The science of Greenhouse gases and why CO2 CANNOT appreciably drive global temperature

[leetp]

Just finished a several hours long lecture on quantum analysis of greenhouse gases (The Greenhouse Effect lecture series, by Michel van Biezen, Professor of Physics at Loyola University).

In summary, CO2 absorbs radiation energy along a finite band. This band is largely overlapped by water vapor, which has a substantially wider absorption band. Meaning water vapor is already absorbing most (around 2/3's) of the radiative energy that would also be absorbed by CO2. This leaves only about 1/3 of CO2's total energy absorbing capacity to influence temps all on its own--which is not insignificant. The problem, however, is that even at just 285 ppm (supposed preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentration), CO2 has just about absorbed 99+% of the radiative energy in it's absorption band. In fact, something like 50% of radiative energy capacity is absorbed at just 20 ppm CO2! (This fact is well known and is why CO2 temp impact is said the be logarithmic). Even with CO2 doubling to 570 ppm --a number even alarmist insist we won't hit for more that a hundred years--would only result in nominal "direct" warming effect (as absorption band approaches full saturation).

Again, even pseudoscience alarmist largely concede these immutable facts. Where they attempt to find traction is in the feedback mechanisms--that even a miniscule amount of CO2-induced warning drives water vapor concentration higher and THAT is what really drives warming. Analytically (or perhaps anecdotally) this makes since.... except we know from empirical observation, water vapor is largely stable-to-somewhat lower than the 1930's.

In essence, short of some yet-to-be uncovered feedback loop, it is not CO2 driving climate change.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Just finished a several hours long lecture on quantum analysis of greenhouse gases (will come back w/ link).

In summary, CO2 absorbs radiation energy along a finite band. This band is largely overlapped by water vapor, which has a substantially wider absorption band. Meaning water vapor is already absorbing most (around 2/3's) of the radiative energy that would also be absorbed by CO2. This leaves only about 1/3 of CO2's total energy absorbing capacity to influence temps all in its own--which is not insignificant. The problem, however, is that even at just 285 ppm (supposed preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentration), CO2 and just about absorbed 99+% of the radiative energy in it's absorption band. In fact, something like 50% of radiative energy capacity is absorbed at just 20 ppm CO2! (This fact is well known and is why CO2 temp impact is said the be logarithmic). Even with CO2 doubling to 570 ppm --a number even alarmist insist we won't hit for more that a hundred years--would only result in nominal "direct" warming effect (as absorption band approaches full saturation).

Again, even pseudoscience alarmist largely concede these immutable facts. Where they attempt to find traction is in the feedback mechanisms--that even a miniscule amount of CO2-induced warning drives water vapor concentration high and THAT is what really drives warming. Analytical (or perhaps anecdotally) this makes since....accept we know from immperical observation, water vapor is largely stable-to-somewhat lower than the 1930's.

In essence, short of some yet-to-be uncovered feedback loop, it is not CO2 driving climate change

Thanks for providing truth!!

 

[leetp]

Bumping this thread. I was really hoping this would generate some good discussion.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Bumping this thread. I was really hoping this would generate some good discussion.

The climate alarmist libs on here are not smart enough to bs through the knowledge you posted.

 

[PawsFan_]

Just finished a several hours long lecture on quantum analysis of greenhouse gases (The Greenhouse Effect lecture series, by Michel van Biezen, Professor of Physics at Loyola University).

In summary, CO2 absorbs radiation energy along a finite band. This band is largely overlapped by water vapor, which has a substantially wider absorption band. Meaning water vapor is already absorbing most (around 2/3's) of the radiative energy that would also be absorbed by CO2. This leaves only about 1/3 of CO2's total energy absorbing capacity to influence temps all on its own--which is not insignificant. The problem, however, is that even at just 285 ppm (supposed preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentration), CO2 has just about absorbed 99+% of the radiative energy in it's absorption band. In fact, something like 50% of radiative energy capacity is absorbed at just 20 ppm CO2! (This fact is well known and is why CO2 temp impact is said the be logarithmic). Even with CO2 doubling to 570 ppm --a number even alarmist insist we won't hit for more that a hundred years--would only result in nominal "direct" warming effect (as absorption band approaches full saturation).

Again, even pseudoscience alarmist largely concede these immutable facts. Where they attempt to find traction is in the feedback mechanisms--that even a miniscule amount of CO2-induced warning drives water vapor concentration higher and THAT is what really drives warming. Analytically (or perhaps anecdotally) this makes since....eccept we know from immperical observation, water vapor is largely stable-to-somewhat lower than the 1930's.

In essence, short of some yet-to-be uncovered feedback loop, it is not CO2 driving climate change.

Trust the science...right?

 

[Willence]

Bumping this thread. I was really hoping this would generate some good discussion.

I don't think you'll get what you want. I've tried a number of times as well. What you'll end up getting is a bunch of links from Twitter that someone else said as though that changes things. Actual discussion on the merits rarely, if ever happens on this board. The resident lefties will say they won't bother but I'm really not sure they can. Iceheart is the by far the most intelligent person of the left here and one of the more intelligent overall (throw up in mouth moment). But it's hard to get him to debate even when he says he'd love a debate.

 

[leetp]

The climate alarmist libs on here are not smart enough to bs through the knowledge you posted.

I know some really smart people--actual scientists and engineers, some of whom are all in on climate alarmism (and still many others who are not). Smart people can get it wrong. I am scientist myself--albeit a computer scientist--and I am fully aware that I am capable of getting it wrong, that I may in fact have it wrong here...which is why I'd like to discuss it.

To me, this ought to be the end of the "CO2 is dangerous" narrative and relieve us of the self-imposed moral sanction on domestic energy production, and with it the unnecessary pain and emotional distress it is causing. It not just some benign miscalculation.

 

[Willence]

I know some really smart people--actual scientists and engineers, some of whom are all in on climate alarmism (and still many others who are not). Smart people can get it wrong. I am scientist myself--albeit a computer scientist--and I am fully aware that I am capable of getting it wrong, that I may in fact have it wrong here...which is why I'd like to discuss it.

To me, this ought to be the end of the "CO2 is dangerous" narrative and relieve us of the self-imposed moral sanction on domestic energy production, and with it the unnecessary pain and emotional distress it is causing. It not just some benign miscalculation.

To me it is inherently sensible to want to conserve our resources and have the cleanest world possible. One thing I've always wanted to see researched is how the impact of the food revolution has affected human development. There are a lot of chemicals in our food and to say they have no effect is absurd to me. No one will really talk about that though because the large food companies control so many aspects of what we see and hear about food. This is true of most industries with large companies now.

For me our climate and resource issues are easily dismissed by reality if not by research. Just think of how crappy our appliances are now and how many resources are used to make them. They last for 5 or 6 years and then they're off to the junk pile. We are filling our oceans with single-use plastics. We have done nothing to address so many of these crisis points and until we do I just don't know how to take all this alarmism too seriously.

This is without even going into the process involved in harvesting or mining materials for our battery technology and how toxic that is. Across the board our views are 1 inch deep and a thousand miles wide with no real understanding of the complexities we have to work through and no serious people around to do that work. Anytime something is brought up as a concern the response is that the science is in and debate is dismissed.

For a lot of us, COVID was the best example of this mentality and we continue to see it everywhere. If people want to get serious then we need to actually have severely scrutinized research and recommendations. No one wants to do that anymore. That's why, in my opinion,all of this is a big canard even though I think we have some fairly substantial environmental issues.

 

[leetp]

To me it is inherently sensible to want to conserve our resources and have the cleanest world possible. One thing I've always wanted to see researched is how the impact of the food revolution has affected human development. There are a lot of chemicals in our food and to say they have no effect is absurd to me. No one will really talk about that though because the large food companies control so many aspects of what we see and hear about food. This is true of most industries with large companies now.

For me our climate and resource issues are easily dismissed by reality if not by research. Just think of how crappy our appliances are now and how many resources are used to make them. They last for 5 or 6 years and then they're off to the junk pile. We are filling our oceans with single-use plastics. We have done nothing to address so many of these crisis points and until we do I just don't know how to take all this alarmism too seriously.

This is without even going into the process involved in harvesting or mining materials for our battery technology and how toxic that is. Across the board our views are 1 inch deep and a thousand miles wide with no real understanding of the complexities we have to work through and no serious people around to do that work. Anytime something is brought up as a concern the response is that the science is in and debate is dismissed.

For a lot of us, COVID was the best example of this mentality and we continue to see it everywhere. If people want to get serious then we need to actually have severely scrutinized research and recommendations. No one wants to do that anymore. That's why, in my opinion,all of this is a big canard even though I think we have some fairly substantial environmental issues.

I do consider myself a conservationist. I am sensitive how much plastic we consume and strive to minimize it where I can. However, everytime someone gives me a paper straw as it's some kind of noble stand, I swear I want to go the the nearest Walmart, buy the largest box of plastic straws I can find and throw them in the dumpster.

 

[Willence]

I do consider myself a conservationist. I am sensitive how much plastic we consume and strive to minimize it where I can. However, everytime someone gives me a paper straw as it's some kind of noble stand, I swear I want to go the the nearest Walmart, buy the largest box of plastic straws I can find and throw them in the dumpster.

How ironic. After our son's soccer game tonight we went with a group of friends to Mellow Mushroom. They use paper straws.

 

[PawsFan_]

I know some really smart people--actual scientists and engineers, some of whom are all in on climate alarmism (and still many others who are not). Smart people can get it wrong. I am scientist myself--albeit a computer scientist--and I am fully aware that I am capable of getting it wrong, that I may in fact have it wrong here...which is why I'd like to discuss it.

To me, this ought to be the end of the "CO2 is dangerous" narrative and relieve us of the self-imposed moral sanction on domestic energy production, and with it the unnecessary pain and emotional distress it is causing. It not just some benign miscalculation.

It should but all those scientists sucking on the tit of federal grants to study this would lose their funding and jobs. All those charitable organizations CEO's with their hands out to the fearful public to right the wrong would lost their jobs as well.

 

[PawsFan_]

I do consider myself a conservationist. I am sensitive how much plastic we consume and strive to minimize it where I can. However, everytime someone gives me a paper straw as it's some kind of noble stand, I swear I want to go the the nearest Walmart, buy the largest box of plastic straws I can find and throw them in the dumpster.

I agree that we, as a society, use too much plastic. The food industry is at the top of that list of wasteful.

That said, ask the paper straw people if they know they are killing the Amazon Rain forest with the trees they cut down to make paper straws.

Straws are for kids anyway. Drink out of the side of the glass.

 

[leetp]

I agree that we, as a society, use too much plastic. The food industry is at the top of that list of wasteful.

That said, ask the paper straw people if they know they are killing the Amazon Rain forest with the trees they cut down to make paper straws.

Straws are for kids anyway. Drink out of the side of the glass.

Seriously though... I hate drinking out of straws... plastic or otherwise.

 

[areeves]

Just finished a several hours long lecture on quantum analysis of greenhouse gases (The Greenhouse Effect lecture series, by Michel van Biezen, Professor of Physics at Loyola University).

In summary, CO2 absorbs radiation energy along a finite band. This band is largely overlapped by water vapor, which has a substantially wider absorption band. Meaning water vapor is already absorbing most (around 2/3's) of the radiative energy that would also be absorbed by CO2. This leaves only about 1/3 of CO2's total energy absorbing capacity to influence temps all on its own--which is not insignificant. The problem, however, is that even at just 285 ppm (supposed preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentration), CO2 has just about absorbed 99+% of the radiative energy in it's absorption band. In fact, something like 50% of radiative energy capacity is absorbed at just 20 ppm CO2! (This fact is well known and is why CO2 temp impact is said the be logarithmic). Even with CO2 doubling to 570 ppm --a number even alarmist insist we won't hit for more that a hundred years--would only result in nominal "direct" warming effect (as absorption band approaches full saturation).

Again, even pseudoscience alarmist largely concede these immutable facts. Where they attempt to find traction is in the feedback mechanisms--that even a miniscule amount of CO2-induced warning drives water vapor concentration higher and THAT is what really drives warming. Analytically (or perhaps anecdotally) this makes since.... except we know from empirical observation, water vapor is largely stable-to-somewhat lower than the 1930's.

In essence, short of some yet-to-be uncovered feedback loop, it is not CO2 driving climate change.

The Global Chemtrail Program is why the climate has heated up so. They’ve been spraying us since the 1930’s. They’ve been lying to us, telling us fossil fuels & humans are the reason for Climate Change. This is a bald faced lie. This is being done so they can slap a Global Climate Change Footprint Tax on us & so they can roll out Agenda 21, where the NWO will tell us Where We Can & Can’t Live & Visit. This Will Be In Place By 2030, if Not Before.

 

[PawsFan_]

The Global Chemtrail Program is why the climate has heated up so. They’ve been spraying us since the 1930’s. They’ve been lying to us, telling us fossil fuels & humans are the reason for Climate Change. This is a bald faced lie. This is being done so they can slap a Global Climate Change Footprint Tax on us & so they can roll out Agenda 21, where the NWO will tell us Where We Can & Can’t Live & Visit. This Will Be In Place By 2030, if Not Before.

And just like that.....a good thread is ruined.

 

[areeves]

And just like that.....a good thread is ruined.

Get your head out of your ass & wake up

 

[areeves]

And just like that.....a good thread is ruined.

You’re going to find out real Soon, everything I’ve been saying is going to come to pass