New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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?

The real world is nonlinear analog, not binary. The extent to which water vapor by itself redirects IR is not enough to increase overall temperature of the earth at this point in time. However, the extent to which water vapor+CO2 redirects IR is enough to increase the overall temperature. The additional water vapor from that, assuming constant CO2, sets a new baseline even further above that than the original amount of water+CO2. So basically by adding an amount of CO2, wind up with:

T=W+C+A

where

T= total heat retained
W= heat retained from the normal amount of water vapor
C= heat retained by the CO2
A= heat retained by the additional water vapor due to increase in temperature

A is proportional to W+C

With the numbers we are talking about in the near term, A is much less than W and C, but still significant.

Conundrum solution: Stop adding CO2. As time goes on, CO2 will be absorbed by various sinks (plants,etc). As C from the above equations decreases, so will A.

I don't think BEVs for everyone is the answer, and I've made that clear in earlier posts. But continuing to greenhouse also isn't the answer, unless you want to end up like Venus.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

It's like he forgot he quoted my comment.

He quoted your comment meaning everybody actually putting forth science and real data were clinging not him.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

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..

Phew... the radiation is calibrated to a temperature. When the heat transfer takes any other form besides radiation, it won't work.

Where exactly did I say everybody is dumb? I did say that all these climate doomsday tinfoil hatters have been going on for decade about how the world is about to end, etc.

I'm glad you're getting a good laugh from all of this, but you still haven't shown me anything concrete. All you have said so far was sharing GIFs, memes, and "you're wrong" attitude. I'm definitely not laughing at you. I find poor logic actually depressing, not laughable. Science isn't about blind belief - there are enough religions and cults out there for that. Give me concrete irrefutable evidence with both sides of the argument, or you don't know enough to defend your argument.

Yes I had originally said I wouldn't be here until Monday, but tomorrow plans changed, so I'm trying to figure out plan B.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

It's like he forgot he quoted my comment.

Quite baffled that you didn't see the irony.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

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.






I thought you were done till monday ?

So did the temperature of the CO2 go up during the test?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

The real world is nonlinear analog, not binary. The extent to which water vapor by itself redirects IR is not enough to increase overall temperature of the earth at this point in time. However, the extent to which water vapor+CO2 redirects IR is enough to increase the overall temperature.

And how exactly do you determine that effect of contributions?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Quite baffled that you didn't see the irony.

I’m biased one way more then the other. I also don’t believe BEV’s themselves are going to be the answer. I also don’t have a problem listening to opposing arguments. I am plenty self aware of what I know and don’t know and have been proven wrong a number of times. What you are doing is totally different. There is only so much we are willing to google or explain for you. You got the time and energy, look it up and bring forth a real argument.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

He quoted your comment meaning everybody actually putting forth science and real data were clinging not him.

Point me to the actual independent peer-reviewed studies, not just the .gov links. As a past researcher who has done work for .gov myself, I'd much rather rely independent journals.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I’m biased one way more then the other. I also don’t believe BEV’s themselves are going to be the answer. I also don’t have a problem listening to opposing arguments. I am plenty self aware of what I know and don’t know and have been proven wrong a number of times. What you are doing is totally different. There is only so much we are willing to google or explain for you. You got the time and energy, look it up and bring forth a real argument.

I did change my mind once on this topic. It's not hard to do it again if enough data is presented. All I'm doing is trying to counter what you guys are presenting, so far I haven't found any strong defense.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

And how exactly do you determine that effect of contributions?

I don't. But you can certainly ask NASA.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...nhouse-effect/

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I did change my mind once on this topic. It's not hard to do it again if enough data is presented. All I'm doing is trying to counter what you guys are presenting, so far I haven't found any strong defense.

All we have gone back and forth on is co2 absorbing IR. What’s your main argument?

To answer your other post. That demonstration is just on co2 absorbing IR. I’d imagine if you were showing the increase in temperature you would want a control as well to show there is a change.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I don't. But you can certainly ask NASA.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...nhouse-effect/

According to NASA...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

Watervapor (including clouds) is attributed to anywhere between 65-80% of temperature increase.

Further reading:
https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-me...-vapor-and-you
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/greenhouse-effect-101

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

According to NASA...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

Watervapor (including clouds) is attributed to anywhere between 65-80% of temperature increase.

Further reading:
https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-me...-vapor-and-you
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/greenhouse-effect-101

Here is a climate report by the IPCC that was released recently. Below is the 40 page paper for policy makers, but there is a 3k page paper in the link below if you want to get deep into the data.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/d...licymakers.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/


The warmer the environment and the more we create heat from the byproducts of combustion the more water vapor will be in the air, so yes, water vapor is bad and worse than CO2. Methane is far worse than CO2 too, but CO2 stays in the air much longer too. The rise in average global temperatures are from all forms of greenhouse gases related to HUMAN ACTIVITY. All the evidence in the report above is that we are causing these changes. Even if we weren't causing all of the warming trend, we don't want to be exacerbating those trends.

I think you would agree that we can't burn fossil fuels indefinitely, nor can we continue to add CO2 to the air indefinitely. When would you suggest we transition to renewables? What's the problem with doing it now?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

All we have gone back and forth on is co2 absorbing IR. What’s your main argument?

To answer your other post. That demonstration is just on co2 absorbing IR. I’d imagine if you were showing the increase in temperature you would want a control as well to show there is a change.

I may not be good at articulating well, since English is my 3rd language. This professor is better at explaining it. You should be able to view the article through most public universities.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2974452?origin=crossref

More...
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.1651
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f86$002f11$002fbams-86-11-1571.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f86%24002f1 1%24002fbams-86-11-1571.xml
http://web.archive.org/web/200903290...rature/#sciref