|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 17:03:32 GMT
Well from your response here I have to assume you know what I was talking about and you known why I asked the questions and you don't want to go there. If you weren't lying about that you would be curious and ready for a lesson. Bullshit. You had 3 objections to spencers thought experiment being applied to the real world. You should be able to explain those objections so a human being can understand them. I have no idea what you are talking about. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about. I don't recall list the objections.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 17:39:16 GMT
I am not confidant of anything. I am skeptical of more or less everything. The greenhouse idea is a very very simple idea. I just want to understand what you are talking about. Surely you can put into words what you are objecting to so it can be understood by another human being?? Indeed the greenhouse idea is a simple idea. However, it seems rather strange that it has not been demonstrated. The Woods experiment refuted the idea that greenhouses are warmed by radiation, though I agree it did not refute a greenhouse effect. But what Woods did was strip the greenhouse effect of any significance that the common man might mistakenly immediately grasp. So I find it interesting with all the debate that nobody has actually demonstrated the effect. When Svensmark came up with his theory he was laughed and and all the believers in the greenhouse theory insisted he prove it. Since Svensmark attracted the interest in a number of nuclear scientists that happened. Today the only question about the Svensmark theory is if in nature the effect is strong enough to explain temperature variations seen. Well the same question exists for the greenhouse theory. Let me ask you some questions and lets see where it leads us. 1) You stated that without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be a lot hotter and the surface a lot colder. Do you think currently the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) is colder or hotter on average than the surface and why do you hold that opinion? 2) If there were no greenhouse gases would the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) be hotter or colder on average than the surface and why? Icefisher: I will bite. 1. The atmosphere is layered. Commonly, there are 4 layers. Within the 4 layers there are substrata, but will you agree to talk about 4 layers? 2). Radiation spectrum of all "greenhouse" gasses must be known. Also, density of all "greenhouse" gases must be known. With the above as the parameters, what is the correct answer in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 17:44:22 GMT
Bullshit. You had 3 objections to spencers thought experiment being applied to the real world. You should be able to explain those objections so a human being can understand them. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about. I don't recall list the objections. You do not recall the list of objections I have been including in many of my posts for the last 5 days??? You want me to list the objections? ? the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added) Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 17:49:53 GMT
I suggest you both provide some outside academic papers that provide evidence to back up your individual claims. Well actually Code the claim that CO2 leads to a warmer climate is one Andrew has supported for a long time. Its incumbent upon the party making the claim to provide the support. Its important to recognize I am not denying the existence of a Greenhouse Effect. In fact several posts in this thread have statements by me that explicitly accepts that a slowing of cooling in a fractional sense will result in an increase in average temperature. And what I mean by "fractional" I mean if that's the only property you look at. For example, greenhouse gases have other properties. One is they cool faster radiantly than non-radiant gases. Assumption 1: Climate science believes there are no other relevant effects than the slowing of cooling. My skepticism is fed by the lack of papers supporting such ideas. The Woods experiment is a well known one that Andrew is aware of that shows no warming due to radiation in the greenhouse and in fact shows slight cooling from having IR opaque glass as opposed to an IR transparent pane of rocksalt over the greenhouse. Being a real experiment as opposed to an ignorant and limited thought experiment all effects are in play. Probably one of the first things I learned in philosophy and the study of logic was that there are only two states of knowledge (and the paper referenced to in the first post of this thread discusses that). I will use God as the universal example. 1) You can know God exists; 2)you can be uncertain that God exists, but 3) you cannot know that God does not exist. The two states of knowledge is knowing and being uncertain. Being certain something doesn't exist is a pseudo-knowledge. not true knowledge, and therefore an illusion. Mainstream climate science is stupid because they adopt Assumption 1. In logic they call it arguing from ignorance, a fallacy. Its not science to only include effects that bolster your case. So my entire pursuit is in soliciting evidence that climate science assumptions are valid. And what do I get? I get from Andrew: "I don't understand what you are talking about". What do you get from a typical climate scientist inculcated by an education in thermodynamics? The same essential answer as Andrew. I think the basic problem is that modern education is not near rigid enough to consistently produce good scientists.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 18:07:28 GMT
my entire pursuit is in soliciting evidence that climate science assumptions are valid. And what do I get? I get from Andrew: "I don't understand what you are talking about". The climate idea is a childishly simple idea but you object to the childishly simple idea. And nobody can understand your objections. We are talking about incredibly simple ideas and you object. Why are you objecting? Give me something that makes sense so I can understand your objections. I was demonstrating the relationships implied by the stefan boltzmann equation and shown for all to see by engineering tool box, which is something anybody can do using a cooling warm surface, an intermediate surface and a much colder surface. I was demonstrating something a school boy could understand. What aspect of that simple three temperature reality is still so utterly beyond you?? Well if thats all you were trying to show, there is no dispute that the hot bar alone will cool slower than when in the presence of a relatively warm bar in relationship to the environment. But one should note very carefully that there are at least three potentially very important reasons that do not apply to worlds and their atmospheres where trace amounts of gas are added. 1) the hot bar has a heating force capable of pushing the heat in the hot bar higher (e.g. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added)
Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect.So your experiment does nothing to establish the existence of a greenhouse effect even though it apparently is convincing to you. >>the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by Your facts will always trump my imaginations. I purposely used a heated surface via a cooling brick to avoid your dishonest twisting of reality to suit your agenda. I then had to endure months of you telling me the surface of the brick was not heated. Meanwhile you claimed you were so stupid you could not understand how the surface of an egg warmed up when insulated. To this day I have no idea if you are really so stupid or you are just a sadist. How can it be that after 4 years of talking about the stefan boltzmann constant you still have absolutely no ability to talk intelligently about this topic? Will you ever apologise for what you have done here? Even when I helpfully wrote to Engineers toolbox in an attempt to clear up your confusion your only response was more of the same toxic abuse. Likewise when i wrote to the Indian Engineer. A school boy can understand these ideas and you are claiming to be a former auditor and yet it is utterly beyond you??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 18:30:24 GMT
Indeed the greenhouse idea is a simple idea. However, it seems rather strange that it has not been demonstrated. The Woods experiment refuted the idea that greenhouses are warmed by radiation, though I agree it did not refute a greenhouse effect. But what Woods did was strip the greenhouse effect of any significance that the common man might mistakenly immediately grasp. So I find it interesting with all the debate that nobody has actually demonstrated the effect. When Svensmark came up with his theory he was laughed and and all the believers in the greenhouse theory insisted he prove it. Since Svensmark attracted the interest in a number of nuclear scientists that happened. Today the only question about the Svensmark theory is if in nature the effect is strong enough to explain temperature variations seen. Well the same question exists for the greenhouse theory. Let me ask you some questions and lets see where it leads us. 1) You stated that without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be a lot hotter and the surface a lot colder. Do you think currently the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) is colder or hotter on average than the surface and why do you hold that opinion? 2) If there were no greenhouse gases would the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) be hotter or colder on average than the surface and why? Icefisher: I will bite. 1. The atmosphere is layered. Commonly, there are 4 layers. Within the 4 layers there are substrata, but will you agree to talk about 4 layers? 2). Radiation spectrum of all "greenhouse" gasses must be known. Also, density of all "greenhouse" gases must be known. With the above as the parameters, what is the correct answer in your opinion? I take your answer to be, I don't know. I can answer question 2 and the answer is without question the atmosphere would be a lot hotter on average (assuming it is all uniformly compressed to the pressure of one bar) than the surface. As to question 1 there is a degree of uncertainty there. Greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere. If its cooler (compressed to one bar) than the surface depends upon how much cooler greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere. (noting that without compression its much slower) I have built systems that sequester (and only sequester) the excess atmospheric heat and used that excess heat to raise the mean temperature of living spaces. Its a pretty simple principle. (one needs to note that I am only sampling one bar atmosphere at the surface for the purposes of sequestration.) If the atmosphere did not have greenhouse gases my systems would become even more efficient. The basic physical principal that allows for this sequestration of heat is its lack of emissivity. Low emissivity allows for more heat sequesterization than high emissivity. Bottom line is a low emissive atmosphere will cool a lot slower than a high emissive atmosphere. Greenhouse gases raise the emissivity of the atmosphere. So what are the implications of this? Well first of all I pointed out to Andrew that one of the most justified criticisms of the greenhouse effect is that it measures the temperature of the surface of our world vs a world that has no atmosphere at all. If all we had was an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere (besides all of us dying from either freezing or heat prostration) the atmosphere would be a lot hotter than one that had no atmosphere. (so heat prostration would be the bigger risk). This is the appropriate benchmark if we could figure out what it is. The question as to whether greenhouse gases warm or cool the atmosphere then must be measured against this world with an atmosphere of the same size lacking greenhouse gases. Now as to the effects of this hot atmosphere without greenhouse gases on the surface, we know without a doubt that it will warm the surface by conduction because it is in contact with the surface. The relevance of uniformly compressing the atmosphere to one bar then becomes apparent. It is only by compressing the atmosphere to one bar that it will come in contact with the surface via convection cycles. How much isn't entirely relevant either as we do not measure climate by measuring surface temperatures in the first place, we measure the low atmosphere. Therefore, arguments that conduction is inadequate to warm the surface is a stupid argument because the only way the surface can cool a hotter non-emissive atmosphere (without greenhouse gases) is by guess what. . . . conduction. I have heard this argument from the guys at Real Climate for God's Sake! If you point out the absurdity they will ban you. We also know that without an atmosphere the surface would average about 5C, not -18C as calculated by the warmists. The albedo effect while not strictly created by greenhouse gases is created by the basic element of water, without which you would be missing the primary greenhouse gas. Now what does this all mean? Well it means to me that we don't know if greenhouse gases warm or cool our environment and we don't know if, or if not water due to its heat capacity and albedo capacities does the opposite of CO2 I see this puzzle as the foundation of why a brilliant man, the Grandfather of Global Warming, Dr. Roger Revelle (teacher of the dim student - Al Gore), said the jury was still out on the scientific physical basis of the greenhouse effect. Yes Yes Yes Yes, if you narrow your thought experiment you can find some warming. No question about that! But we do not know all the effects and we don't even know the benchmark. Thus the study of global warming has boiled down to observations of climate. Models and predictions are the experimental method being employed. As even Kevin Trenberth said. . . .Its a Travesty! How right he is.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 18:40:50 GMT
Icefisher: I will bite. 1. The atmosphere is layered. Commonly, there are 4 layers. Within the 4 layers there are substrata, but will you agree to talk about 4 layers? 2). Radiation spectrum of all "greenhouse" gasses must be known. Also, density of all "greenhouse" gases must be known. With the above as the parameters, what is the correct answer in your opinion? I take your answer to be, I don't know. I can answer question 2 and the answer is without question the atmosphere would be a lot hotter on average (assuming it is all uniformly compressed to the pressure of one bar) than the surface. As to question 1 there is a degree of uncertainty there. Greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere. If its cooler (compressed to one bar) than the surface depends upon how much cooler greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere. (noting that without compression its much slower) I have built systems that sequester (and only sequester) the excess atmospheric heat and used that excess heat to raise the mean temperature of living spaces. Its a pretty simple principle. (one needs to note that I am only sampling one bar atmosphere at the surface for the purposes of sequestration.) If the atmosphere did not have greenhouse gases my systems would become even more efficient. The basic physical principal that allows for this sequestration of heat is its lack of emissivity. Low emissivity allows for more heat sequesterization than high emissivity. Bottom line is a low emissive atmosphere will cool a lot slower than a high emissive atmosphere. Greenhouse gases raise the emissivity of the atmosphere. So what are the implications of this? Well first of all I pointed out to Andrew that one of the most justified criticisms of the greenhouse effect is that it measures the temperature of the surface of our world vs a world that has no atmosphere at all. If all we had was an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere (besides all of us dying from either freezing or heat prostration) the atmosphere would be a lot hotter than one that had no atmosphere. (so heat prostration would be the bigger risk). This is the appropriate benchmark if we could figure out what it is. The question as to whether greenhouse gases warm or cool the atmosphere then must be measured against this world with an atmosphere of the same size lacking greenhouse gases. Now as to the effects of this hot atmosphere without greenhouse gases on the surface, we know without a doubt that it will warm the surface by conduction because it is in contact with the surface. The relevance of uniformly compressing the atmosphere to one bar then becomes apparent. It is only by compressing the atmosphere to one bar that it will come in contact with the surface via convection cycles. How much isn't entirely relevant either as we do not measure climate by measuring surface temperatures in the first place, we measure the low atmosphere. Therefore, arguments that conduction is inadequate to warm the surface is a stupid argument because the only way the surface can cool a hotter non-emissive atmosphere (without greenhouse gases) is by guess what. . . . conduction. I have heard this argument from the guys at Real Climate for God's Sake! If you point out the absurdity they will ban you. We also know that without an atmosphere the surface would average about 5C, not -18C as calculated by the warmists. The albedo effect while not strictly created by greenhouse gases is created by the basic element of water, without which you would be missing the primary greenhouse gas. Now what does this all mean? Well it means to me that we don't know if greenhouse gases warm or cool our environment and we don't know if, or if not water due to its heat capacity and albedo capacities does the opposite of CO2 I see this puzzle as the foundation of why a brilliant man, the Grandfather of Global Warming, Dr. Roger Revelle (teacher of the dim student - Al Gore), said the jury was still out on the scientific physical basis of the greenhouse effect. Yes Yes Yes Yes, if you narrow your thought experiment you can find some warming. No question about that! But we do not know all the effects and we don't even know the benchmark. Thus the study of global warming has boiled down to observations of climate. Models and predictions are the experimental method being employed. As even Kevin Trenberth said. . . .Its a Travesty! How right he is. Idiot. You have been talking about an ineffective barely working greenhouse effect for years. And yet mysteriously although the greenhouse idea is a childishly simple idea you can still produce pages and pages of totally stupid objections to it that only you can understand.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 19:06:36 GMT
Idiot. You have been talking about an ineffective barely working greenhouse effect for years. And yet mysteriously although the greenhouse idea is a childishly simple idea you can still produce pages and pages of totally stupid objections to it that only you can understand. I don't think thats it. I think its just you have a sensitive ego and don't like to be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 19:21:59 GMT
Idiot. You have been talking about an ineffective barely working greenhouse effect for years. And yet mysteriously although the greenhouse idea is a childishly simple idea you can still produce pages and pages of totally stupid objections to it that only you can understand. I don't think thats it. I think its just you have a sensitive ego and don't like to be questioned. Bullshit. You claimed an IR camera cannot detect the IR radiation absorbed on the detector unless electronic trickery is used. You told me I needed to understand some things And in response to Maxwells experiment you began talking in tongues. >>The experiment you referred me to was two hot flames of different colors one hotter than the other. The fact that you can see the cooler light through the flame of the hot light is not evidence that the hot flame has absorbed the photons from the colder light it only proves that a flame does not block the flow of photons to your eye a completely plausible concept that has not occurred to you. 5 minutes later you were claiming you were not saying your cold light theory was the truth. Your response to the greenhouse idea is truelly strange. It is just an idea and in response to the idea you have some need to overturn the science of the last 200 years. Then you pretend I have the problem What the f**k were you talking about with the distance from the Sun??? >>the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 19:29:52 GMT
As to the experiment you just posted. I didn't know that was Spencer's. I was thinking of another being Spencer's so I was confused by your question.
OK so I listed some uncertainties surrounding radiation laws. . . .especially extensions of them. I am good with the Engineers Toolbox Net Radiation Curves. In fact I have used that tool in construction. Obviously it does not cover the inverse square distance law. That was my point. The radiation transfer rates are incorrect for objects at distance. The inverse square distance law provides a correction for that but in a limited sense because you claim the inverse square distance law only applies to the problem in a limited way. Sounds plausible. But what is your source?
If you have a source I will drop that line of skepticism. I am not immune to learning.
But we are left with the Woods Experiment. The Woods experiment seems convincing simply because blocking all IR is going to have many times the effect of only blocking a little IR as does CO2. It seems to me that the Woods experiment could only have failed to produce a radiative greenhouse effect would be due to one of two additional reasons.
2)The outer surface of the glass greenhouse conducted away to the atmosphere all the gains of the radiative greenhouse effect due to one way glass. or
3)Because the sunlight being 50% IR and needing to penetrate the glass its subject to a cube rule of radiative absorption as opposed to a square rule of radiative absorption that applies to opaque surfaces.
Personally, I can't think of more objections.
Of course though these issues are just scratching the surface as to how much one can expect from the greenhouse effect in total once the principle is established in science.
The one thing we can agree upon scientifically is that radiation is good for both heating and cooling and if you peel the onion far enough back you no doubt can isolate a warming influence. . . .in sort of a Madison Avenue approach to the whole problem.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 19:36:47 GMT
As to the experiment you just posted. I didn't know that was Spencer's. I was thinking of another being Spencer's so I was confused by your question. OK so I listed some uncertainties surrounding radiation laws. . . .especially extensions of them. I am good with the Engineers Toolbox Net Radiation Curves. In fact I have used that tool in construction. Obviously it does not cover the inverse square distance law. That was my point. The radiation transfer rates are incorrect for objects at distance. The inverse square distance law provides a correction for that but in a limited sense because you claim the inverse square distance law only applies to the problem in a limited way. Sounds plausible. But what is your source? If you have a source I will drop that line of skepticism. I am not immune to learning. But we are left with the Woods Experiment. The Woods experiment seems convincing simply because blocking all IR is going to have many times the effect of only blocking a little IR as does CO2. It seems to me that the Woods experiment could only have failed to produce a radiative greenhouse effect would be due to one of two additional reasons. 2)The outer surface of the glass greenhouse conducted away to the atmosphere all the gains of the radiative greenhouse effect due to one way glass. or 3)Because the sunlight being 50% IR and needing to penetrate the glass its subject to a cube rule of radiative absorption as opposed to a square rule of radiative absorption that applies to opaque surfaces. Personally, I can't think of more objections. Of course though these issues are just scratching the surface as to how much one can expect from the greenhouse effect in total once the principle is established in science. The one thing we can agree upon scientifically is that radiation is good for both heating and cooling and if you peel the onion far enough back you no doubt can isolate a warming influence. . . .in sort of a Madison Avenue approach to the whole problem. Baloney. If you have an objection you should be able to say why you are objecting. How the f**k does the distance from the sun make a difference?? Hot things heat colder things. For the same amount of heating if you insulate an object it must get hotter. Obviously you dont like that but why??? What is the basis of your objection? Engineers curves dont cover inverse square law?? Why the f**k do you you think they need to? If you want to destroy ideas that are built on the science of the last hundreds of years you need to have something behind your objection. Why the f**k does the distance make any difference? ? You should be able to explain the processes happening in your mind that make you think an objection is required. >>The radiation transfer rates are incorrect for objects at distance. What happens in your mind to generate that text? You should be able to explain what is going on to create that text. Woods is totally nothing to do with the greenhouse idea. All he is saying is the greenhouse idea is nothing to do with a garden greenhouse.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 20:05:31 GMT
I don't think thats it. I think its just you have a sensitive ego and don't like to be questioned. Bullshit. You claimed an IR camera cannot detect the IR radiation absorbed on the detector unless electronic trickery is used. You told me I needed to understand some things Well a few years ago I inspected the engineering for a non-cooled bolometer. It uses some electronic trickery to select a flow of heat either into or out of the meter in a rather ingenuous way. Of course it would be expected that people not inspecting the circuitry to jump to a conclusion about what had been achieved by the original sensor through simply making it more sensitive. Yes they are more sensitive meaning they are more accurate and detect smaller flows of energy. And in response to Maxwells experiment you began talking in tongues. >>The experiment you referred me to was two hot flames of different colors one hotter than the other. The fact that you can see the cooler light through the flame of the hot light is not evidence that the hot flame has absorbed the photons from the colder light it only proves that a flame does not block the flow of photons to your eye a completely plausible concept that has not occurred to you. 5 minutes later you were claiming you were not saying your cold light theory was the truth. It is just an idea and in response to the idea you have some need to overturn the science of the last 200 years. Then you pretend I have the problem Its been quite some time since I read the Maxwell experiment you posted a few years ago. Since I don't have a link to it I have rely on my recollections. If you post it perhaps I can be a bit more succinct. What the f**k were you talking about with the distance from the Sun??? >>the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by Not? As you can see the Net Radiation curve of the Engineering Toolbox does not cover the topic of distance. So since you are claiming a warming effect and I am questioning it please provide a reference that supports your claim.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 20:06:31 GMT
1. The Greenhouse idea was presented as an idea so folks, who were not scientific literate, had a better understanding of a mass principle. 2. The Greenhouse idea, when it refers to our atmosphere, does not work. CO2 does NOT hold heat, nor cold. Easy way to think about CO2 is to think of a mirror shaped like a soft ball. For all practical purposes, the mirror has no mass. The mirror will reflect incoming radiation. A 1,000 mirrors won't add to the heat, it will only increase the ability of reflections. 3. H2O vapor DOES hold both heat and cold. It is actually an amazing state of water. Only H20 has the numerous physical properties to influence retained joules. Other reflective gases, to my knowledge, do not have this ability. A greenhouse has a shell of glass. If you throw a ball hard enough, it will bounce off that glass. Our atmosphere does NOT have a shell of glass. Gravity produces heat. I don't fully understand this, but I do know that the more pressure exerted on an object, the higher the temperature will be. A part of the temperature of Earth is relative to this fact. Now, you can both lamblast me as "stupid" if you desire......... (I am far from stupid)
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 20:25:21 GMT
2. The Greenhouse idea, when it refers to our atmosphere, does not work. CO2 does NOT hold heat, nor cold. I suspect you might be creating some meaning from CO2 not holding heat. I am sure you do realise that CO2 does hold heat - I am assuming you realise if it hotter than absolute zero then it is holding heat. I assume also you would know that matter does not hold cold, but rather has less heat. So since the wording is a bit odd, I am suspecting you might not understand the greenhouse idea at all because i cannot see any connection between the first part of the text about it not working and the CO2 comment. I am guessing you think the greenhouse idea is something to do with trapped/saved heat in the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 20:29:10 GMT
2. The Greenhouse idea, when it refers to our atmosphere, does not work. CO2 does NOT hold heat, nor cold. I suspect you might be creating some meaning from CO2 not holding heat. I am sure you do realise that CO2 does hold heat - I am assuming you realise if it hotter than absolute zero then it is holding heat. So since the wording is a bit odd, I am suspecting you might not understand the greenhouse idea at all because i cannot see any connection between the first part of the text about it not working and the CO2 comment. I agree Andrew that you are 100% technically correct. CO2 is above absolute zero, so it does hold heat. However, compared to H20 vapor, it does not hold any heat of consequence.
|
|