The Climate Change Debate Thread (Second Thread)

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,709
You really need to look into how the science has progressed since then.

CO2 does not retain heat. It acts as a transmission mechanism into the broader atmosphere. The radiant energy captured by a CO2 molecule is transferred through collision to other molecules (such as N2, O2) within about a nano-second.

CO2 at current concentrations is saturated at the principal wavelegth of radiant energy involved (15um). This means that it cannot transfer more heat into the atmosphere than it currently does.

The argument is then made that "collision broadening" occurs. Maybe, maybe not - the atmosphere is open, not a closed pressure system in a lab. But even this has been shown not to give you the catastrophic temperature rise you crave.
certainly - there have been enormous advances in science & in Climate Science since the time of Arrhenius.
& what Arrhenius predicted over a century ago about the relationship between atmospheric CO2 & Global Temperature is being proven correct.

& the advances in science that you refer to, have enabled us by analysis of ice cores, to reconstruct temperature & CO2, back several hundred thousand years before Arrhenius' time,
& again - the temperature/CO2 relationship is as predicted by Arrhenius.

looks like your ….………...…….…. ahem ……………....…. "collision broadening" LOL !!!!!
comes into play whenever CO2 has increased over the past few hundred thousand years,
& this "collision broadening" has resulted in increased global temperatures,
& continues today to result in increased global temperatures.
 


RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653
Greta needs to bring her protest to a city in the northern latitudes like Moscow or Minneapolis and spend the winter there without fossil fuels to keep warm.
Without plentiful and affordable fossil fuels hundreds of millions would freeze to death by the end of winter.
 

Steve Case

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
2,431
But even this has been shown not to give you the catastrophic temperature rise you crave.
Yes, our good friends on the left deeply desire a climate catastrophe.

...what Arrhenius predicted over a century ago about the relationship between atmospheric
CO2 & Global Temperature is being proven correct.
Yes Arrhenius was correct.

The modern estimate for the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 says, "the climate response to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 ...with no feedbacks operating... would be around 1.2°C
"
IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 Page 631 ¶8.6.2.3


Arrhenious also said:

By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere,
we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as
regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much
more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.
Wikipedia


I suppose you can argue about feed backs and deny any cravings for catastrophe.

You guys have been at this for over thirty years, and so far, it just isn't happening
 
Last edited:

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653
Renewables will not make much of a dent in total carbon emissions. The problem is that even when renewables produce enough energy to supply all of Germany’s electricity, the variability of the renewables means they have to have backups, in this case coal. Why Aren't Renewables Decreasing Germany's Carbon Emissions?
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,653
If it's not about the climate...what is it about?

“the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.” Thunberg publicity agents.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we
are setting ourselves the task of intentionally,
within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model
that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

–– Christiana Figueres
Fmr UN Climate Chief (UNFCCC)

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

Timothy Wirth,
Fmr President of the UN Foundation
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,709
"Yes, our good friends on the left deeply desire a climate catastrophe."
I know that you're a Yank Steve & a very right wing Yank.
in the developed world, apart from the US, just about all political parties apart from the extreme neo Nazi types, are concerned about the dangers of AGW.

& you're correct Steve, when you say "Yes Arrhenius was correct"
& he was correct over a hundred years ago, & I don't think he was a leftie either.

"The modern estimate for the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 says, "the climate response to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 ...with no feedbacks operating... would be around 1.2°C
"
IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 Page 631 ¶8.6.2.3"
correct again Steve

"I suppose you can argue about feed backs and deny any cravings for catastrophe."
wrong Steve - you can't argue about feedbacks - positive feedbacks are very dangerous for the stability of any system.

"You guys have been at this for over thirty years, and so far, it just isn't happening"
not sure what you're trying to say there, Steve.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,943
Those bushfires have not gone away you know.

When were they in the news? Couple of weeks ago?


And in other news .....

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,943
I know that you're a Yank Steve & a very right wing Yank.
in the developed world, apart from the US, just about all political parties apart from the extreme neo Nazi types, are concerned about the dangers of AGW.

& you're correct Steve, when you say "Yes Arrhenius was correct"
& he was correct over a hundred years ago, & I don't think he was a leftie either.

"The modern estimate for the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 says, "the climate response to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 ...with no feedbacks operating... would be around 1.2°C
"
IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 Page 631 ¶8.6.2.3"
correct again Steve

"I suppose you can argue about feed backs and deny any cravings for catastrophe."
wrong Steve - you can't argue about feedbacks - positive feedbacks are very dangerous for the stability of any system.

"You guys have been at this for over thirty years, and so far, it just isn't happening"
not sure what you're trying to say there, Steve.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, good old Steve.

Steve is so deep into denial he would rather have the world burn than admit Al Gore was right.

Sad thing is he is not the only one.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top