Jump to content
IGNORED

Climate Change and Conservatism


ChessPlayer

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

17 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

You are not quite understanding gas chemistry correctly. CO2 (which is about 0.041% - I think you are off by a factor of ten) is highly absorbent in the infrared range while other gases (notably the highly prevalent diatomic nitrogen and oxygen) are less so. This means that such energy is "trapped" by CO2. This energy is later radiated in all directions including back towards earth in the infrared range. If you ever look at an Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) scan you can see two different peaks at around 2400 cm-1 and around 700 cm-1 caused by radiation of energy from the bonds found in CO2. See the FTIR scan below from Evans et al, 2006 for some of the more common radiating greenhouse gases not including water vapor. 

  Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif

If not for the greenhouse gases of CO2 (in addition to water vapor, methane, etc) in our atmosphere, the Earth would be an frozen ball of ice having temperatures more comparable to Mars (see Ma, et al 1998 for a CO2 absorption study). Now compare this to Venus which has an atmosphere of thick CO2 (over 96%) and has a "runaway" greenhouse effect leading to surface temperatures hotter than even Mercury. This makes Earth a rather delicate balance of atmosphere and is why dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere has an adverse impact on our climate. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, convection currents play a large role in atmospheric chemistry and is why we don't see the extreme layering of gases you postulate. If your hypothesis were true, we would be breathing almost almost 100% oxygen while nitrogen would float up to higher levels. Now this is not the case due to mixing due to convection currents. Rather, for the majority of the atmosphere the composition of most gases remains relatively stable. As I mentioned in my previous post this only really changes when you reach the stratosphere and higher until the edge of space. However, while the composition of gases does not change at higher altitudes what does change is the air pressure. Due to basic chemistry and gas laws this means less oxygen molecules are found in a given area (i.e. concentration) at high elevations and is why air is called "thinner" at higher altitudes. Once again, let me reiterate, this is not because gas composition changes but rather concentration changes due to pressure.  

You keep citing a NASA study of some sort regarding CO2 concentrations. Would you please provide me to a link or just an author, year and title of the publication you are referring to? I tried Googling along the lines of your argument but couldn't find anything. I have access to most academic publications through my work so it shouldn't be a problem if it's behind a paywall or anything like that. Thanks very much! 

Why does no one deal with the fact that the Carboniferous had co2 of over 2000ppm. And the world was pretty bounteous then with abundant forests etc. 

The climate drama smacks of exaggeration. 

We all know we should eat our vegetables, even currently a grain based diet isn't the best thing. Vegetables and fruit consistently do better under higher co2. I can't wait for all that better nutrition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/31/2019 at 4:47 PM, Cletus said:

 in fact there is evidence that earths wind currents are changing due to only the small amount of energy derived from current infrastructure... which isnt that also a suspect in climate change? 

Show us that.   Give the mass of the air in the atmosphere vs. the mass of the vanes on those towers, your claim is like telling me a sparrow hit a truck and changed it's direction.   You can't repeal Newton's laws.

People using power from the wind utilities are still paying lower rates, while fossil fuel rates soar.

Other Midwest state electricity rates are higher than Iowa’s. For example, Iowa’s electricity rates are 30 percent lower that Wisconsin’s electricity rates. Wisconsin gets only twopercent of its energy from wind (compared to 28.5percentfor Iowa).16Building more wind energy can create more savings. A recent report finds that Iowa can use a combination of renewables and efficiency to save households over $80 per month on electricity bills, the third-highest amount of any state. Customers “see the largest savings in states that build renewables early on and become net exporters of electricity.”

https://www.iaenvironment.org/webres/File/News%20&%20Resources/Fact%20Sheets/Iowa%20Wind%20Energy%20Fact%20Sheet%20March%202016.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, Cletus said:

you cant see how the data you presented shows wind energy isnt cost effective?  if you cant see that i am truly wasting my time. 

As you see, states with large amounts of wind energy tend to have lower electrical energy costs.     The subsidies for wind power are now gone.   And yet more and more it is is being built.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...