Climate Change

[PopeyesPappy]

I'm still wondering WTF atmospheric content at 650 km and above has to do with anything. That's about 250 km above the orbit of the space station and about 550 km above what is generally considered to be the start of space. There isn't a whole lot of anything up there except space junk.

[SYZ]

I'm still wondering WTF atmospheric content at 650 km and above has to do with anything. That's about 250 km above the orbit of the space station and about 550 km above what is generally considered to be the start of space. There isn't a whole lot of anything up there except space junk.

I'm guessing that DeltaBravo actually has no idea of the ozone layer's altitude, which commences
around 15,000 metres above the earth's surface and extends upwards to around 50,000 metres.  
I have no idea why he was posting atmospheric gas figures of 200,000 metres to 500,000 metres.

Nice infographic...

[Alan V]

Inaccurate post removed.

[Deltabravo]

I'm still wondering WTF atmospheric content at 650 km and above has to do with anything. That's about 250 km above the orbit of the space station and about 550 km above what is generally considered to be the start of space. There isn't a whole lot of anything up there except space junk.

I'm guessing that DeltaBravo actually has no idea of the ozone layer's altitude, which commences
around 15,000 metres above the earth's surface and extends upwards to around 50,000 metres.  
I have no idea why he was posting atmospheric gas figures of 200,000 metres to 500,000 metres.

Nice infographic...

When CO2 is produced, at ground level, it can only rise as a result of being heated or by tubulence in the air.  Left to itself, it settles down and does not rise because it is heavier than air.  

If you search for scientific articles which explain how a heavy gas like CO2 rises up into the atmosphere or is found at high altitude, the best you will find is a study on carbon monoxide at high level in mountainous tourists resorts, caused by cars.  Otherwise, this field is dealt with by posts about how CO2 is heavier, is found near the ground and only rises due to coming into contact with warm air.  If that's the case, then you are talking about a very patchy type of effect, typically affecting air in and around cities and being affected by weather conditions and temperature.  

Even if you can say that heavy gases mix in with lighter gases, CO2 will tend to drop and will eventually, if drawn high enough upwards, precipitate out, not because of weight, but because it will freeze.

Here's a typical post on the subject on Reddit, for example:  

"If left undisturbed, CO2 does sink lower to the ground than oxygen, although they both form separate exponential profiles (it's not like the bottom half of a volume is 100% CO2 while the top half is 100% oxygen - they both have distributions that tail off exponentially with height - it's just that the CO2 /oxygen density ratio is higher at the bottom of a large undisturbed container than at the top). For example, in large grain silos where CO2 can chemically build up, the CO2 sinks more to the bottom. A worker who walks directly into the bottom of the silo may find that he has too much CO2/not enough oxygen and can't breath properly. From the Penn State agricultural website:
"Like carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide is heavier than air so the highest concentration of gas is typically located at the silage surface, which is the area where a person will be going if they need to enter the silo for any reason."
Out in the open atmosphere, there is enough motion in the air to keep the oxygen and carbon dioxide mixed up. This motion of the air mostly comes from convection currents (i.e. wind) caused by temperature differences. But if you go up high enough in the atmosphere, the temperature differences even out enough that the vertical mixing becomes insignificant. The higher part of the atmosphere does indeed have the different molecules settle out to different altitudes depending on their density. The altitude that marks the point separating the part of the atmosphere that is mixed and the higher part of the atmosphere that is not mixed is called the turbopause. In the region above the turbopause, hydrogen and helium are the lightest and form the highest parts of the atmosphere. Oxygen is heavier and is farther down in this region. The turbopause is at about 13 km above Earth's surface, which is above the highest mountain, but below where many airplanes fly."https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jzzlj/if_co2_is_heavier_than_air_why_doesnt_it_all_sink/

What this suggests is that this "greenhouse" effect has to be below the level airplanes fly and that the effect of CO2 is going to be limited by the distance it can travel with convection from, for instance, the sun heating the ground and winds. In other words, it's not a gas that dissipates from its source and naturally drifts upwards, like H20 to form clouds at certain levels in a way that uniformly affects clouds.

In fact, I found a very good description of it in a book by a man called Omar:

..and like Wind I go.
Into this Universe, and Why not knowing
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.

[The Kerbinator]

The samples of CO2 taken are at low levels and show, as I have pointed out, that CO2 lags behind temperature.

CO2 only lags behind temperature when CO2 is not the driver of the warming. If you can't accept that basic fact then your knowledge of climate science is fundamentally flawed or deliberately misrepresentative.

[Alan V]

What this suggests is that this "greenhouse" effect has to be below the level airplanes fly and that  the effect of CO2 is going to be limited by the distance it can travel with convection from, for instance, the sun heating the ground and winds.  In other words, it's not a gas that dissipates from its source and naturally drifts upwards, like H20 to form clouds at certain levels in a way that uniformly affects clouds.

The average surface temperature on earth has warmed 1 C since the preindustrial.  This is confined to the troposphere, the lower level of the atmosphere.  The stratosphere above has actually cooled in the same time period since CO2 is trapping heat lower down, and that heat doesn't reach the stratosphere.  If the additional heating was from increased sun irradiance rather than greenhouse gases, the stratosphere would warm as well. So that observation is considered another bit of evidence supporting human-caused climate change.

This is also why the CO2 released by airplanes, flying in the lower stratosphere to avoid turbulence, has a 2 to 4 times more powerful effect on global warming.  It is being emitted where there is much less saturation by CO2.

The earth is out of energy balance.  More heat from the sun is being trapped by greenhouse gases than is being emitted back into space.  So the earth will continue to heat up until it reaches equilibrium again.  The delayed effect is estimated to be about 2 or 3 decades, so we are already committed to another 0.4 to 0.7 C of warming during that time, even if we ceased emitting CO2 immediately.

The atmosphere is only about 62 miles high, but 99% of its density is in the lower 18 miles or so (if I remember correctly).  Only the first 5 miles are even breathable.

[Deesse23]

Even if you can say that heavy gases mix in with lighter gases, CO2 will tend to drop and will eventually, if drawn high enough upwards, precipitate out, not because of weight, but because it will freeze.

First of all it wont drop. Because of wind and jetstream in the stratoshoere. I already told you. Do you only read what already is in agreement with your (wrong) views?  No wonder you wont learn. You are unwilling to accept your are wrong.

You are incompetent to discuss basic physics. Why dont you listen and take some physics classes? Why do you keep demostrating your incompetence and embarass yourself?

Long story short: CO2 does not freeze in Earths atmoshpere at all. Its basic physics. Look it up. Please realize your ignorance and learn!

Look at the diagrams, its really simple:

#1 CO2 freezes at -78C at 1bar (and its freezing temperature sinks with lower pressure/higher altitude).
#2 Earths Atmosphere gets only colder than that above ca. 80km!
Ergo: CO2 can not freeze below 80km (only at ca. 20km it gets close, and maybe will freeze, under certain conditions)

What about 80km and up?
#1 pressure at 80km is ca. 1pa (10^0) ,which equals 10^-5bar (1bar = 10^5pa)
#2 CO2s freezing temperature at 0.001bar (10^-3bar) drops below -140C, 10^-3 bar =10^2pa=100pa. [where x and y axes meet on graph]
-> CO2 freezes at pressures 100x higher than 80km at temps of -140C
-> at 0.01bar (1000pa/ 10^3pa) CO2 freezes at ca. -120C. 10^3pa is ca. 50km, but temperature is 0C!  No.way.in.hell.CO2.freezes.at.50km!
#3 Temperature in the atmoshpere is -100C at minimum and then rises with altitude
Ergo: Co2 cant freeze in the upper atmosphere, even less so than in the lower atmosphere/stratosphere.

When you look at the lowest infographics you can easily see that below ca. 70-80km CO2 cant freeze, even if it was 1bar up there! But we are up in the Ionosphere already !
Only above that you have a chance, but according to the CO2 phase diagram the sublimation point has run away over (sinking) pressure.

How fucking hard its that to grasp, really!?

Edit: just by looking at the lowes infograph you can easily see how "not even wrong" your claim is:
On the right hand side is a scale that reads "millibar". If one assumes the "0" millibar line is actually 1mbar, then go over to the phase diagram of CO2, you realize that it starts at 1mbar (ca. 0.001atm) as well.

From that you can read three things:
#1 At ca. 30km the pressure is 1mbar and lower
#2 At 1mbar CO2 freezing point is -140C
#3 Atmosphere above 30km never gets within 50K of this! (-90C at best)
Ergo: in most of the atmosphere, particuarly the upper atmosphere, CO2 is up to 50K from freezing!

Pressure gradient in Earths atmosphere


Temperature gradient:


Phase diagram of Co2:


infograph for the not-so-scientific-minded and non-german readers  

[Deesse23]

The turbopause is at about 13 km above Earth's surface, which is above the highest mountain, but below where many airplanes fly."https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jzzlj/if_co2_is_heavier_than_air_why_doesnt_it_all_sink/

Airliners´ typical cruising altitude is 35.000ft, aka, 10500m.  
Only military jets go higher. Are those the " many airplanes" your reddit source references?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Large Antarctic Ice Shelf, home to a UK research station, is about to break apart
Date: April 5, 2019
Source: Northumbria University
Summary: Glaciology experts have issued evidence that a large section of the Brunt Ice Shelf in Antarctica, which is home to the British Antarctic Survey's Halley Research Station, is about break off. The iceberg, measuring over 1,500 square kilometers -- which is twice the size of New York City -- is expected to break away from the Brunt Ice Shelf within the next few months.

[Deesse23]

Even if you can say that heavy gases mix in with lighter gases, CO2 will tend to drop and will eventually, if drawn high enough upwards, precipitate out, not because of weight, but because it will freeze.

Here's a typical post on the subject on Reddit, for example:  

"But if you go up high enough in the atmosphere, the temperature differences even out enough that the vertical mixing becomes insignificant. The higher part of the atmosphere does indeed have the different molecules settle out to different altitudes depending on their density. The altitude that marks the point separating the part of the atmosphere that is mixed and the higher part of the atmosphere that is not mixed is called the turbopause. In the region above the turbopause, hydrogen and helium are the lightest and form the highest parts of the atmosphere. Oxygen is heavier and is farther down in this region. The turbopause is at about 13 km above Earth's surface, which is above the highest mountain, but below where many airplanes fly."https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jzzlj/if_co2_is_heavier_than_air_why_doesnt_it_all_sink/

First you claim that CO2 will drop in the atmosphere, due to freezing, then you cite a source that says that gases keep being vertically separated in the upper atmosphere and mixed by convection in the lower atmosphere?

[Deltabravo]

Even if you can say that heavy gases mix in with lighter gases, CO2 will tend to drop and will eventually, if drawn high enough upwards, precipitate out, not because of weight, but because it will freeze.

Here's a typical post on the subject on Reddit, for example:  

"But if you go up high enough in the atmosphere, the temperature differences even out enough that the vertical mixing becomes insignificant. The higher part of the atmosphere does indeed have the different molecules settle out to different altitudes depending on their density. The altitude that marks the point separating the part of the atmosphere that is mixed and the higher part of the atmosphere that is not mixed is called the turbopause. In the region above the turbopause, hydrogen and helium are the lightest and form the highest parts of the atmosphere. Oxygen is heavier and is farther down in this region. The turbopause is at about 13 km above Earth's surface, which is above the highest mountain, but below where many airplanes fly."https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jzzlj/if_co2_is_heavier_than_air_why_doesnt_it_all_sink/

First you claim that CO2 will drop in the atmosphere, due to freezing, then you cite a source that says that gases keep being vertically separated in the upper atmosphere and mixed by convection in the lower atmosphere?

No, you are misrepresenting what I said.  

I did not say that CO2 sinks because it freezes.  I said that CO2 produced by humans, at ground level, does not rise upwards due to it being a lighter gas than air.  If it did, then we would use it to blow up balloons at kids parties. CO2 is a heavier gas than the other gases which make up "air".   I also pointed out that there is a limit to how high CO2 can travel upwards because eventually, it would precipitate out.  I don't think there is going to be much evidence of this phenomenon because I suspect it doesn't actually rise up high enough to precipitate out in any quantity which would be noticeable.  

That leads on to the question that if CO2 does get into upper levels of the atmosphere, ie., above a few hundred or thousand feet, how does it do so, and I mentioned that even dust from North Africa rises with heat, but that it drops out as soon as it reaches cooler climes and ends up on cars and garden furniture all over the Med, including where I've lived.  It doesn't form a "roof" like a greenhouse has.  From what you've posted you appear to accept that CO2 only goes upwards due to convection and air currents.  

That is one aspect of the issue, that you have a "greenhouse" gas which is supposed to affect the whole planet but is produced by humans at ground level in discreet locations, ie., cities, and would struggle to rise and disperse to a level which caused a uniform "glass ceiling" effect, uniformly around the planet.

If your theory depends on there being a uniform increase in temperature worldwide due to CO2 you have to look at another source of increased CO2 and that is the oceans and soil, which give off CO2 and absorb it back again.

The other important aspect of this discussion is that CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes so that it does not cause global warming or climate change but is, instead, a result of it.  That is the killer argument against CO2 being the harbinger of doom that climate change portray it to be.  What I've posted about the weight of CO2 is just my own observation that this gas is unlikely to be able to physically rise up in the atmosphere in a uniform, extensive way that it could affect climate worldwide, even if, which seems not to te the case anyway, it is a "cause" of warming and not just a product of sun-caused warming.

[Deltabravo]

I'm separating this post from the last because I feel it is important to stand back from this issue and examine why one takes the position one does. What I see going on, generally, with global warming is that people who support the idea do so almost dogmatically. My issue here on this forum is that I'm concerned that what I have got myself into is a dialogue with some people who have a predisposition to cling to an ideology and then react to it, as in ex-Christians. But, maybe this theory of global warming fills a void. It revolves around human activity being so significant that it can bring the world to an end, viz., the flood. It provides a theory of how one can help change the world for the good through good deeds and it creates a division between followers and "deniers".

It's like dealing with people in a religion because they are uncompromising and refuse to listen, and throw back insults. You can't say, for instance, to an Evangelical that you accept the premise of Christian morality, ie., do unto others. That's not good enough. You have to accept everything. It's the same here. You have to accept everything. It's not good enough to say that you have seen that the cllimate has warmed for decades or that you agree we should use less fossil fuels, convert to renewables etc etc. That's not good enough and if you have any doubts or questions, hey, you're an idiot, moron etc etc.

Just saying.

[SYZ]

...What I see going on, generally, with global warming is that people who support the idea do so almost dogmatically.

No.   People support the theories of climate change/global warming because 98% of the world's estimated
6 million scientists accept that the data are accurate and supported by empirical evidence.

My issue here on this forum is that I'm concerned that what I have got myself into is a dialogue with some people who have a predisposition to cling to an ideology and then react to it, as in ex-Christians.

To liken the beliefs of Christianity with those of climate science is truly absurd.  The former is based entirely
on fantasy, superstition, and and ancient folk tales, whilst the latter are based on current, manifested, viable
evidence.  And you rightly should be concerned about your input into this dialogue, as rather than supply any
meaningful evidence that matches any of the sciences, you've simply dismissed the evidence cited by those
that accept climate change theories.  This is made obvious by your misinterpretation of several of the gas laws.

But, maybe this theory of global warming fills a void.  It revolves around human activity being so significant that it can bring the world to an end, viz., the flood.  It provides a theory of how one can help change the world for the good through good deeds and it creates a division between followers and "deniers".

LOL... this is laughable, and almost impossible to respond to academically.  What "flood" are you talking about?
Hopefully not the kids' Noah's Ark fairy story.

It's like dealing with people in a religion because they are uncompromising and refuse to listen, and throw back insults.  You can't say, for instance, to an Evangelical that you accept the premise of Christian morality, ie., do unto others. That's not good enough. You have to accept everything.   It's the same here.  You have to accept everything. It's not good enough to say that you have seen that the climate has warmed for decades or that you agree we should use less fossil fuels, convert to renewables etc etc.  That's not good enough and if you have any doubts or questions, hey, you're an idiot, moron etc etc.

Seriously matey, I think you're losing the plot here.  And again, I'm not sure why you keep drawing the absurd
analogy between religion and science—when there is none.  Although, having said that, you do display all the
nonsensical attributes of the typical "denier" (despite claiming not to be).

[Alan V]

Deltabravo is arguing in bad faith, since he repeatedly denies that scientific observations (not dogma) contradict his assertions. We have more than adequately answered his confusions, regardless of his inability to understand the science.

Heck, NASA has satellites dedicated to measuring carbon dioxide levels in the troposphere.

[Alan V]

I'm separating this post from the last because I feel it is important to stand back from this issue and examine why one takes the position one does.  What I see going on, generally, with global warming is that people who support the idea do so almost dogmatically.  My issue here on this forum is that I'm concerned that what I have got myself into is a dialogue with some people who have a predisposition to cling to an ideology and then react to it, as in ex-Christians.  But, maybe this theory of global warming fills a void.  It revolves around human activity being so significant that it can bring the world to an end, viz., the flood.  It provides a theory of how one can help change the world for the good through good deeds and it creates a division between followers and "deniers".  

It's like dealing with people in a religion because they are uncompromising and refuse to listen, and throw back insults.  You can't say, for instance, to an Evangelical that you accept the premise of Christian morality, ie., do unto others. That's not good enough. You have to accept everything.   It's the same here.  You have to accept everything. It's not good enough to say that you have seen that the cllimate has warmed for decades or that you agree we should use less fossil fuels, convert to renewables etc etc.  That's not good enough and if you have any doubts or questions, hey, you're an idiot, moron etc etc.  

Just saying.

You started the exchange of insults by referring to people who think scientists know more than you do as "religious" and "intolerant."

I call you a "science denier" because that is what you are doing, not because it is an insult.  It is simply descriptive.  You are arguing against scientific observations, and not just unproven scientific hypotheses.

Those scientific observations are:
1) Greenhouse gases including CO2 warm the earth. This has been proven by very basic physics experiments.
2) CO2 is well-mixed in the troposphere, and does not just fall to and accumulate at the bottom, per scientific observations.  We would be dying if it did.
3) CO2 accumulation follows additional heating by the sun in natural climate change, and it amplifies that warming twice over. Solar irradiance hasn't changed since the late 1970s, per satellite observations, aside from the relatively minor 11-year solar cycle.
4) Present-day excessive CO2 accumulations in the atmosphere are almost all the results of human activities.  This is proven by the isotopic signatures.
5) Scientific organizations around the world support the science of human-caused climate change, as do an overwhelming number of qualified climate scientists.

Most all of these points were in the summary which I posted and which you said you read. We have continued to repeat them to you because they are the answers to your confusions which you repeatedly say we don't address.

Those are all facts.  To say any of them are untrue is to be a climate change science denialist.  You and I don't get to vote, since we are not qualified.

Science is not a belief system. It is based on repeatable observations. To deny the consensus is to deny the observations.

[Deesse23]

CO2 will tend to drop and will eventually,....precipitate out,..., but because it will freeze.

I did not say that CO2 sinks because it freezes.

Puh-lease!

I provided an exhaustive documentation of why CO2 will most probably never ever even come close to *freezing* in the atmosphere (bar xxkm where, under certain conditions...see my original post), and you continue rambling about CO2 freezing? How about you adress my concerns?

Can and does Co2 freeze in earths atmosphere. Yes or no. If "yes", where missed i something in my physics representation and what?

[Deesse23]

It's like dealing with people in a religion because they are uncompromising and refuse to listen, and throw back insults.  You can't say, for instance, to an Evangelical that you accept the premise of Christian morality, ie., do unto others. That's not good enough. You have to accept everything.   It's the same here.  You have to accept everything. It's not good enough to say that you have seen that the cllimate has warmed for decades or that you agree we should use less fossil fuels, convert to renewables etc etc.  That's not good enough and if you have any doubts or questions, hey, you're an idiot, moron etc etc.  

Just saying.

This is rich!

You accuse othes of being religious and not adressing the actual (scietific/physics) points, injecting your usual psychobabble, but when someone takes the time to explain thoroughly, scientifically, based on basic physics why your assertion that CO2 freezes is bogus, you actually dont engage, but complain about others still being not-matter-of-fact.

That is clear cut dishonesty on your part. Remains the question: Are you trying to fool yourself too, or just everyone else?

Just sayin´

[Alan V]

"The most comprehensive measurement of glaciers worldwide found that thousands of inland masses of snow compressed into ice are shrinking 18 percent faster than an international panel of scientists calculated in 2013. The world’s glaciers are shrinking five times faster now than they were in the 1960s. Their melt is accelerating due to global warming, and adding more water to already rising seas, the study found."

https://apnews.com/89bdd96ba86a445b93a53...NgFln4zYV8

[Alan V]

"Jair Bolsonaro’s administration is considering axing an independent panel for Brazil’s environmental policy in a move that activists warn could lead to increased deforestation, documents have revealed. Brazil’s president proposed creating a 'government council' of political appointees to replace the National Council of the Environment (known as Conama), which has almost 100 members, including representatives of independent environmental and business groups. Conama helps protect the 60 per cent of the Amazon rainforest that is in Brazil, which scientists see as crucial for efforts to slow global warming."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...6MqxlyGLs8

[Alan V]

"Forget the transition period between seasons: in March 2019, Alaska jumped from mid-winter right into late spring, setting monthly temperature records in many cities and towns. Meteorologists have noted that the unusually hot month was part of a long-term warming trend in the state in recent years."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images...joDk9wj49g

[Alan V]

"Dhaka: The lives and futures of more than 19 million Bangladeshi children are at risk from the colossal impact of devastating floods, cyclones and other environmental disasters linked to climate change, according to a report by the United Nations children's agency released Friday. The UNICEF report said the estimate includes hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugee children from Myanmar who are living in squalid camps in Bangladesh's coastal district of Cox's Bazar. The report says that because of the impact of climate, families across Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation crisscrossed by more than 130 rivers, have migrated to big cities from villages after losing their livelihoods to increasing salinity in arable land, flooding, or river bank erosion. It documents children being forced into sex trafficking or marriage to survive."

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/climat...tqmRnbKbRU

[Alan V]

"In rural Honduras, farming has been many residents’ livelihood for generations. But now, rising temperatures and declining rainfall are killing crops and jeopardizing the farmers’ very survival. Special correspondent Marcia Biggs and videographer Julia Galiano-Rios explore how climate change affects these rural populations, driving them into urban areas and ultimately, even out of the country."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/climat...amvgasqnuA

[Alan V]

"A World Bank report released this spring estimated climate change could drive more than 140 million people to migrate internally within Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and South Asia alone by midcentury. The UN estimates a similar number might be displaced globally just by desertification by 2045. And it’s already happening: Years with higher temperatures are already causing spikes in asylum applications to European Union countries, recent research has found."

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-12-11/u...first-time

[Alan V]

"Global warming is transforming the Arctic, and the changes have rippled so widely that the entire biophysical system is shifting toward an 'unprecedented state,' an international team of researchers concludes in a new analysis of nearly 50 years of temperature readings and changes across the ecosystems. Arctic forests are turning into bogs as permafrost melts beneath their roots. The icy surface that reflects the sun's radiation back into space is darkening and sea ice cover is declining. Warmth and moisture trapped by greenhouse gases are pumping up the water cycle, swelling rivers that carry more sediment and nutrients to the sea, which can change ocean chemistry and affect the coastal marine food chain. And those are just a few of the changes."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042...Beua_p6fTA

[Deltabravo]

It's like dealing with people in a religion because they are uncompromising and refuse to listen, and throw back insults.  You can't say, for instance, to an Evangelical that you accept the premise of Christian morality, ie., do unto others. That's not good enough. You have to accept everything.   It's the same here.  You have to accept everything. It's not good enough to say that you have seen that the cllimate has warmed for decades or that you agree we should use less fossil fuels, convert to renewables etc etc.  That's not good enough and if you have any doubts or questions, hey, you're an idiot, moron etc etc.  

Just saying.

This is rich!

You accuse othes of being religious and not adressing the actual (scietific/physics) points, injecting your usual psychobabble, but when someone takes the time to explain thoroughly, scientifically, based on basic physics why your assertion that CO2 freezes is bogus, you actually dont engage, but complain about others still being not-matter-of-fact.

That is clear cut dishonesty on your part. Remains the question: Are you trying to fool yourself too, or just everyone else?

Just sayin´

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 .  Secondly, CO2 is a molecular heavier gas than oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and helium which are the gases found at high altitude.  This second point is merely an observation . You accuse me of saying that because CO2 freezes, that is why global warming is wrong.  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.

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