The 'settled science' actually isn't, dissent is being suppressed.

I've provided data from NOAA and other sources that show that global warming is real but trivial. I don't have ability to measure the temperature everywhere so I have rely on sources just like you do. Climate change is trivial. The numbers describing of the changes are tiny. Trivial. I'm not a denialist. I'm merely a person unconcerned about climate change because the numbers are trivial.

 

I agree.

 

Your description of the mechanism does slow the departure of heat. Science has shown what is slowing that departure.

Earth can not help but warm if arriving solar radiation is not slowed, but departing heat is slowed.

 

Radiation from the sun is in wavelengths CO2 can’t absorb. Some radiation from earth is of wavelengths CO2 can absorb, some of which randomly ends up back on earth when re-emitted by the CO2. Yes, this warms the earth. If it didn’t you’d be a popsicle.

Unfortunately your compatriot thought CO2 reflects radiation like a mirror. If this were the case, again, you would be a popsicle. I understand this fully and routinely correct your errors and the errors of others on the matter. You should be hounding Bowerbird, not me. She is the one who doesn’t understand the greenhouse effect.

 

True.

And, if you go to a retail automotive supply store and ask for a starter engine, they may be a little surprised.

 

The delay is measured in nanoseconds.

 

You're quibbling. A percent is reemitted toward Earth - not significantly different than a percentage being reflected toward Earth.

The important part is that heat is slowed from leaving Earth. And, since solar radiation isn't slowed from arriving, Earth will heat.

This is the greenhouse effect, named for glass greenhouses that allow solar heating but slow heat departure. And, it isn't limited to CO2.

 

That's not an adequate measure.

When heat is absorbed it is then rapidly reemitted in all directions. But, that doesn't describe the increase in time that it takes for heat to leave Earth.

 

If it's being absorbed by CO2 or other GHG it's already left the earth.

 

No. Reflection is the exact opposite of absorption. One results in you being an icicle and one results in a habitable planet that is becoming more habitable.

It’s not quibbling to point out that her statement was 100% incorrect. It couldn’t be more incorrect. Her idea would result in an inhabitable planet.

Quibbling. SMH.

And yes, it’s VERY IMPORTANT. Life depends on it. And as atmospheric CO2 levels rise we reap great benefit.

Obviously it’s not limited to CO2. Greenhouses aren’t made of CO2.

 

Just for interested third parties, infrared radiation is not heat. It’s an electromagnet wave. “Heat” is the excited state of matter. Electromagnetic waves are not matter so can not be “heat”.

Electromagnetic waves can excite matter like CO2 and “produce” heat. But no matter how many times these nutters claim electromagnetic waves are heat they still aren’t the same thing.

 

It may have left Earth's surface, but it hasn't left the atmosphere into space.

 

I think you're out-physicsing yourself.

Solar radiation is also electromagnetic.

If you use an infrared spotting scope to sight on a deer, the scope detects the infrared radiation given off by the deer.

It is still a case of solar radiation not being reflected by the changes we cause in the atmosphere. But, greenhouse gasses do cause some percent of reduction in infrared radiation reaching space. With slowing the departure of infrared radiation, Earth gets warmer. Earth's heat isn't radiated to space as much as it once was.

 

But it's getting there fast.

 

A minuscule amount of the heat is "slowed" leaving the Earth. CO2 responds to a very narrow band in the IR spectrum. Estimates range from 3% -8% of the .13C decadal gain.

 

What's your point?

 

Point is squawking and whining about CO2 being a major contributor to the minuscule amount of heat it adds the climb is foolish and uninformed.

 

No, I’m just stating facts to correct information from ya’ll that is not factual.

Can you explain what value there is in stating solar radiation is electromagnetic when the post you responded to said exactly that?

Solar radiation is not reflected by “changes we cause in the atmosphere”. Reflection IS NOT IN PLAY—PERIOD. Now you are straying farther and farther from reality.

It doesn’t look like you will ever comprehend the physics of AGW. I guess that’s ok. I’ll just accept you don’t understand and don’t care to.

 

LOL!!

Now that you accept AGW, what policy decisions should we make?

 

And your proof of this is where?

 

Linky????

 

Ok

THIS is the link to Columbia University’s explanation of how CO2 is causing global warming
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

Got an issue with the science - go complain to them

 

I have always accepted AGW. In fact I’ve spent years educating you all on AGW pathways that are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 levels.

I’ve spent years educating you all on the results of AGW such as reduced human net mortality related to temperature. Things like increased crop yields from AGW.

I accept the science of AGW. You still reject the science. Starting with the physics of CO2 effects. You deny almost every scientific foundation of the concept

I have spent hours and hours describing policy to you that can heal the damage we have done to the planet. You reject it as well.

 

Nobody has an issue with science. The issue is with your unsubstantiated opinions. Things like “CO2 acts like a mirror” when that is direct denial of the physics of CO2 driven AGW.

If you had presented science instead of your opinions to begin with you wouldn’t have further discredited environmentalism as you have ended up doing.

 

Who should propose policy? Those who understand and accept climate science, or those who have no understanding of science and deny evidence?

Should the biggest problems that are easily addressed be priority, or the most insignificant problems that don’t have viable solutions?