Climate Change

[Deltabravo]

CO2 freezes. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014...reeze-co2/

[The Kerbinator]

Your post is itself evidence of the problem.  There are two points . First CO2 lags behind climate change and is caused by .warming.  it does not cause warming .

I'll say it again as you missed it the first time. CO2 only lags behind warming when it is not the cause of the warming. If you pump large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as we've being doing for more than a century then the CO2 will cause warming. This is climate science at its most basic and you consistently misrepresent this.

[SYZ]

Posted in error. Deleted.

[Deesse23]

Your post is itself evidence of the problem.  There are two points . First CO2 lags behind climate change and is caused by .warming.  it does not cause warming . 

Irrelevant to the points i am trying to discuss with you, isnt it? Thats a discussion your are having with somoeone else, but u dont even notice, and thats because you put all people who dont agree with you in the same (mental) basket.

What i tried to discuss is the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere and the question of freezing/sublimating, which you flat out rejected...until now.

 Secondly, CO2 is a molecular heavier gas than oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and helium which are the gases found at high altitude.

No shit? I learned that in....*thinks hard* iirc 8th or 10th grade, in chemistry.

  This second point is merely an observation . You accuse me of saying that because CO2 freezes, that is why global warming is wrong.

No, i accuse you of not engaging in scientific discussion, and then whining abut everybody else not being scinetific.

  I didn't make that statement.  I said the gas can't rise to a height where it could form a uniform ceiling like a glass house due to its weight but also due to human produce CO2 being produce topically. And only rising due to air currents.   It only would rise to the level of the turbosphere anyway, which is below where it would freeze.   I pointed out that frozen CO2 is called dry ice and when it melts the gas flows downwards so, yes it does freeze.  I said that IF it were to rise high enough it would freeze.  I did not saying does rise that high.  I said the opposite.

I was quite lenient with you on this in the past, but since you seem to insist: When matter changes state from solid to gaseous, its called "sublimate" (unlike what commonly is tought), and vice versa its "resublimation". Freezing and Melting dont exist. I knew i was quite sloppy with terms until now, did you too?
I also dont care to what you are trying to backpedal to now. I have already pointed out, with quotes, how you made contradictory statements. You cant take these off the table by just rambling on with your pseudo-scientifc monologues.

But you say you are qualified to speak to these issues and..

I am saying you are not qualified, based on your demonstrations. I leave it to others, who do have expertise in these things to judge my performance.

you mangle and misinterpreted what I said which makes you an unreliable source because you don't examine and report even simple facts correctly.  You appear to be either incapable of understanding the argument I made or to be biased and as a result prepared to misstate what I said.

Care to support this bold claim?
I dont care if you think i am a good source. I dont expect you to believe what i say. I however recommened you take some physics classes, and i am quite damn serious about that.

[Deesse23]

CO2 freezes. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014...reeze-co2/

Again: No shit sherlock?

Of course we do have certain conditions under which temperatures can drop to the resublimation point of CO2. I already conceded this (remember, troposphere with temperatuer minimum in the atmosphere?).

All you are having here is a weak attempt to smartass our way out of this by cheap googling of "lowest temperature on earth". Every other uneducaed fool can do this too. It doesnt show your expertise but your desperation to keep face.

Lets have a look at what the article says right at the start:

Last year, Antarctica reached -135ºF, which is 27ºF below the freezing point of CO2 at atmospheric pressure. This is cold enough to freeze CO2 right out of the air.

1. "freeze", but i already adressed this
   
2. "atmospheric pressure".
   

 Well yeah, must have been a station at ground level. Didnt i alreay provide a phase diagram that shows CO2 freezing at -78C (or whatever) at 1bar?  Now good luck with demonstating why CO2 resublimating on a very cold day in winter, at a very specific place in f.ing antarctica (try to google Oimjakon btw. if you have a few more seconds time, that is after your phsyics classes i recommended) demonstrates that increased levels of CO2 follow heating of the atmoshpere and dont lead it.

What you failed to adress, most probably because you cant even see the issue i tried to adress is: If you want to argue about a gobally relevant behaviour of CO2 in earths atmosphere, you either need to demonstrate a global behaviour of CO2 in the atmosphere (like i did) supporting your claim(s) or demonstrate that a local behaviuor (a cold day in antarctica on the ground) has global effects.

If you had read your own article to the end (or hwould have understood what you are actually reading) you would have noted that it claims that antarctica does in fact, not even at -135F, accumulate dry ice, because although molecules do resublimate, they als sublimate, quite as fast, allowing for no net accumulation of dry ice even below -78C.

You know i may not even be 100% correct, noone is always on everything, but, unlike you, i dont quote articles to support my claim, and then those articles actually refute my point. All it shows is that you lack basic understading of the topic. Again: Your problem is not a bunch of details you so desperately try to bring up (in order to derail from the big picure), its the basics.

I still recommend physics classes, and as i already said: I am damn serious about it. If you are interesed, if you are motivated, great, but get a proper education.

[Alan V]

Deltabravo is not really discussing science at all. He is trying to cherry-pick science to support his anti-science claims.

[SYZ]

Deltabravo is not really discussing science at all.  He is trying to cherry-pick science to support his anti-science claims.

Agreed. Sad really. And I have not the faintest idea about his endless comments regarding the freezing (sublimation)
point of carbon dioxide. He seems to think that it's got some sort of relevance to global warming LOL.

[Deltabravo]

Deltabravo is not really discussing science at all.  He is trying to cherry-pick science to support his anti-science claims.

Agreed.  Sad really.  And I have not the faintest idea about his endless comments regarding the freezing (sublimation)
point of carbon dioxide.  He seems to think that it's got some sort of relevance to global warming LOL.

Climate scientists ignore the fact that CO2 increases in response to temperature rising.  It cannot therefore be the cause of global warming.  Please address this rather than engage in insults. 

It is another  case of a major threat to humanity being thwarted by a simple and obvious oversight.

[PopeyesPappy]

Deltabravo is not really discussing science at all.  He is trying to cherry-pick science to support his anti-science claims.

Agreed.  Sad really.  And I have not the faintest idea about his endless comments regarding the freezing (sublimation)
point of carbon dioxide.  He seems to think that it's got some sort of relevance to global warming LOL.

From what I can tell it seems to be something along the lines of CO2 doesn’t freeze and form a glass like barrier in the upper atmosphere, therefore no greenhouse effect. Of course that’s not how it works, but once again as far as I can tell how it works doesn’t really play into DB’s thinking anyway…

[Mathilda]

Climate scientists ignore the fact that

Anyone that starts a sentence like this can be safely and easily ignored because they clearly do not understand how science works and have no experience of it themselves.

[Deltabravo]

CO2 freezes. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014...reeze-co2/

Again: No shit sherlock?

Of course we do have certain conditions under which temperatures can drop to the resublimation point of CO2. I already conceded this (remember, troposphere with temperatuer minimum in the atmosphere?).

All you are having here is a weak attempt to smartass our way out of this by cheap googling of "lowest temperature on earth". Every other uneducaed fool can do this too. It doesnt show your expertise but your desperation to keep face.

Lets have a look at what the article says right at the start:

Last year, Antarctica reached -135ºF, which is 27ºF below the freezing point of CO2 at atmospheric pressure. This is cold enough to freeze CO2 right out of the air.

1. "freeze", but i already adressed this
   
2. "atmospheric pressure".
   

 Well yeah, must have been a station at ground level. Didnt i alreay provide a phase diagram that shows CO2 freezing at -78C (or whatever) at 1bar?  Now good luck with demonstating why CO2 resublimating on a very cold day in winter, at a very specific place in f.ing antarctica (try to google Oimjakon btw. if you have a few more seconds time, that is after your phsyics classes i recommended) demonstrates that increased levels of CO2 follow heating of the atmoshpere and dont lead it.

What you failed to adress, most probably because you cant even see the issue i tried to adress is: If you want to argue about a gobally relevant behaviour of CO2 in earths atmosphere, you either need to demonstrate a global behaviour of CO2 in the atmosphere (like i did) supporting your claim(s) or demonstrate that a local behaviuor (a cold day in antarctica on the ground) has global effects.

If you had read your own article to the end (or hwould have understood what you are actually reading) you would have noted that it claims that antarctica does in fact, not even at -135F, accumulate dry ice, because although molecules do resublimate, they als sublimate, quite as fast, allowing for no net accumulation of dry ice even below -78C.

You know i may not even be 100% correct, noone is always on everything, but, unlike you, i dont quote articles to support my claim, and then those articles actually refute my point. All it shows is that you lack basic understading of the topic. Again: Your problem is not a bunch of details you so desperately try to bring up (in order to derail from the big picure), its the basics.

I still recommend physics classes, and as i already said: I am damn serious about it. If you are interesed, if you are motivated, great, but get a proper education.

You don't address the molecular weight of CO2.  It is a heavier gas and drops down to ground level where it is absorbed into the soil and ocean's.  Your entire premise rests on CO2 rising due to air currents and only up to a point where its weight would make it stop rising.

[PopeyesPappy]

Climate scientists ignore the fact that CO2 increases in r response to temperature rising.  It cannot therefore be the cause of global warming.  Please address this rather than engage in insults.

Yes, the evidence says that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels trailed warming in at least some past warming events. The evidence also says those events were triggered by other events such as Milankovitch cycles. However it does not follow that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels can not cause warming. Your argument is a non sequitur.

[Alan V]

"The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3), set to launch to the International Space Station later this month, will join its older sibling, OCO-2, in measuring SIF* along with its primary target of carbon dioxide concentrations around the globe. The two satellites will be in different orbits: OCO-2 circles Earth from pole to pole, whereas OCO-3 will be mounted on the exterior of the space station, which circles between 52 degrees north and 52 degrees south latitude."

* "Solar-induced fluorescence" will help scientists better understand the role plants have in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2860/nasas...H3BQoli9hE

[Alan V]

Climate scientists ignore the fact that CO2 increases in response to temperature rising.

Why are you lying to people who know better?  Of course scientists are paying careful attention to the fact that CO2 from natural sources increases with warming.  Those are the positive feedbacks they are all afraid we will trigger by letting the global average temperature rise above 2 degrees C above the preindustrial.

This discussion is about what the science says, not about your misrepresentations of the science.

[Deesse23]

Deltabravo is not really discussing science at all.  He is trying to cherry-pick science to support his anti-science claims.

Agreed.  Sad really.  And I have not the faintest idea about his endless comments regarding the freezing (sublimation)
point of carbon dioxide.  He seems to think that it's got some sort of relevance to global warming LOL.

I think his initial idea was that there ought to be no CO2 in the upper levels of the atmosphere at all (whaterver *upper* may be), based on his overly simplyfied and only rudimental knowledge of physics (it gets colder when i get higher, i can observe it [btw: he is kinda obsessed with personal obsevation like a christian with personal revelation]. So when i get high enough, CO2 will freeze and fall out. Why didnt eveybody else think about this? Its so simple). I swear to god thats his thought process, seen it so often in amatuers (myself included!) who dont have the necessary humility. Its part of Dunning Kruger again.

Then i got him caught in a discussion where hes only left to fumble along, from one bad idea to backpedlaing to another interpretation, in a desperate attempt to save face, more or less like a christian (sorry, but i didnt bring these comparisons to the table, Delta did).

[Deesse23]

You don't address the molecular weight of CO2.  It is a heavier gas and drops down to ground level where it is absorbed into the soil and ocean's.  Your entire premise rests on CO2 rising due to air currents and only up to a point where its weight would make it stop rising.

And there you go, fumbling along, coming full circle, repeating your first fallacy again: CO2 wont drop to the gound, since there is lots of movement of air in the troposhpere, which keeps air all mixed. Remember? Of course Co2 gets absorbed on the ground, since its part of the mixed air.

I also made no premises or advertised global warming by (human caused) CO2, although i take this proposition very serious. You are still barking up the wrong tree. I am trying to discuss basic physics with you, which you fail, over and over. I am trying to tell you that whatever your idea is, its wrong, because of your lack of understanding, i am not saying Thor, SYZ et. al are correct, yet they present tons (particularly Thor) of solid arguments, you dont.

Please stop digging. Really, its not fun to me, but please, do yourself a favour: Get.some.physics.classes if this topic is so fascinating to you.

[Deltabravo]

NASA now says CO2 cools the atmosphere and global warming is delusional nonsense.

https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dio...g-to-nasa/

[Alan V]

About the intentional distortions of the science by Don Easterbrook: https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-eas...ality.html

About the intentional distortions of the science by Willie Soon: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Willie_Soon_arg.htm

About the intentional distortions of the science by William Happer: https://www.skepticalscience.com/William_Happer_arg.htm

Deltabravo,

I gave you a link to this website several times before. You are not doing your homework about the people who are intentionally trying to deceive uninformed people like yourself.

Why can't you get your head around the idea that there are dedicated groups of people who are lying about the science, and you are helping them spread their disinformation?

[The Kerbinator]

Climate scientists ignore the fact that CO2 increases in  response to temperature rising.  It cannot therefore be the cause of global warming.  Please address this rather than engage in insults

Why do you keep ignoring me when I address this misrepresentation of science?

When CO2 is not the driver of warming then CO2 increases lag temperature increases.

However, we have created a truly vast amount of CO2 over the past century or so. Given the optical properties of CO2 that you can just about demonstrate in a school science lab then we know that CO2 released in that amount will be the cause of global warming.

Therefore CO2 levels will increase before warming does.

Do you dispute this?

[Alan V]

NASA now says CO2 cools the atmosphere and global warming is delusional nonsense.  

https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dio...g-to-nasa/

NASA has not said "global warming is delusional nonsense."  Please check out this NASA website:

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Again, you are trying to cherry-pick the science to promote nonsensical conclusions.

Admins? @Mathilda @Dom

[Dom]

NASA now says CO2 cools the atmosphere and global warming is delusional nonsense.  

https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dio...g-to-nasa/

NASA has not said "global warming is delusional nonsense."  Please check out this NASA website:

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Again, you are trying to cherry-pick the science to promote nonsensical conclusions.

Admins? @Mathilda @Dom

I think @Aliza  is handling this.

[SYZ]

NASA now says CO2 cools the atmosphere and global warming is delusional nonsense.  

This is nothing more than a disingenuous misinterpretation of what NASA really said. And your assertion
that NASA said "global warming is delusional nonsense" is a blatant lie.  It's just something you've made up.

You're referring to a 7-year-old NASA press release concerning measurements of solar flare activity back in
March of 2012. As is already well understood, CO₂ and nitrous oxide act as a "shield" high up at
the top of the thermosphere. When large solar flares bombarded earth's upper atmosphere with infrared
radiation, these gases blocked—or radiated back to space—a large portion of that energy.

The scientist referred to in your linked article, Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, is a well-known climate-change denier.
I note too that the use of the term "global warming skeptic" is falling into disuse. According to the Union of
Concerned Scientists,  "we don't call them skeptics, because they're not putting forward alternatives ideas
and having them tested in peer review journals. They basically deny this problem".

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of both basic science, and the conclusions of the NASA report.

[Alan V]

"Antarctic sea ice extent is currently below the long-term average of all decades prior since 1979. Previously, Antarctic sea ice extent had been above that long-term average due to long-term, large-scale wind circulation patterns that drove sea ice away from Antarctica, making room for more sea ice to form nearer to the continent. Climate models, or computer simulations that incorporate all the factors that affect Earth’s climate, predicted this behavior. These long-term wind patterns reversed several years ago, resulting in a significant sea ice decline surrounding Antarctica."

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2861/arcti...Xos17puuRk

[Alan V]

"Every year, the world's five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to control, delay or block binding climate-motivated policy. This has caused problems for governments seeking to implement policies in the wake of the Paris Agreement which are vital in meeting climate change targets."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccart...18f07c4fb9

[Alan V]

"It would be more expensive to keep the majority of U.S. coal plants open than to replace them with new wind and solar power alternatives, according to new findings published Monday. Authored by the environmental firm Energy Innovation in partnership with the grid analysis company Vibrant Clean Energy, the research finds that replacing 74 percent of coal plants nationally with wind and solar power would immediately reduce power costs, with wind power in particular at times cutting the cost almost in half. By 2025, the analysis indicates, around 86 percent of coal plants could similarly be at risk of cheaper replacement by renewables."

https://thinkprogress.org/replacing-coal...vn6nxeSXxQ