Global warming/climate change

I honestly don’t get this.

What is the point?

Why is it so important?

I understand what Richard explained to me in person; to wonder freely. To not blindly believe, but to actually wonder. What I don’t get is why there has to be some definite global conclusion?

One only has to change the title of the discussion from “global warming” to “climate change” and there is an entirely new discussion.

Now I think about it, perhaps I do understand. Is it that the direction of the change, and the subsequent shift from environmental degeneration to discussing “carbon dioxide” which is the issue?

That I can readily agree with. A year or two ago I was sitting with my girlfriend at the time having my mind blown about the fact there are something like 70 volcanic eruptions every year. Which has been going on forever. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is a diversion from the amount of destruction of the environment which has been otherwise dealing with immense amounts of carbon for a very long time.

Is it the conclusion or the premise?

I remember vowing that I would sell my house when all the huge, beautiful gum trees that were up and down my street were gone. I had built an extension to my house with 22 extra windows, including 2 on internal walls, so I had panoramic views of the trees.

They are all gone. Every single one.

On my street now, the house I rent has the very last great gum tree out the front.

What’s the point? The streets are hotter and more unpleasant without trees. The city is a barbecue in summer. The rich “leafy” suburbs are around 5 degrees cooler.

I don’t have to reference the internet to experience what it’s like to have less trees. That is makes suburbs hotter and unpleasant.

Am I arguing for global warming? No, I am saying as a fact that where I live is a vastly less pleasant place; hotter, stark and barren without trees.

That is a fact.

1 Like

Although you link to the “Cause of Bias” post, I’m kind of lost because I don’t understand if you (there and here) are referring to what Vineeto said (or allegedly said), what Solvann said or what some video said…

What is that premise, that core, and the argument that makes it non-sense…?

It’s this part here:

This is the point. The entire claim is predicated upon the 0.04% being responsible for the entire effect of heating the surface – and therefore couldn’t even a simpleton see (:wink:) that increasing that 0.04% to say 0.08% could lead to drastic effects since that’s the only way the Earth ultimately loses heat to space?

But the point is that it’s really the 99.96% that is responsible for the vast majority of the effect of heating the surface. The effect of the 0.04% is much smaller than it’s made out to be. The premise of the magnitude of the effect of the 0.04% is unfounded. So it’s not clear or unequivocal at all that increasing this will net increase the temperature of the planet. Further evidence is required – and models and predictions and evaluations and computer simulations with this false premise as a basis do not constitute further evidence.

And by whom or where the claim has been made…?

It’s the underpinning of the entire anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory. Example from

The Earth’s surface is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere.

This absorption is due to trace gases which make up only a very small part of the atmosphere. Such gases are opaque to thermal radiation, and are called “greenhouse gases”. The most important greenhouse gases on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with additional contributions from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others. If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.

It was in the link solvann posted as well. Just google any articles or read any papers that describe why rising CO2 levels would cause the Earth to warm, they all are predicated upon this argument.

Oh, so are you saying that the claim that the trace/greenhouse gases are the responsible for maintaining the usual Earth’s temperature (instead of freezeing) is unfounded ?

So, given that you have linked to Skeptical Science, have you read for example these two articles?

What about them? They are based upon the same premise that the argument I made demonstrates is not well-founded.

If you could point out specifically what part of each article refutes the argument and explain the particular way it refutes it, then we could have a meaningful discussion about the topic.

I understand now.

Although I can’t begin to comment on the science, the fact that the entire global conversation is now about carbon dioxide rather than the wholesale destruction of ecosystems, I am pretty sure I get what belief is being challenged.

The actual observable destruction of the environment, which no science degree is needed to see, vs the theoretical models underpinning what amounts to a “slight of hand” in the public discussion.

Leading to things such as “carbon taxes” and “carbon neutral” products etc, that have next to no actual world outcomes of slowing the destruction of environment.

Which give funding to ridiculous projects like this;

Indeed, what is next?

What is the effect of the global use of electricity, radio waves, microwaves, et al. on the earth’s magnetic field?

From my understanding, Mars has only a whiff of atmosphere because it doesn’t have a magnetic field. There was talk of “rebooting” it somehow.

Perhaps whilst we are looking at gasses in the atmosphere, we are ignoring the fact we have an atmosphere at all.

Turn off all the devices now!!!

Then what I don’t see is in what way your argument demonstrates that what those and other articles explain (the process by which those trace/greenhouse gases are the responsible for maintaining the usual Earth’s temperature) is not well-founded.

It does it by pointing out that they only look at the radiative absorption side of the equation (that only what are called “greenhouse gases” participate in) without considering the conductive and convective side of the equation (that 100% of the atmosphere participates in).

I’m not sure how to clarify it without restating it as a whole. If you read it again with this ^ in mind , which part in particular do you find yourself not following?

Oh! I understand now.

Then I can only suggest that you take the course I recommended to @jamesjjoo to acquire the necessary bibliography on that aspect or, alternatively, search those and other articles (including their thousands of comments) because that objection has been made on several occasions…

So, what you are actually saying is the whole science of climatology is based on a false premise?

That’s a very bold claim.

So far the argument seems to be that because CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere, whatever properties it has, (which can be proven easily at home) are not as responsible for the atmosphere retaining the heat that the radiates from the surface of the planet (which is why it’s call a "greenhouse effect) as is seemingly claimed by science.

Your claim is that the entire atmosphere is somewhat equally responsible for the earth retaining heat.

That a rise in CO2, does not actually matter much at all “because it’s so small” as a percentage of the atmosphere.

I am still scratching my head on how a complete amateur, without a single piece of hard evidence could be so sure of that conclusion.

What is observable, simply by walking out the front door in most places, is that humans are affecting the environment detrimentally.

It is also observable that the global conversation has been dominated by CO2 discussion, to the point that people are being encouraged to be “carbon neutral”.

I think it’s a reasonable opinion to say that actual actions on finding ways to live in harmony with ecosystems are being sidelined.

I find it unnecessary to challenge the science. I am very willing to challenge the belief that reducing CO2 directly is the answer.

I was going to reply more, but I can see that there is a lot to learn about this topic.

I still think that Richard & Vineeto are inclined to take positions on these topics which are generally controversial, not for the position itself, but because it sparks wonder.

I am now genuinely interested in finding out more about the topic. Wondering more, one might say.

I looked through the full list of articles on the skepticalscience website and didn’t find anything that addresses the argument. I clicked on the ones that seemed like they might and didn’t see any that did.

If you’re already familiar with one that does it then I’d appreciate a link!

Did you read the argument I made? :sweat_smile:. Where does it go wrong? It is so simple that if it’s wrong it should be easy to disprove. But at least the amount of looking into it I’ve done so far, haven’t been able to find any good refutations. I even asked on a physics forum if there’s any difference between a gas heated by radiation vs a gas heated by conduction and convection and the answer was basically no.

As I wrote what I like about it is that it’s capable of being wrong. I am open to it being wrong. It does seem a bit unlikely that a simple mistake is at the root of the entire thing. But I need to actually see exactly where it’s wrong to conclude that it’s wrong. Until then, it’s right as far as I understand it.

Is this the crux of the argument?

C02 is responsible for absorbing infrared radiation, as both nitrogen N2 and oxygen O2 don’t absorb it.

“Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.”

Which means that the “heating of air” by infrared radiation (which is what most heat is on earth) is being done by CO2.

So the cozy fireplace, heating the room, has a lot to do with the CO2 content as far as the radiant heat is concerned.

As the earth is radiating infrared heat, and O2 and N2 don’t absorb infrared, is only mostly CO2 doing the absorbing/radiating.

As an aside, I started learning about infrared light around 14 years ago when I was the GM of a roofing company.

I had always been puzzled why the “anticon” insulation we would sometimes install under the metal roof sheets has the silver shiny side pointing down towards the roof space and not up.
It turn out that nearly all of the heat in a roof space is caused by infrared radiation.
The silver shiny surface is really bad at radiating infrared light.

So it points down towards the house.

This is all happening relatively dark roof spaces.

So, the CO2 is effectively a blanket which absorbs and radiates infrared in all directions. So heat coming from the earth that hits CO2 molecules, roughly half radiates back to the earth, and the same from the sun.

The rest of the 99.96% of air is effectively invisible to infrared.

I can tell you from a year or two crawling around in roofs installing insulation (one of my first building jobs) , that infrared is very good at heating up carbon. ( Tiles, timber, etc).

So the idea that “the air is all swirling around heating or cooling” is only correct as far it has the capability of absorbing and radiating heat. Which, is mostly transmitted in the infrared spectrum.

So, whilst it’s a tiny percentage, it is making a huge difference to air’s capacity to store heat.

This was interesting

Yes… did you actually read the entire argument I posted or just the quoted part? Cause that was the conclusion, the rest of the post leading up to it explains how the conclusion was arrived at, which rest of the post addresses the points you raise in your post here.