The only places where CO2 warming has been demonstrated on Earth are either snow covered or dry scrubland. If you try it anywhere else CO2 doesn't cause warming. Draw your own conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 30, 2023 22:38:02 GMT
This statement is about as unscientific as its possible to get. No matter how much Co2 and how little vegetation, photosynthesis completely reverses any CO2 warming. Not what I said. The only places where CO2 warming has been demonstrated on Earth are either snow covered or dry scrubland. If you try it anywhere else CO2 doesn't cause warming. Draw your own conclusions. That the heat migrates to other areas? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 31, 2023 8:11:17 GMT
Not what I said. The only places where CO2 warming has been demonstrated on Earth are either snow covered or dry scrubland. If you try it anywhere else CO2 doesn't cause warming. Draw your own conclusions. That the heat migrates to other areas? Heat always migrates to other areas - the tendency is always for an equal temperature across the universe (of -273C). No, the heat is used to power photosynthesis. In other words you start off with CO2, water and various nutrients drawn from the soil and you end up with sugars (which require energy to make). There's no other explanation. Yet science hasn't been able to calculate the contribution of this effect to temperature yet. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 31, 2023 17:27:52 GMT
That the heat migrates to other areas? Heat always migrates to other areas - the tendency is always for an equal temperature across the universe (of -273C). No, the heat is used to power photosynthesis. In other words you start off with CO2, water and various nutrients drawn from the soil and you end up with sugars (which require energy to make). There's no other explanation. Yet science hasn't been able to calculate the contribution of this effect to temperature yet. Yes I'm aware of hoe photosynthesis works. What I don't get is your idea that regardless of how much Co2 you start with or how little vegetation when you put the two together all the Co2 disappears. But I'm sure it works out in your brain. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 1, 2023 8:37:40 GMT
Heat always migrates to other areas - the tendency is always for an equal temperature across the universe (of -273C). No, the heat is used to power photosynthesis. In other words you start off with CO2, water and various nutrients drawn from the soil and you end up with sugars (which require energy to make). There's no other explanation. Yet science hasn't been able to calculate the contribution of this effect to temperature yet. Yes I'm aware of hoe photosynthesis works. What I don't get is your idea that regardless of how much Co2 you start with or how little vegetation when you put the two together all the Co2 disappears. But I'm sure it works out in your brain. You're seriously confused. Who said anything about the CO2 "disappearing". The concentration of CO2 continues to increase. ?? I'll try to put it very simply. What I'm giving you is a simple example of a scientific experiment to determine how much cooling photosynthesis causes. So we have two situations: 1. A rural area with trees and fields etc. 2. An area with no "greenery" whatsoever - such as an icecap or a desert or dry scrubland. We now monitor the temperature of these areas for years (11 years in the research experiment) as the concentration of CO2 changes. In area 1 we see a good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. But in area 2 we see no such correlation. Apparently CO2 is having no effect. Since the albedo (amount of energy reflected) of the areas is the same the only factor that can be causing the difference is photosynthesis - which is negating the warming effect of CO2. It's a simple example of a control experiment where you try to eliminate all factors but the one you're interested in. But I guess you won't understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 1, 2023 18:51:16 GMT
Yes I'm aware of hoe photosynthesis works. What I don't get is your idea that regardless of how much Co2 you start with or how little vegetation when you put the two together all the Co2 disappears. But I'm sure it works out in your brain. You're seriously confused. Who said anything about the CO2 "disappearing". The concentration of CO2 continues to increase. ?? I'll try to put it very simply. What I'm giving you is a simple example of a scientific experiment to determine how much cooling photosynthesis causes. So we have two situations: 1. A rural area with trees and fields etc. 2. An area with no "greenery" whatsoever - such as an icecap or a desert or dry scrubland. We now monitor the temperature of these areas for years (11 years in the research experiment) as the concentration of CO2 changes. In area 1 we see a good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. But in area 2 we see no such correlation. Apparently CO2 is having no effect. Since the albedo (amount of energy reflected) of the areas is the same the only factor that can be causing the difference is photosynthesis - which is negating the warming effect of CO2. It's a simple example of a control experiment where you try to eliminate all factors but the one you're interested in. But I guess you won't understand it. Ok I get you, interesting Do you have a link to this 11 year trial. Who carried it out, was it peer reviewed. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 2, 2023 8:46:16 GMT
It's on my post on page 37 at Jan 27, 2023 at 8:20am.
It's on "link" at the bottom of the post. You obviously skipped it - it's not very noticeable.
The relevant point is that this is the first time that warming has been correlated with CO2 radiative forcing on Earth - and that both locations they chose were basically devoid of vegetation. So they eliminated the cooling effects of CO2. They were just examining the warming effect of CO2, which has never been disputed.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 2, 2023 18:43:22 GMT
It's on my post on page 37 at Jan 27, 2023 at 8:20am. It's on "link" at the bottom of the post. You obviously skipped it - it's not very noticeable. The relevant point is that this is the first time that warming has been correlated with CO2 radiative forcing on Earth - and that both locations they chose were basically devoid of vegetation. So they eliminated the cooling effects of CO2. They were just examining the warming effect of CO2, which has never been disputed. The trouble with filling your posts with meaningless insults is that I often miss them. I will look back now. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 2, 2023 18:58:56 GMT
It's on my post on page 37 at Jan 27, 2023 at 8:20am. It's on "link" at the bottom of the post. You obviously skipped it - it's not very noticeable. The relevant point is that this is the first time that warming has been correlated with CO2 radiative forcing on Earth - and that both locations they chose were basically devoid of vegetation. So they eliminated the cooling effects of CO2. They were just examining the warming effect of CO2, which has never been disputed. Ok I've read the article. I can't see the part where they say there was only warming effects in areas devoid of vegetation. ( Could you copy that out for me) What they do say is. The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research was reported (Wednesday 25 February) in the advance online version of the journal, Nature.The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
So that kills the argument that the experiment only works in the lab They also say.They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant elevation in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square metre per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modelling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.So proof that Co2 is warming the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 3, 2023 8:21:01 GMT
It's on my post on page 37 at Jan 27, 2023 at 8:20am. It's on "link" at the bottom of the post. You obviously skipped it - it's not very noticeable. The relevant point is that this is the first time that warming has been correlated with CO2 radiative forcing on Earth - and that both locations they chose were basically devoid of vegetation. So they eliminated the cooling effects of CO2. They were just examining the warming effect of CO2, which has never been disputed. Ok I've read the article. I can't see the part where they say there was only warming effects in areas devoid of vegetation. ( Could you copy that out for me) What they do say is. The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research was reported (Wednesday 25 February) in the advance online version of the journal, Nature.The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
So that kills the argument that the experiment only works in the lab They also say.They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant elevation in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square metre per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modelling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.So proof that Co2 is warming the planet. I knew you would say this - miss the point as usual. The bit I've put in bold is the only relevant bit of that article. No one has been able to replicate this experiment in the Earth's system UNTIL they decided to replicate the conditions of the laboratory by selecting an environment that is as close to the Tyndall box experiment. CO2 has TWO effects as I've said many times - heating by trapping radiative energy and cooling by photosynthesis. What they've done is eliminate the cooling effect by selecting two locations where photosynthesis doesn't happen (because of no plants or no water). So it's no surprise that they find a similar result to Tyndall's box and light experiment. The warming effect of CO2 is not in question. But they have never tried to measure the cooling effect of CO2. And it's significant that the only way they can demonstrate the warming effect of CO2 is by eliminating photosynthesis. So their statement (or more accurately the statement of the journalist who wrote the article that " The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2" is untrue. They have measured only the heating effect of CO2. We have yet to measure - or even calculate - it's cooling effect. Bad science. |
|
