The 'settled science' actually isn't, dissent is being suppressed.

I got the physics right. You got the physics wrong. CO2 DOES NOT REFLECT radiation. The links I sent you to contain numerous cites from academics. But of course you aren’t interested in learning…

It’s ok.

Can you point out exactly what physics you think I got wrong? Oh, no you can’t, because I got the physics right.

CO2 acts like a mirror. LOL

 

No darling - read it again

 

How does the scientific method apply to journals rejecting non-AGW papers.
"Denialist" - I really thought you were above this cheap shot. Not the first mistake I've made today.

 

It's been done several times. Do your own research. Provide proof that reflecting back to Earth a tiny band of the broad spectrum o f LWIR could have the major problem you embrace.

 

Don’t need to. I was correct. You were wrong. CO2 absorbed radiation. You claimed it reflects radiation. Here is the content you refuse to read.

CO2 acts like a mirror. LOL. Where do you folks come up with such anti science nonsense?

Why don’t you point out where any valid source claims CO2 acts like a mirror?

SMH.

I saw you liked a post where a climate nutter told another member they had fog between their ears. You like snark. If you can’t take a little I advise not “liking” it. LOL

 

Which of the multiple multiple universities and science resources on the internet would you prefer? I am not repeat NOT falling for Brandolinis law - your contention YOU provide the proof

 

I have no idea who Brandolini is. If you don't keep yourself aware of the scope of the debate in the field without consideration there's nothing I can do to help you.

 

Ahhhh! Thanks for pointing out that a simile, which was never meant as a definitive science text, is not a perfect description. Meanwhile you appear to have some weird misunderstanding of how CO2 acts. You seem to be onboard with the “absorbing infrared” but miss the bit about “re-emitting” the infrared

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/re-radiation-of-heat/

So I used a SIMILE to get across the concept because at the time there was a member claiming that CO2 “could not affect the atmosphere because it is too minute an amount” Rather than go through the physics (and this is just the tip) I used a SIMILE

But thanks for the snarks - you go back on my DBR list - Don’t Bother Reading

 

Ahhhh! Thanks for pointing out that a simile, which was never meant as a definitive science text, is not a perfect description. Meanwhile you appear to have some weird misunderstanding of how CO2 acts. You seem to be onboard with the “absorbing infrared” but miss the bit about “re-emitting” the infrared



I get especially disgusted at people who hold forth twaddle and refuse to check it

 

Well, to be fair it doesn't have an engine. It has an electric motor.

And, curiously, that's why they suck as general purpose vehicles (I say curiously because you'll notice how hard they try to hide this). Electric motors instantly go to full torque when current is applied. That's why 0 to 60 times matter- because it's the only advantage of an EV (hey, nutters have to play the hand they're dealt).

This phenomena of full torque means that as load increases, so does current draw directly in synch with the load increase. This is easy to deal with in any situation where the motor is hard wired to the power generator. The more demanded, the more delivered. Easy.

But when the motor runs off a battery with limited charge available, any extra load rapidly sucks the battery dry.

My favorite apples to apples comparison looks at my 2017 F150 with a 5.0L V8 and a 36 gallon gas tank and compares it to a current Lightning with the optional upgaded battery. My truck has a lightly loaded range of roughly 650+ miles. Enough to get me from my home in Virginia back to Michigan to visit my Mom AND back to roughly Cleveland on a tank of gas (and refilling it in Cleveland takes a maximum of twenty minutes if I use the restroom and buy a soda).

The upgraded Lightning has a range of 300 miles. Again, about Cleveland but this time still on the way to Michigan. And recharging could take hours.

Now we put a load on both trucks- a 5000 lb. trailer. My truck will still get 500 miles (refilling in Toledo on the way back this time).

The Lightning will get about 80 miles, almost enough to get out of West Virginia.

And that, my friend, is why EVs suck and will continue to suck for the foreseeable future.

 

You tell me

I have asked what sources you would find acceptable because I am NOT getting caught in the YOU prove it! Only to have established science rejected before it is read. If you are expecting ME to do YOUR work for You then my minimum request is that you cite which sources would be acceptable.

 

Nevermind, I'm tired of your little game. IF you don't read broadly in the field, and at least recognize there IS more than one track to science, I'm wasting my time.

 

My post I’ve supplied TWICE now clearly states CO2 re-emits energy it absorbs. You don’t have to make stuff up. Just admit you didn’t post a simile. You posted the exact OPPOSITE of the actual physics. Reflecting is the opposite of absorbing. They can not be similes for one another because they are polar opposites.

It’s a shame you won’t read what I supplied to you TWICE. And that you can give snark but can’t take it. Oh well. I can correct your gross errors with or without your participation.

 

EVs have a motor, not an engine.

 

Greenhouse gasses slow radiation of infrared radiation from Earth to space.

Slowing radiation while NOT slowing arrival of solar heating warms Earth.

 

Two things that are diametrically opposed can not be similes. Reflection and absorption are polar opposites.

What you posted is categorically incorrect. What I posted is categorically correct.

You continue to post disinformation and then bring up Brandolini's law when YOU posted the BS and everything I posted is verifiable FACT.

 

Yeh, EV pickups suck. The definition of engine is a device that turns energy into motion.

 

No kidding. That’s closer to actual fact than you have ever stated it before. I’m glad you have given up the also incorrect idea radiation is heat. We are making progress with you.

But the FACT remains, it’s not a function of reflectivity but of absorption. Bowerbird was incorrect. She’s the third climate nutter I’ve had to educate on the subject. Grading on the curve you get the “A”.

 

Yes, i's the infrared radiation from Earth that is slowed in reaching space.

 

Close. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs radiation from earth and randomly returns some back to earth and some randomly into space when it is re-emitted. You are getting there.

 

You are talking about governments and I'm talking about politics. We have corrupt and incompetent government to be sure but certainly not as bad as governments elsewhere. Politics is a different thing altogether.

 

True. But when you're trying to bury truth, semantics matter. Technically in common usage, trucks and cars have engines. Electrical installations have motors.

 

I get it. Isn’t the delineation based on thermal vs non thermal energy source?

 

Probably. All I know is that if you go to an electrical supply store and ask for an engine, they'll look at you like you just got off a spaceship from Mars.

 

That is true.