New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Here is an article that does a good job explaining the phenomenon.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...house%20effect.

TLDR, CO2 specifically acts on Infrared light. The light coming in is more visible light (hence daylight), which is not affected by CO2. The light leaving is more infrared light (earth doesn't visibly glow last I checked), half of which is reflected by CO2. So CO2 allows all the visible light in, but reflects half the infrared light going out.

In fact, water vapor is a more abundant greenhouse gas. Research dating back to 1850s and earlier have shown this. Given the water content on the planet's surface, that's a huge contributor. Now how do you conclude what percentage of contribution is due to water vapor, and what percentage due to CO2 and CH4, CHx, etc.?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

What part of that experiment deals with absorption? How do you infer that the IR emitted from the candle is absorbed by the gas chamber, and not simply blocked?

He literally explains it in the video. Not as much IR reaches the IR camera because it is being absorbed by the CO2 in the glass tube. That is why in IR the candle dims. It basically is blocking what the camera can see since the camera is outside the glass tube. But since energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the IR is not being reflected, that means it is being absorbed by the CO2.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

He literally explains it in the video. Not as much IR reaches the IR camera because it is being absorbed by the CO2 in the glass tube. That is why in IR the candle dims. It basically is blocking what the camera can see since the camera is outside the glass tube. But since energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the IR is not being reflected, that means it is being absorbed by the CO2.

The IR not passing thru the chamber also could mean that it is reflected to the candle's side. How did you concur that it was due to absorption?

[chipmunk]

Good weekend, everyone! Looks like I ruffled quite a few feathers. See y'all on Monday!

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

The IR not passing thru the chamber also could mean that it is reflected to the candle's side. How did you concur that it was due to absorption?

Some of it probably is being reflected, just like how some of it is passing through the chamber. No way to know for sure how much unless you put a glass tube and camera on both sides. Or repeat it with a different IR source encased within the chamber.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

In fact, water vapor is a more abundant greenhouse gas. Research dating back to 1850s and earlier have shown this. Given the water content on the planet's surface, that's a huge contributor. Now how do you conclude what percentage of contribution is due to water vapor, and what percentage due to CO2 and CH4, CHx, etc.?

Observations of the atmospheric routinely measure CO2 levels.

https://gml.noaa.gov/obop/mlo/progra...ction%20scale.

Additionally, more water vapor is a secondary effect of higher temperatures. Luckily, water vapor by itself hasn't been enough to support a runaway chain reaction on Earth. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere follows different principles, and these two IR absorbing compounds combined are the problem. We cannot directly affect the amount of water vapor the atmosphere holds, but we do have some control over the amount of CO2 that is released.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Show me where the experiment shows that this was due to absorption, instead of trolling with random GIFs and memes, yet adding no counter-argument.

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Good weekend, everyone! Looks like I ruffled quite a few feathers. See y'all on Monday!

The counter arguments are literally grade school science. There is nothing magical or mysterious involved.
There is no way that anybody should not know how infrared works much less try to reverse or disregard it.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The counter arguments are literally grade school science. There is nothing magical or mysterious involved.
There is no way that anybody should not know how infrared works much less try to reverse or disregard it.

Typical fallacy! "It's so easy that everyone knows it, but I'm not explaining it!"

Answer my critique of that so called experiment. If you can't, perhaps think beyond your 7th grade.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Observations of the atmospheric routinely measure CO2 levels.

https://gml.noaa.gov/obop/mlo/progra...ction%20scale.

Additionally, more water vapor is a secondary effect of higher temperatures. Luckily, water vapor by itself hasn't been enough to support a runaway chain reaction on Earth. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere follows different principles, and these two IR absorbing compounds combined are the problem. We cannot directly affect the amount of water vapor the atmosphere holds, but we do have some control over the amount of CO2 that is released.

Watervapor becomes more due to elevated temperatures, and yet higher water vapor causes higher heat retention. Chicken and egg.

How do you solve that conundrum?
And what makes you think that going EV route is gonna solve it?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Some of it probably is being reflected, just like how some of it is passing through the chamber. No way to know for sure how much unless you put a glass tube and camera on both sides. Or repeat it with a different IR source encased within the chamber.

If this argument forms the presupposition to the whole EV shift, that already begins on a shaky ground. And then add the costs of electrifying - most material and immaterial. We're talking mining, sourcing, ownership of raw materials, supply chains, etc. And yet there's no guarantee that overall this will reduce the atmospheric pollution, let alone temperatures.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Typical fallacy! "It's so easy that everyone knows it, but I'm not explaining it!"

Answer my critique of that so called experiment. If you can't, perhaps think beyond your 7th grade.

As I said in my response to your “everybody is dumb” conspiracy theory post I knew it would be a waste of time trying to explain or debate anything with you.
You have proven me correct with almost every word you said. Your points ignore the most basic of physics and you have demonstrated an almost appalling lack of even fundamental knowledge. The infrared not measuring temperature alone is laughable.
You continue ignoring the info given since it doesn’t match your theories and I will continue to laugh at your ridiculousness..

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

If this argument forms the presupposition to the whole EV shift, that already begins on a shaky ground. And then add the costs of electrifying - most material and immaterial. We're talking mining, sourcing, ownership of raw materials, supply chains, etc. And yet there's no guarantee that overall this will reduce the atmospheric pollution, let alone temperatures.

It's not an argument, it's fact. This example is not the best, but does demonstrate it. I even bothered to point out flaws in this specific demonstration even though it is obvious it is a simple example. CO2 absorbs and remit's IR. Neighboring CO2 molecules capture and reemit and so on. The more CO2 you have the more thermal capacity you have. You are also assuming we will continue to manufacture batteries the way we currently are and ignoring new technologies including power generation methods to support the grid.

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Good weekend, everyone! Looks like I ruffled quite a few feathers. See y'all on Monday!

I thought you were done till monday ?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

My comment is anecdotal. As you know, anything negative someone can find on something they are against, they will cling to without looking into it any further.

Originally Posted by chipmunk

YES. Exactly.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You continue ignoring the info given since it doesn’t match your theories and I will continue to laugh at your ridiculousness..

It's like he forgot he quoted my comment.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I thought you were done till monday ?

Can’t even get that right.