Am I missing something?

[wanton dwarf]

The solar energy input from the sun is irrelevant. Currently the world is in a virtual balance, we know this is a very fine thing and the energy priduced by burning fossil fuels is largely irrelevant, even though it is releasing a large amount of extra energy it makes no odds as the extra heat is lost quicker.
What is the issue is the thermal blanket around the world created by the atmosphere. Without this blanket we would be a very cold world indeed, with it we have settled in a balance. The problem being that it would appear that CO2 is a relative effective insulator than the other gases. It is quite easy looking at graphs of temperature shows a clear link between low concentrations under 200ppm occurred during ice ages and high concentrations 300 ppm during the warmer interglacial periods we are currently heading for unknown territories over 400ppm

Totally disagree.

Where is this "Thermal Blanket" - have you ever seen anyone using a gas as a "Thermal Blanket" ? The analogy is appalling.

Most radiation passes straight through the atmosphere in both directions at the speed of light. Most energy is absorbed at the Earths surface with Clouds being the only major absorber/refractor/shading of energy in the atmosphere.

I saw a picture on this forum of someone using a Thermometer on a grassfield in a post and that demonstrated IMHO exactly what is going on. The grass was about 20 degrees but the mud road alongside the grass was in the high 30s. For man made materials in Cities & Towns, roads & rail the temperature would be far more significant. This summer I was unable to touch concrete it was that hot, yet the grass alongside was cool.

Further, when you consider that humans pump water from beneath the Earth mainly for drinking and irrigation - then that will further create larger difference due the lack of vegetation and the lowering of the water table. This would be most pronounced in arid regions such as the Middle East, California etc.

CO2 doesn't insulate anything - if CO2 was an insulator when you applied it to a fire there would be an initial significant increase in heat within the fire.

 

[C.J]

It’s all about money.
Anyhow, they talk about co2 yet co2 levels on earth are lower/est than they have been for millions of years. Am I correct in thinking the governments of this world are actually trying to affect climate beyond its natural cycles?

@Oldmacdonald - you asked for a source.

 

[milkloss]

View attachment 997907

@Oldmacdonald - you asked for a source.

Thank you. I'd scoured my history and couldn't find it. There was also some interesting text in the article I read that explained it well.

 

[Exfarmer]

Totally disagree.

Where is this "Thermal Blanket" - have you ever seen anyone using a gas as a "Thermal Blanket" ? The analogy is appalling.

Most radiation passes straight through the atmosphere in both directions at the speed of light. Most energy is absorbed at the Earths surface with Clouds being the only major absorber/refractor/shading of energy in the atmosphere.

I saw a picture on this forum of someone using a Thermometer on a grassfield in a post and that demonstrated IMHO exactly what is going on. The grass was about 20 degrees but the mud road alongside the grass was in the high 30s. For man made materials in Cities & Towns, roads & rail the temperature would be far more significant. This summer I was unable to touch concrete it was that hot, yet the grass alongside was cool.

Further, when you consider that humans pump water from beneath the Earth mainly for drinking and irrigation - then that will further create larger difference due the lack of vegetation and the lowering of the water table. This would be most pronounced in arid regions such as the Middle East, California etc.

CO2 doesn't insulate anything - if CO2 was an insulator when you applied it to a fire there would be an initial significant increase in heat within the fire.

Your last sentence, says at all in your knowledge of physics. As soon as you apply CO2 to a fire, combustion ceases and so no more heat generation . No more heat generation then temperature will not increase

 

[wanton dwarf]

Your last sentence, says at all in your knowledge of physics. As soon as you apply CO2 to a fire, combustion ceases and so no more heat generation . No more heat generation then temperature will not increase

A very very poor reply. Never seen firemen continuing to pour water onto fires after they are put out ?

So how long does it take for heat to disapate from a fire using CO2 ? The heat is still there, as soon as oxygen returns the materials spontaneously combust. It could take hours or even days for the heat to be removed.

I'm surprised you can spell physics.

 

[Grandad Pig]

"Cheap electricity" - when the Nuclear power stations were being advocated in the 1950's we were promised electricity so cheap, you would not be
billed for it !!!!. Soooo - another lie from our overqualified scientific community.

Another lie from politicians I suspect

 

[Exfarmer]

A very very poor reply. Never seen firemen continuing to pour water onto fires after they are put out ?

So how long does it take for heat to disapate from a fire using CO2 ? The heat is still there, as soon as oxygen returns the materials spontaneously combust. It could take hours or even days for the heat to be removed.

I'm surprised you can spell physics.

You continue to show your absolute ignorance. Where did I say the heat would be dissipated?
Energy cannot be made or destroyed, very basic physics.
Applying CO2 to a fire, will stop combustion and the heat will no longer continue to be produced, but the materials will retain any heat they have, unless they are quenched by water , but this heat will then be removed by the water..
Even using water fires can reignite for some considerable time after the initial fire has been extinguished thanks to this residual heat.
I have forgotten more about fires than you have ever learnt, and have the scars to prove it

 

[TheTallGuy]

A very very poor reply. Never seen firemen continuing to pour water onto fires after they are put out ?

So how long does it take for heat to disapate from a fire using CO2 ? The heat is still there, as soon as oxygen returns the materials spontaneously combust. It could take hours or even days for the heat to be removed.

I'm surprised you can spell physics.

Surely if "The heat is still there" that means that the CO2 is insulating the fire - otherwise normal thermal dissipation would occur...

 

[bankrupt]

Another lie from politicians I suspect

Actually a quote from Lewis Strauss, chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, but sometimes wrongly attributed to Walter Marshall, chairman of the UK Central Electricity Generating Board.

Strauss later claimed that he was not referring to nuclear fission but to nuclear fusion which, when eventually perfected, undoubtedly will become too cheap to meter.

 

[Highland Farmer]

How Natural Oscillations Affect Arctic Climate & Predict Future Climate Change: Part 4

The degree that natural quasi-cycles, or oscillations, generate dramatic changes in the Arctic must be determined before scientists can blame rising CO2. Natural oscillations have highly significan…

wattsupwiththat.com

And what influences the change in the NAO? That's right the Sun:

http://www.issibern.ch/teams/interplanetarydisturb/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Asikainen_03_2014.pdf

Far more complex than a bit of CO2...