-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Shhhhhhh. You've been dismissed
Climate change is real
Posts
Total:
263
-->
@Vegasgiants
I accept your concession.Shhhhhhh. You've been dismissed
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Isn't that cute
-->
@Vegasgiants
You know that climate change is only substantiated by what someone says. There is no way to prove it. ADOL is right.
Don't waste my time.
-->
@DavidAZ
Prove it????????
Are you brand new to science? Lol
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of several greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Here are some of the reasons why CO2 causes global warming:
Firstly, CO2 traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. When sunlight enters the Earth's atmosphere, some of it is absorbed by the Earth's surface and some of it is reflected back into space. However, when the Earth's surface absorbs sunlight, it emits heat in the form of infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb this infrared radiation and trap it in the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space. This causes the Earth's atmosphere to warm up, leading to global warming.
Secondly, human activities like burning fossil fuels have significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. When we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, we release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This has led to a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past century, from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to over 400 ppm today. This increase in CO2 levels has contributed to global warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect.
Thirdly, there is strong scientific evidence linking increased CO2 levels to rising global temperatures. Scientists have been studying the Earth's climate for decades and have found that as CO2 levels increase, so do global temperatures. This correlation is supported by data from ice cores, tree rings, and other sources that show how atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures have changed over time.
Fourthly, the effects of global warming caused by CO2 are already being felt around the world. Rising temperatures are causing ice caps and glaciers to melt, which is contributing to rising sea levels and more frequent and severe weather events like hurricanes and droughts. These changes are having significant impacts on ecosystems, human health, and the global economy.
Finally, reducing CO2 emissions is essential for mitigating the impacts of global warming. While some level of warming is already inevitable due to past emissions, reducing future emissions can help to limit the extent of warming and its impacts. This can be achieved through a variety of measures, including transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, and implementing policies like carbon pricing.
In conclusion, CO2 is a major contributor to global warming due to its ability to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and its increasing levels resulting from human activities like burning fossil fuels. The scientific evidence linking CO2 to rising global temperatures is strong, and the impacts of global warming are already being felt around the world. Reducing CO2 emissions is essential for mitigating the impacts of global warming and ensuring a sustainable future for our planet.
-->
@Vegasgiants
OOpps sorry, it's too late. You've already been dismissed. You couldn't have kept up anyway. Unfortunate, better luck next time.Prove it????????
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Don't you dare debate AGW.
On that you would be crushed. Lol
-->
@Best.Korea
A subband is blocked, and always has been; but energy still escapes by bulk movement. You may have noticed this by terms such as "wind".Greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb this infrared radiation and trap it in the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Thirdly, there is strong scientific evidence linking increased CO2 levels to rising global temperatures.
Yes, higher temperatures increases carbon dixde concentration due to out-gassing of the oceans.
Rising temperatures are causing ice caps and glaciers to melt, which is contributing to rising sea levels
10 centimeters so far, at this rate our piers may need to be heightened by 10 centimeters in another 200 years.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Don't you dare debate AGW.On that you would be crushed. Lol
It's so considerate of you to hold back from crushing me.
Rofl it's like someone shit talking while backpedaling out of the building.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The argument that CO2 does not trap heat because energy still escapes by bulk movement is a common misconception. While it is true that energy can escape the Earth's atmosphere through bulk movement, this does not negate the fact that greenhouse gases like CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere.
The process by which CO2 traps heat is known as the greenhouse effect. When sunlight enters the Earth's atmosphere, some of it is absorbed by the Earth's surface and some of it is reflected back into space. However, when the Earth's surface absorbs sunlight, it emits heat in the form of infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb this infrared radiation and trap it in the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space. This causes the Earth's atmosphere to warm up, leading to global warming.
While it is true that energy can also escape the Earth's atmosphere through bulk movement (such as wind), this does not negate the fact that CO2 traps heat. The greenhouse effect is a well-established scientific principle that has been observed and studied for decades, and is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence.
Therefore, it is important to recognize that while bulk movement can contribute to energy escaping the Earth's atmosphere, it does not invalidate the role that greenhouse gases like CO2 play in trapping heat and contributing to global warming.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yes you're welcome
I understand why you are afraid
-->
@Vegasgiants
Are you brand new to science?
*sigh* I may open up a can of worms with this, but the idea of science has been completely thrown out the window with the advent of climate change (aka global warming) and then the whole COVID "pandemic". People in "science" today are more propagandists than scientists. Are they smart? Yes. Do they know a lot of things? Yes, again. But that doesn't change the properties of life and what really happens in the world.
The science you know is a bunch of propaganda. A "science" made to sway to public opinion for one reason or another. You are the sheep along with millions of others that will thump their chest in the name of "science" and then call people like ADOL and I fools for not parroting what the "scientists" say and not use our own logical abilities to say "hey! That's not right!"
I would ask you, what do you know about science?
-->
@Best.Korea
I will agree that CO2 traps heat, but that is not the whole story. Scientists don't know what is all going on totally. They just grab one hypothesis and run with it. We cannot just accept one aspect without researching the whole. The world leaders will make drastic changes according to the CO2 knowledge but ignore everything else. It's knowledge that is being weaponized.
-->
@Vegasgiants
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Reported.
Oh Boo Hoo
And nasa has an entire website where they disagree with your assessment
Clearly you didn't check any of the links I gave.
3 of the 4 were NASA links, and the 4th (weather channel) cited one of the cited NASA links.
So, either NASA lied then, or they are lying now in order to toe the line (status quo on leftist unscientific climate change arguments) regarding the earth's axis.
-->
@Vegasgiants
While it is true that energy can escape the Earth's atmosphere through bulk movement, this does not negate the fact that greenhouse gases like CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere.
It doesn't need to be negated, it simply has no effect on the equilibrium since it has always been blocked and never been a significant part of power flow through the atmosphere.
Therefore, it is important to recognize that while bulk movement can contribute to energy escaping the Earth's atmosphere, it does not invalidate the role that greenhouse gases like CO2 play in trapping heat and contributing to global warming.
The fact of convection and conduction has a significant impact on an argument which relies on the assumption that all power that must be escaping the rocky surface can only do so through repeatedly scattered blackbody radiation and further that the total effect is somehow linear with the gas concentration regardless of the saturation.
Such an argument is the only argument I've ever seen allowing for the quantification of this so called green house effect. If you had seen the debate with mps you would see here that erroneous assumptions is being taught in universities:
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.Crudely speaking, if CO2 is responsible for 7 of the 33 degrees of the greenhouse effect, we can easily predict the equilibrium consequences of an increase in CO2. We have so far increased the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, or about 40%. Since I have some ambiguity about whether the 7 K contribution to the surface temperature is based on the current CO2 concentration or the pre-industrial figure, we’ll look at it both ways and see it doesn’t matter much at this level of analysis. If CO2 increased the pre-industrial surface temperature by 7 K, then adding 40% more CO2 would increase the temperature by 7×0.4 = 2.8 K. If we instead say that 7 K is the current CO2 contribution, the associated increase is 7−7/1.4 = 2 K. Either way, the increase is in line with estimates of warming—
It's little wonder that academic credentials are producing individuals who are incapable of defending their thesis when such blatant pseudoscience is being taught.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it simply has no effect on the equilibrium since it has always been blocked and never been a significant part of power flow through the atmosphere.
Well, the science disagrees with your conspiracy.
The level of blocking was increased by rising Co2.
Also, do note that Co2 captures heat from space.
I am not sure what exactly is unclear about this.
-->
@Best.Korea
it simply has no effect on the equilibrium since it has always been blocked and never been a significant part of power flow through the atmosphere.Well, the science disagrees with your conspiracy.
The science agrees with me.
The level of blocking was increased by rising Co2.
Not over the whole height of the atmosphere.
Bricks don't block light anymore than a tile. Both block completely.
Also, do note that Co2 captures heat from space.
More than the rocky surface? I think not. Besides, "trapping" works both way. If it traps relevant bands of IR in Earth's atmosphere it also traps them outside of Earth's atmosphere.
I calculated in the other thread that it was blocking about 5 W/m² from the sun at most. The more we add the closer to that number the blocking will get, because unlike the other direction hot air tends to stay high.
I am not sure what exactly is unclear about this.
It's perfectly clear, it's just wrong. Missing relevant dynamics and oversimplifying the system, like a mistake a junior physics student might make.
-->
@TWS1405_2
You didn't check my links
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh look. No evidence. Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You calculated!!!!!!! Lol
-->
@DavidAZ
Dude. Science does not prove things. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
You believe a hyperlink is "evidence" and makes an argument if combined with an assertion right?
There you go.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh look. STILL no evidence. Lol
Like this
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp
-->
@Vegasgiants
Ohhh, ok here you go: https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp
Now my assertions are unassailable and I can pretend that I've fullfilled all burdens of proof my assertions may incur right?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What are your assertions?
You have none. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
What are your assertions?You have none. Lol
Now I'm bereft even of assertions. No evidence. No credentials. No assertions.
In a few more posts I might not even be real. Just a passing figment of Vega's imagination. Well no one can say I didn't give every benefit of the doubt.
Troll detected.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then I accept your concession
Your first loss. That was easy. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>You didn't check my links
You provided NO LINKS in response to my post. My post with 3 clear cut links to NASA.
A post in which you claimed NASA refuted my claims.
NASA refuting NASA!!!???!!!!
Oh, that's rich.
LOL!!!!
-->
@TWS1405_2
https://climate.nasa.gov/