• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

Deuce said:
We're substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas. And the guy I was responding too thinks we can't adequately predict the consequences of doing that, but wants to continue doing it anyway.
Click to expand...

Carbon dioxide has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. You keep ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
 
azgreg said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/heal...3T15:40:04&utm_source=twCNN&utm_medium=social



The letter: Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

Didn't these folks see the movie Snowpiercer?
Click to expand...

Snowpiercer train which holds the last remnants of humanity after an attempt at climate engineering
in order to stop global warming has unintentionally created a new Snowball Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer​

Good one!

Anyone who defends the Geoengineering schemes put forth by alarmists just isn't thinking.
 
Into the Night said:
Zero. Fossils don't burn. No one knows how much carbon based fuel is being burned.

Starting with a random number in your equation produces a random result. Argument from randU fallacy.

None. CO2 is CO2. Nothing about us burning fuel makes it any different than any other source of CO2.
Click to expand...

Listen. The guy who doesn’t know what fossil fuels are doesn’t get to make declarations about carbon isotope decay rates.
 
Into the Night said:
So far so good. For this argument let's assume energy absorbed from the Sun isn't changing.

Not what I am referring to. You are trying to heat the surface using a colder magick gas (carbon dioxide).

To make something hotter, you need more energy. Where is that energy coming from? The Sun is not changing. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Ah...the Magick Blanket argument.

Put a blanket on a rock and it will not make the rock warmer. Blankets do not create energy. They reduce heat.

Let's say your Magick Blanket actually traps heat instead of reducing it. That would mean less radiant energy is leaving Earth. That would mean you are reducing radiance while at the same time raising the temperature of Earth. You are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
Click to expand...

The piece you are missing is that the atmosphere does not absorb all wavelengths equally.
 
Deuce said:
Listen. The guy who doesn’t know what fossil fuels are doesn’t get to make declarations about carbon isotope decay rates.
Click to expand...

Fossils aren't fuel. They don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Carbon isotope decay has nothing to do with where carbon dioxide comes from.
 
Deuce said:
The piece you are missing is that the atmosphere does not absorb all wavelengths equally.
Click to expand...

Irrevant. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a term for frequency. It is the result of Planck's law integrated over all frequencies.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Geo-engineering: Ignoring the consequences[/h][FONT=&quot]Governments charge ahead on engineering Earth’s climate, ignoring possible harmful effects Tim Ball and Tom Harris The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report said we have only 12 years left to save the planet. It triggered the usual frantic and ridiculous reactions. NBC News offered this gem: “A last-ditch global warming fix? A…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Into the Night said:
Irrevant. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a term for frequency. It is the result of Planck's law integrated over all frequencies.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the Stefan-Boltzmann law says if you're going to wildly misapply it.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/27/geo-engineering-ignoring-the-consequences/"]
climate_engineer.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Geo-engineering: Ignoring the consequences[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Governments charge ahead on engineering Earth’s climate, ignoring possible harmful effects Tim Ball and Tom Harris The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report said we have only 12 years left to save the planet. It triggered the usual frantic and ridiculous reactions. NBC News offered this gem: “A last-ditch global warming fix? A…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/27/geo-engineering-ignoring-the-consequences/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Says the guy insisting we continue geoengineering.
 
Jack Hays said:
Who would that be? Certainly not me.
Click to expand...

We are currently geoengineering.

I notice WUWT is still peddling the 1970s cooling "consensus" myth.
 
Jack Hays said:
Read first. Then post.
Click to expand...

Altering the composition of the atmosphere wrt greenhouse gases is geoengineering. Something conservatives routinely tell me is a bad idea because we don't adequately understand the consequences.
 
Bum said:
I am no engineer, but perhaps orbital solar shades would have the same effect?

I'm sure such an idea brings complications of its own, but I imagine the shades could be made of very light weight material that could unfold to a very large surface area ( mylar type material?)
Click to expand...

look how big the moon is and how small a shadow it cases during a eclipse...
 
Deuce said:
Altering the composition of the atmosphere wrt greenhouse gases is geoengineering. Something conservatives routinely tell me is a bad idea because we don't adequately understand the consequences.
Click to expand...

The consequences are negligible.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. That has never been my argument.
Click to expand...

You can't claim the consequences are negligible if we don't understand the consequences.
 
Deuce said:
You can't claim the consequences are negligible if we don't understand the consequences.
Click to expand...

I have not said we don't understand the consequences of CO2 emissions. Indeed, I think we understand well they are negligible.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have not said we don't understand the consequences of CO2 emissions. Indeed, I think we understand well they are negligible.
Click to expand...

I think we understand well they are the opposite.
 
Deuce said:
Altering the composition of the atmosphere wrt greenhouse gases is geoengineering. Something conservatives routinely tell me is a bad idea because we don't adequately understand the consequences.
Click to expand...

there is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom