3 ms·

It is, I believe, beyond dispute that CO2 has heat trapping effects. All else remaining the same, increasing CO2 increases the heat. That at another time ther

by suture 4y ago

It is, I believe, beyond dispute that CO2 has heat trapping effects. All else remaining the same, increasing CO2 increases the heat. That at another time there was higher CO2 levels with lower heat merely means that not all else remained the same.

prometheus76 4y ago
You just ignored all of the challenges to your current worldview. Cognitive dissonance is just as difficult for the people you are trying to convince as it appears to be for you.
- suture 4y ago
  I did no such thing. Increasing carbon dioxide, keeping all else equal, traps more heat. This isn’t disputable. Hence my refusal to say otherwise can’t possibly be cognitive dissonance. It might be a good thing to increase CO2. It might be bad. It might be the case that increasing carbon dioxide causes counter balancing effects and therefore increasing CO2 does not increase temperature (I remain skeptical of this but I’m not a climate scientist). But what is beyond dispute is that massively increasing CO2 will cause climatic disruptions while the weather system reaches a new equilibrium.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > keeping all else equal The reasonable pushback against this is per se isn't a realistic assumption in a system as dynamic as our biosphere.
    - suture 4y ago
      Oh definitely. But it seems to me that it is obvious that increases in CO2 on a massive, rapid scale will necessitate climatic changes (not necessarily bad) as the system finds a new equilibrium. This may in turn cause massive disruptions to human societies. Note that there are many seemingly obvious things that are false so I could be wrong.
      - native_samples 4y ago
        "This may in turn cause massive disruptions to human societies." The word "may" is doing a lot of work here. Lots of things may cause massive disruptions to human society. One thing we can say with certainty: the mitigation efforts being proposed to reduce CO2 levels will cause massive disruptions to human society.
graycat 4y ago
- suture 4y ago
  Like, wonder of wonders, by killing people and pouring their blood on a rock, the Mayans were successful, fantastic, amazing, keeping the sun moving across the sky!!! The next time I teach correlation/causation I’m using this as my goto example.
  - graycat 4y ago
    For a reference, as of Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 at http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=Mayan+blood+sun+moving+sacrifice&source=web&ots=Do6njWN5M9&sig=FxTeclIiqggqIH5Ws_oENCek1uI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA76,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA... (but not now, no longer) from page 76 of Susan Milbrath, Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies), ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000. with "Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for the sun to move, according to Aztec cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950 - 1982, 7:8)."
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  To answer your chemistry question, once a molecule of CO2 absorbs infrared light, it then emits infrared light. On average it’s in a random direction, so some goes out into space eventually. But some goes straight toward the Earth’s surface, which also absorbs and then re-emits it. The result is that some IR energy is trapped bouncing back and forth between the surface and atmospheric greenhouse gases (there are a few, not just CO2). This is the so-called “greenhouse effect” that keeps the surface habitable. As you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, there are more molecules available to absorb and re-emit IR energy. So the total amount of energy that can be trapped bouncing back and forth goes up. More heat is trapped. CO2 is particularly worrisome because the carbon cycle is slow. Water vapor has a larger effect, but it varies on the order of weeks (when it rains, for example). CO2 can take hundreds of years to get fixed again once it is in the atmosphere.

by suture 4y ago

prometheus76 4y ago

You just ignored all of the challenges to your current worldview. Cognitive dissonance is just as difficult for the people you are trying to convince as it appears to be for you.

suture 4y ago
I did no such thing. Increasing carbon dioxide, keeping all else equal, traps more heat. This isn’t disputable. Hence my refusal to say otherwise can’t possibly be cognitive dissonance. It might be a good thing to increase CO2. It might be bad. It might be the case that increasing carbon dioxide causes counter balancing effects and therefore increasing CO2 does not increase temperature (I remain skeptical of this but I’m not a climate scientist). But what is beyond dispute is that massively increasing CO2 will cause climatic disruptions while the weather system reaches a new equilibrium.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > keeping all else equal The reasonable pushback against this is per se isn't a realistic assumption in a system as dynamic as our biosphere.
  - suture 4y ago
    Oh definitely. But it seems to me that it is obvious that increases in CO2 on a massive, rapid scale will necessitate climatic changes (not necessarily bad) as the system finds a new equilibrium. This may in turn cause massive disruptions to human societies. Note that there are many seemingly obvious things that are false so I could be wrong.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      "This may in turn cause massive disruptions to human societies." The word "may" is doing a lot of work here. Lots of things may cause massive disruptions to human society. One thing we can say with certainty: the mitigation efforts being proposed to reduce CO2 levels will cause massive disruptions to human society.

graycat 4y ago

suture 4y ago
Like, wonder of wonders, by killing people and pouring their blood on a rock, the Mayans were successful, fantastic, amazing, keeping the sun moving across the sky!!! The next time I teach correlation/causation I’m using this as my goto example.
- graycat 4y ago
  For a reference, as of Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 at http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=Mayan+blood+sun+moving+sacrifice&source=web&ots=Do6njWN5M9&sig=FxTeclIiqggqIH5Ws_oENCek1uI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA76,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA... (but not now, no longer) from page 76 of Susan Milbrath, Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies), ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000. with "Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for the sun to move, according to Aztec cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950 - 1982, 7:8)."
snowwrestler 4y ago
To answer your chemistry question, once a molecule of CO2 absorbs infrared light, it then emits infrared light. On average it’s in a random direction, so some goes out into space eventually. But some goes straight toward the Earth’s surface, which also absorbs and then re-emits it. The result is that some IR energy is trapped bouncing back and forth between the surface and atmospheric greenhouse gases (there are a few, not just CO2). This is the so-called “greenhouse effect” that keeps the surface habitable. As you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, there are more molecules available to absorb and re-emit IR energy. So the total amount of energy that can be trapped bouncing back and forth goes up. More heat is trapped. CO2 is particularly worrisome because the carbon cycle is slow. Water vapor has a larger effect, but it varies on the order of weeks (when it rains, for example). CO2 can take hundreds of years to get fixed again once it is in the atmosphere.