Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements that observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb energy.
If none of the above discussions help just think about a hand bike pump. By pushing down on the piston, the volume of the gas decreases, the molecules are now having more chances of collisions with the interior walls of the pump and this increases the pressure of the air inside so that it is forced into the tire.
Never forget that a closed container and constant volume are required for Boyle's Law to work.
See folks what happens when people not trained in science try to interpret it? *Shrug*
When we apply Wien's Law to CO2, we get a massive fail.
You don't understand the science.
I think you've demonstrated plenty enough that you don't understand the science you read. Reminder: Boyle's Law and now trying to make some bizarre climate denier argument out of CO2 and Wien's Law that is so bizzare I don't know where to start.
All Wien's Law describes is that objects of different temperature emit spectra that peak at different wavelengths. Hotter objects emit most of their radiation at shorter wavelengths; hence they will appear to be bluer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.
Suggestions for debunking Gary Novak the proclaimed (independent scientist). Where's his Nobel Prize?
***Novak’s claims that there already is so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more won’t matter, and that scientists are wrong/crazy/stupid in explaining that what’s important happens high in the atmosphere:
Then read "Is the CO2 Effect Saturated?." Read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video there, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane, then the Advanced tabbed pane.
I deliberately separated this out so I can expose what a very disingenuous poster you are. Well let me state it another way. You are either one very indigenous poster...OR...you really don't understand science.
I personally think its both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.
You are cutting and pasting this from self proclaimed "independent scientist" Gary Novak's blog site.
See all the suggestions in the post above that debunk this self proclaimed "independent scientist". He should have a Nobel Prize for all of these claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
This graph from Columbia University proves there is no absorption at 2.7.
Let's take a look at that graph.
I am about to give you another graph interpretation lesson. I even made it really easy. Just follow the yellow line from CO2 on the bottom graph all the way up to where it peaks at the 2.7 μ wavelength.
I'm embarrassed for you once again since it's clear you have no ability to interpret graphs...graphs that you post!
Secondly that graph that you took from this website to try and prove that: "This graph from Columbia University proves there is no absorption at 2.7 microns and minimal absorption at 4.3 microns.", does not support what you are trying to pull over our heads.
The spot light is on you now. Here is the link to the site where you took that graph.
Scroll to the bottom where we see this graph and read what they wrote about this section in discussing that graph.
Quote:
The greenhouse effect.
The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect, referring to the farming practice of warming garden plots by covering them with a glass (or plastic) enclosure.
Here is how the greenhouse effect works: The Earth's atmosphere contains many trace (or minor) components (see Figure 9 for the composition of the atmosphere). While the major atmospheric components (Nitrogen and Oxygen) absorb little or no radiation, some of the minor components are effective absorbers (Figure 10). Particularly effective is water vapor, which absorb effectively in the IR wavelength range (Figure 10).
Because the atmosphere is almost transparent to sunlight, all that is absorbed at the surface results in warming and the emission of IR radiation; this radiation cannot freely escape into space because of absorption in the atmosphere by trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). These absorbing gases and their surrounding air warm up, emitting radiation downward, towards the Earth's surface, as well as upward, towards space. This effectively traps part of the IR radiation between ground and the lower 10 km of the atmosphere. This reduction in the efficiency of the Earth to lose heat causes the surface temperature to rise above the effective temperature calculated above (Te) until finally, enough heat is able to escape to space to balance the incoming solar radiation. The effect is analogous to that of a blanket that traps the body heat preventing it from escaping into the room and thus keeps us warm on cold nights.
All that the IR absorbing gases do is make it more difficult for heat to escape, they don't (and can't) stop the heat output, because half of their emission is directed upward towards space. The greenhouse effect forced the planet to raise its surface temperature until the amount of heat radiated from the top of the absorbing layer is equal to the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It is at the top of the absorbing layer that the effective temperature is reached, while down at the surface of the Earth it is much warmer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Good luck with that.
Good luck trying back-peddle out of my findings.
If I were you I would just stop. You've been called out and I've just exposed your inability to understand a graph that you took from the Columbia website.
We've known for a very long time that CO2 absorbs at 2.7
I don't understand why most people fear a carbon tax....
British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008 and it has not hurt the province’s economy, according to Stewart Elgie, chair of the Smart Prosperity Institute and professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.
Not only has B.C. outperformed the rest of the country on lowering emissions, its economy has almost doubled, he said.
A US Government Accountability Office report released Monday said the federal government has spent more than $350 billion over the last decade on disaster assistance programs and losses from flood and crop insurance. That tally does not include the massive toll from this year’s three major hurricanes and wildfires, expected to be among the most costly in the nation’s history.
Eleven teams participated in a detailed study called the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) project, which examined the economic and environmental impact of an economy-wide carbon tax in the United States.
Every single team found the same result: not only does a carbon tax lead to substantially fewer emissions, it also could have long-term positive economic growth.
The consensus is that carbon tax is going to have a small economic impact, whether positive or negative.”
“Carbon tax is a no-brainer,” he added.
It’s about a logical course of action to address climate change, soare us the dramatics.
The science says the world has to not only stop increasing CO2 emissions, but the world has to also lower their present CO2 emissions
Global warming policy says the vast majority of countries can increase their CO2 emissions..which increases CO2 levels in the worlds atmosphere
Logic says....the world's authority on global warming that makes the policies....the UN/IPCC and the climate scientists that advise them on science and policy.....
...think increasing atmospheric CO2 is not dangerous....or they don't believe their own science
Notes: ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe
I would disregard his opening post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*Shrug*
