Zipperfish Zipperfish:
You say that I don't gave a grasp of the basic physics. You then proceed to say that CO2 does not absorb photons in the infrared spectrum. The very first sentence of the wiki article on the Greenhouse Effect is:
It has almost no absorbtion outside by the wavelenghts I listed before. If IR is 0.74µm to 3mm then CO2 absorbs the lowest end of the named range, less than 14µm. Leaving from 14µm to 3mm of the range unabsorbed. Less than 1% of the IR range is something CO2 can absorb in.
$1:
The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions.
Nothing I said is in conflict with that statement.
$1:
I would argue that since you are dismissing the Greenhouse Effect--a fairly rudimentary application of thermodynamics and radiation physics, then it isn't me that doesn’t know what I'm talking about.
I have done nothing of the sort. I'm not dismissing the greenhouse effect, it's the center of my argument. WTF?
$1:
What you are doing is trying to come across as knowing what you're talking about by arguing minutiae or using a scattergun of technical terms. Arguing for arguments sake.
Sorry if climate change is a complex subject with a lot of aspects to it that have technical terms.
$1:
Your post is wrong in so many ways that I'm not going to bother going through and correcting it, since it appears to me that you are more interested in being contrarian than trying to establish any basis of agreement.
Ah yes, so wrong you can even say what is wrong about it. So much for "The argument should stand on its own merits.."
$1:
This is how it is with so many so-called skeptics. It's OK to be a skeptic, but when you throw out basic thermodynamcis and radaition physics--theories which have been shown to be reflective of reality millions of times in the last 150 years--then you lose your credibility.
I'm not throwing out anything.
CO2 absorbs EM radiation at a set range of wavelenghts, those wavelenghts due to overlap with other greenhouse gasses absorb almost all of the energy that is currently radiated at those lenghts. Adding more CO2 doesn't do much to move the average global temperature around because almost all the warming that can be caused by CO2 is currently being caused. *All* the warming models depend on other greenhouse gasses to rise the temperature. Your suggested theory that CO2 will radiate back in wavelenghts it can absorb, creating a chain of heating at all levels of the atmosphere is wrong. CO2 doesn't emit much radiation in wavelenghts CO2 can absorbs any meaingful amount of energy from.
Gunnair Gunnair:
That's a bigger buzz kill than Buzz Killington...
I know what he claims too, I do have a memory. (although it looks like he now claims 20 PhDs)
But the cool thing about science is that it's not done by popularity or vote, just what is observed or not. Claim glaciers in India are melting and it doesn't matter if you have a thousand signatures by top climate scientists saying they believe it, if the data shows they are not melting they are not melting.
~
It doesn't matter, if Dr x 20 Zipper thinks CO2 is going to cook the planet great, have fun. I don't care, he can believe that CO2 is polution and that it's going to cause global flooding and world scale ecological destruction. If he doesn't want to reply, also fine. I'm willing to wait a long time to be proven right, or wrong. See ya in 100 years.