@pschwede How, we cant get 5g to kill anything in a lab even when we try.

@pschwede Fine theory, but for that we can easily show that it is real, unlike 5G which we cant.

@pschwede Depends on what part you need educzting on. There are really 2 points you might not be informed about which i could help point you to some info on..

1) if you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels have a direct and significant impact on global temperatures

2) if you deny that CO2 levels are increasing at rates never seen historicaly

or 3) If you deny that the rise that we are seeing is due to human injection of Co2 rather than other sources.

Of those three points which are the ones you need info on?

@pschwede Sure in that case we just need to refer to the ice drilling experiments as the most obvious. We can clearly and reliably chart out CO2 content historically using such experiments and corelate this to climate change by comparing it to the global temperature at the same time.

I'll get you the link.

@freemo I remember a chart from NASA showing pre 1850 was as hot as 0 BC. After 1850 it dropped hard and recovered until now.

@pschwede This has nothing to do with what temperature it is in itself. It is the rate in change of temperature that has never occured before

@pschwede No it hasnt. I've seen many detailed charts of time and temp relationships and have never seen as large and as fast a change. Now if you are going to say otherwise, I ust ask you back that up with a cited source. You'll have to prove to me that has some validity.

@freemo I had the following in mind but I just saw that it already stops at 2000.
I must say the public media clearly lacks diagrams like this.

@pschwede So i know you cant get throught he paywall so here is a chart fromt he Ice Core paper I tried to share. Here it is important to see how CO2 correlates to temperature. If you dont line these two up all youll see is noise. Notice how it follows it almost perfectly?

@pschwede Temp is red, CO2 is blue, the red curve seems to change after a change int he blue curve, as expected.

@pschwede Thats a fine theory to put forth and all and im sure people made such theories int he early days when they didnt know about climate change and the topic hasnt been investigated.

So why not go and investigate yoru theory. Go look at the fossil record around plants and see where their relative biomass high and low periods are and plant extinction events and see if they line up with the chart and validate your theory.

Obviously you will find that your theory is easily debunked but int he name of science if you feel it is a valid explanation i do encourage you to research it rather than just assume it to be valid.

@freemo hey wait. All we both can see on the chart, there's nothing but correlation. So can you say more about causation as you planned to, first?


@pschwede Well we dont have to, not exactly, because of #3... think about it like this...

So if we accept there is strong correlation between temperature and CO2 that means either changes in temperature effect the world in a way that causes CO2 levels to change. Or CO2 levels cause the temperature to change, or perhaps even both, where changing one always changes the other.

Whichever of these it is all we need to do is ask ourselves a few simple questions:

How much has the CO2 changed in recent years?

How much CO2 have humans put into the atmosphere in that time?

Is the portion of CO2 increased in the atmosphere mostly accounted for by human processes such as pollution or is the volume much greater than the known human contribution?

Well earlier you said you conceded point 3 which was that humans contributed the bulk of the change int he CO2. So if you recognize this fact, then the fact that we can observe the temperature changing exactly the same as the correlation shown historically, we can therefore conclude that a change in CO2 is the causative agent resulting in the change in temperature. After all if it was the other way around then we wouldnt see any change in temperature from all the CO2 we are dumping, yet the correlation continues to track just as perfectly as it did historically.

ยท 1 ยท 0 ยท 1

@freemo no need to talk about 3 if we cannot reason about the consequences to be made in the first place. However, an anthropogenic change of temperature is way more plausible to me. E.g. cities in Germany are on average 2K warmer than the environment. With increase of urban areas in Germany, the warmer Germany gets. Globally, similar urban changes can be observed.

If CO2 ist only a consequence of this, talking about CO2-taxes would be plain nonsense.

@pschwede Sure, but i just proved in the last statement why we know that isnt the case. So your point has become moot. Unless you can explain the obvious contradiction.

@freemo well your own source seemingly contradicts 3 as it reveals a very typical saw tooth pattern much like we can observe within the last 169 years.

@pschwede Huh? How does a saw tooth pattern in any way contradict point 3? I lost ya on that claim.

@pschwede Yea that was #2, but the saw tooth pattern doesnt debunk the statement we never saw a pattern like this before... The saw tooth int he chart is over the course of millions of years. The saw tooth spike we are currently int he middle of is over the course of a 100. so no that pattern was never seen historically (a spike that fast, just never happened)

@freemo are the measurements of recent data reconstuctable from archeological findings already so that we can compare?

@pschwede Im not sure i understand the question. We are able of reconstructing historically both temperature and CO2 yea.

@freemo nevermind. I assume we take 169 years of direct measurements and correlate them with plausible remainings in the ground/ice. I don't know how stable those are over time anyway. If not then we would of course think that our high concentrations must be really high because we cannot find anything similar but not because of never-existence, rather because of decay.

@freemo overall we can agree that discussions about invisible gasses relies very - if not too - much on trust as facts can be ignored, denied and forgotten too easily.

@pschwede I mean to the uneducated facts can certainly be ignored denied or forgotten, sure. But scientists actually prove their facts and demonstrate why it is. The truth is we can very easily and clearly test "invisible gases" for these effects. So no trust needed.

Like i said i did the experiments myself when i was younger. They arent particularly hard to do and requires no trust, you can do it yourself.

@freemo democracies deal with the diversely educated though. There are clearer facts to talk about.

@freemo I mean we're not talking about some cooling liquid in fridges few engineers know about. We are talking about breathe.

@pschwede Wait how are we talking about breath? You mean because we exhale CO2? Well we dont exhale anywhere near pure CO2 in fact CO2 is only a small percentage of what we exhale.

@freemo we do exhale co2 and that's how we generate energy to do anything. In fact we produce more co2 by taking stairs than by taking the lift. So talking about invisible gasses affects each person. Politics already attempted taking taxes accordingly to co2 in off-air from offices.

Show more

@pschwede I mean yea we certainly do exhale a gas that has a small portion of CO2 and the level of that CO2 is relative to how much energy we burn. Sure. But im not sure the point your making here. I mean teh science to confirm all this is really simple, its not particularly complex. Its just a few basical logical steps and a little bit of data and its easy to see. Its the reason we have such a huge amount of consensus on this issue, way more than most issues. PRetty much anyone educated ont he subject who takes a look can quickly see that climate change is legit.

Not saying you cant question it. By all means ask questions and do research. But you have to keep in mind its all been done, we know the answer already. The research should be more for you to answer your own outstanding questions than any real attempt to debunk climate change which at this point islike trying to claim teh earth is flat. We have just too much evidence.

@pschwede democracies are filling mostly with uneducated people these days. Yea people arent too bright and as such many people are not equipped to understand climate change, let alone how to understand how to feed themselves or anything else.

But jsut because people cant understand the truth due to their own ignorance isnt really an excuse for us to put the truth in question.

@pschwede yes they have done the due dilligance to calibrate the co2 int he ice with modern day findings. It is covered in the paper in some detail actually. These processes have passed peer review by experts on such things.

@freemo on the other hand, people theorized a greenhouse effect which is AFAIK pretty much unconfirmed.

@pschwede Actually green house effects are rather trivial to confirm in the lab. Did the experiment myself when i was a kid. It is far from a theory.

@pschwede There are many. The ones we do at the lower level usually involves a chamber filled with gases where we test heat retention in various ways by measuring the rate of heat loss and IR radiative heat specifically (as the chamber itself is inside a vacuum to simulate space).

@pschwede Im a bit confused why you are unclear how that could be related to the earths greenhouse effect. Are you unaware of how the effect works? I'd be happy to explain the effect if it helps, not trying to be condescending.

@pschwede Sure.

Basically the way the greenhouse effect works is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are opaque to infrared light. they may or may not be opaque to visible light, for simplicity sake lets just talk about visible light and infrared light as they are really where most of the heat energy is from anyway.

so for infrared light (what we call radiative heat) the atmosphere is partially opaque and looks like a partially blackened cloud. As such when IR reaches the earth part of that IR is absorbed by the GH gas and heats up the atmosphere directly. To be specific approximately half of the IR light that reaches earth is absorbed by the earths surface specifically, heating it up. In turn some of that IR is also reflected by the surface, and on its way back out to space goes throught he black atmosphere a second time and even more is absorbed.

this means everything heats up. As we know normally things like planets in space, if they are hot, will slowly cool down. They do this by releasing heat energy as IR, radiative heat.

The surface is constantly giving off IR in an attempt to cool itself. If there were no greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be transparent and the IR would just escape into space, cooling everything. But since the atmopshere is opaque to heat the heat just gets reabsorbed by the atmosphere and cant escape.

Even the heat int eh atmosphere itself cant escape very well. When hot air near the surface of the earth gives off its IR in an attempt to cool itself off it cant because it just gets reabsorbed higher int he atmosphere again.

So while a planet with no GH gas could easily allow its heat to escape through a transparent atmosphere when GH is present the heat can no longer escape.

This effect is even worse on visible light. Since the atmosphere is transparent (mostly) to visible light nearly 100% makes it way through the atmosphere to the earth. It is then absorbed and converted to heat and thus when it escapes the same energy that had an easy time getting to earth as visible light is now IR and cant escape. So things heat up even more.

@freemo I understand that photons radiated by the sun hit Earth's atmosphere and get reflected at different locations and different materials. E.g. clouds reemit about 90% of it while transmitting the rest and some gets converted to IR. The rates been measured usind photon sensory above (satellites, planes) and beneath (planes, stationary).
These experiments work at full daylight spectrum. IR-only spectra as in your school would rather proof heat insulation than above effect.

@pschwede What is proven in the school is simple, that when you surround a hot object with green house gases, that hot object has a much harder time cooling down due to insulation against radiative loss.

The experiment proves that rather clearly. No one has proposed any counter explanation to what is going on.

It seems like your grasping at straws to hold onto a cognitive bias more than someone who is trying to find the most likely truth. Some light at certain spectrums are reflected sure.. so what? we can still measure how much makes it to earth as well as how quickly the earth gives off heat. All of these measurements are pretty damn good at confirming the effects of GH gas really.

@pschwede Oh the experiment is simple. You either put a hot objects ot an object you shine light on, inside a clear tank filled with a gas, then stick that ina . larger tank under vacuum.

You then observe to see how long it takes the hot object to reach room temperature (or some fixed point). You repeat this with a GH gas int eh chamber then do it again with a non-GH gas. It can be trivially observed that with a GH gas present the object retains its heat significantly longer.

@freemo what concentrations are you talking about? What is the experiment called so I can refer to it (e.g. to search on YouTube)?

@pschwede let me see if i can find the name. I've seen it but i dont know the name.

@pschwede While this experiment is NOT the same as i was describing before it does do a good job at showing how we can prove that CO2 is opaque to green house gas but not to air: youtu.be/Rt6gLt6G5Kc

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful

We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.