Maths? I taught myself Advance level maths at 14 years old without the help of any teachers and got the top grade at 15, three years earlier than the usual age
But but but……. Green Fairies is real!! They make the climate change and the made the COVID pandemic and they made Trump honest and and and……….
LOL. Gas atoms are "solid". Green house gases do not reflect the radiation which is what you stated, they absorb and re-transmit. Whether the radiation is absorbed or not is related to the excitation levels of the electrons within the gaseous atoms and the frequency of the radiation. Hence different gases absorb different wavelength which is why not all gases are referred to as "greenhouse gases". I won't go into the physics about "solids" (note the quotation marks) because that will confuse you even more but I will leave you with this - see that table over there? It's 99.99999999999% a vacuum ie consists of nothing, not even air Now lets address percentages. Do you believe in the ozone layer? This layer blocks much of the UV light from the sun reaching the Earth's surface. Ozone (O3) comprises about 0.00006% of the atmosphere or in other words there is about 700 more CO2 in the atmosphere than O3 yet you wrote how can such a small figure of 0.04% be so important regarding greenhouse effects
You forgot about the neofascists at the NIH/WHO/CDC who used uninformed opinions to shape public policy during the pandemic.
So that's your lame excuse for wanting to ban the energy sources that allow millions of people worldwide to have economies that can lift them out of poverty and thrive? That's just heinous.
Excuse? I've corrected your lack of knowledge on the subject which I hope you'll carry forward when posting on this subject in the future. I've made no comment in this thread about any banning. This is a science forum not a political forum
You continually shown your lack of knowledge on some pretty basic science information and you want use that to allow continued use of products that are destroying our environment and will result in a climate crisis that lead to death and starvation of millions (possibly billions). THAT is heinous.
I’ll deny CO2 reflects I fared radiation. Anyone with even a basic understanding of AGW or greenhouse gasses would also deny CO2 reflects infrared radiation. Gold, tinfoil, and snow have the ability to reflect infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide does not have the ability to reflect infrared radiation. Instead it ABSORBS infrared radiation. Just another way climate change proselytizers have misled people I suppose. It’s sad really. I fear science is dead and has been completely replaced with something else I call neo-science. A combination of urban legend, disinformation from authorities people appeal to, and opinions selected on what makes on feel good or accepted in society.
No scientist would agree with you. No kid who passed junior high science would agree with you. I'm sorry that physical facts are inconvenient for your agenda. It won't make the facts go away.
I suggest you look it up before embarrassing yourself further. Factual information is my only agenda.
CO2 has a refractive index. This is an objective fact. I can give you the exact numbers if you want. My best friend is a physics PhD. I've gone over this with him. I assure you that the embarrassment is on the other side of the glass.
Your science is arguing in support of trying to ban production of CO2 based on an unproven idea that somehow global warming, caused by CO2, is going to kill us all. There's plenty of "science" stuff on this forum that is posted routinely that shows that global warming is, if not outright fraudulent, extremely exaggerated. The flip side of that discussion that's rarely covered is that, if your side is right then CO2 is a pollutant that must be banned. And that argument has become very political going well beyond where science hits its limits. So what's happening as a result of the mistaken notion that CO2 is actually a pollutant? The capability to produce energy is being dismantled since CO2 production is an integral part of producing energy in the simplest and most widespread ways. Burning hydrocarbons yields CO2 and water. All the time. If you take that away from people, particularly the poorer part of the world population that is the vast majority of the world's population, you're simply dooming them. So, yes indeed, it is political and and the crap that's being perpetrated in "climate change's" name is criminal. Fortunately, at least here in the US, climate change is hitting a brick wall in that there aren't any political avenues available to legislate the impossible.
I don't like getting involved in political matters on a science forum because I prefer to discuss science rather than politics. It's a pointless exercise to post on global warming as most people have their fixed views. similarly I don't stay long on threads about guns or Palestine in the general politics section of this forum because every thread eventually mirrors every other thread posted on those subjects.
God almighty, it's NOT "unproven" It's basic freaking science! What you claim is "science stuff" that shows global warming is fraudulent is NOT science.
Only if you think that the sub-section such as the one called music, TV and movies or Casual Chat are also political debating platforms.
The interaction of Electromagnetic Radiation and matter is a far more complex topic that can be discussed with those who do not have an understanding of the process on an internet forum. When we talk of CO2 "reflecting" Infrared Radiation what is actually happening is that the photon is absorbed the electrons of the CO2 molecule raising the energy level of the electron. Electrons can only hold specific energy levels thus can only absorb (and emit) specific wavelengths of photons. In the case of CO2 that wavelength falls in the IR spectrum. While an electron is at a higher energy state it "heats up" (heat is just a measurement of the energy in a system) eventually the electron returns to it's non excited state and emits a photon. THAT photon then moves off in a random direction. There is a chance that it's just going to hit another CO2 atom, get reabsorbed and the whole process starts all over. EVENTUALLY the photon will escape the atmosphere. The problem is that the more CO2 atoms there are in the atmosphere the more IR energy that is being held by electrons in an excited state the more the atmosphere heats up. The more CO2 that absorbs IR at lower levels in the atmosphere the LESS that gets absorbed in the upper atmosphere cooling the upper atmosphere. This results in a warmer lower atmosphere and a cooler upper atmosphere. Guess what that causes?
LOL. I’ll do a far better job educating you than your friend. Hang on tight, I’m going to give you facts as opposed to unsubstantiated opinions. First, let’s put to bed your idea that refractive index is pertinent here. Refractive indexes refer to the reduction in velocity of light certain materials produce. This is a measure of the entire spectrum of light. We are only concerned with infrared light/radiation in this case so refractive indexes of the entire spectrum are essentially useless measures. Now on to reflectivity and absorption of infrared radiation. Infrared radiation coming towards earth from the sun is mostly of too short a wavelength to be absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere so it passes on to earth. Some of this radiation is reflected (by snow for example) and since reflection does not change the wavelength that radiation again passes through the atmospheric CO2 and back into space. But some of the infrared radiation reaching earth is absorbed by matter and then released. The re-emitted radiation has a longer wavelength capable of being absorbed by CO2 and some is absorbed by atmospheric CO2. A CO2 molecule retains the energy and “stores” it by vibrating for a time until the energy is again released. Some of this energy randomly goes back to space or back to earth. So the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more long wavelength infrared radiation coming up from earth is ABSORBED. When atmospheric CO2 ABSORBED radiation is subsequently re-emitted and some is randomly directed back to earth excess heating occurs—the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect does not involve reflection at all, but absorption. In fact, a plant greenhouse doesn’t heat primarily by reflecting either, but by absorbing and trapping re-emitted radiation. Glass doesn’t reflect infrared, but absorbs it (depending on wavelength just like CO2). http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/infrared.html This is not my opinion, this is settled science. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zon...oxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation Another source. Colombia University. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/ From NOAA for kids if the above is too much for you and your PhD friend. https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/LA_whats_so_special_about_co2.pdf Now for reflection. https://www.sharrettsplating.com/blog/metal-plating-satellites-benefits-light-reflection/ And. https://www.reference.com/science-technology/materials-reflect-infrared-light-80087ca386b2d887 Snow is trickier as it depends a lot on the structure of the crystals. I’m not going to get into that with someone who I haven’t determined is a science denier or not yet! Of course I’m always open to some new discovery that upsets this settled science that CO2 absorbs and does not reflect infrared radiation. Perhaps your friend has a published work invalidating NOAA, Columbia University, etc. Post it if it exists.
Yes, the problem is so many people think they understand, but haven’t a clue. I don’t want such folks making decisions on climate change mitigation.
Impossible! I’ve been assured multiple times on PF learning can only occur in school at the instruction of unionized instructors! Just kidding, this place needs a bit of levity. I’m envious of math whizzes.
