I try to explain to people in simplified ways, it’s pure pedantry at best or totally confusing at worst to the average person if the heat that CO2 is storing is coming from the sun directly, or the heat being reflected back into space, either way the mechanical idea is the same, that CO2 stores energy.
That’s the point, CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference). What it does is blocks the energy from leaving (until you reach a high altitude).
CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference).
Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’
I understand there’s many dimensions and factors involved in the entire process, but it’s not a wrong interpretation to say it stores more energy, even if it’s just borrowing it for a moment. It acts like both a heat sink and a thermal blanket. While I’m not a climatologist, I have a pretty good grasp of physics so I’m guessing we’re just talking about pedantic or technical differences in description of the process… something that again, average layperson does NOT need to hear about, people can barely understand scientific concepts as it is.
The slinky model makes good sense and it’s not wrong, it was described to me BY a scientist in RL, so I will keep using it.
edit: I genuinely wish the scientific community could embrace being “not perfect” for like, just a week or something. The science-denial and pushback on everything that could save our future is mind-meltingly simple and it doesn’t waver. Stupid people grasp onto it, and they believe it because the story is consistent and everyone they know repeats it. The way we cannot seem to educate people in simple, consistent ways without a hundred different “scientists” online (let’s be honest, college students and post grads) giving us thirty thousand reasons why you’re wrong in your interpretation of the details because they think their own way of talking about a thing is more important than YOUR way of talking about a thing. It’s the same as the drama that boils over in the pseudoscience world, but with real science. Just because someone knows science they are not immune to the human responses and justifications we make when we’re emotional.
This is what happened with covid.
This isn’t helping people. If you care, please get better about this.
Not really. CO2 is effectively a thermal blanket. It traps your radiant heat. The environmental heat still affects you, additively.
The only real difference is that people also generate their own heat instead of just storing it.
But you could say a thermal blanket on a snake and have the same effect.
You’re right, it’s a thermal blanket but it also absorbs and holds more heat energy more efficiently than other molecules because infrared radiation can actually be absorbed by CO2, this isn’t a fringe interpretation, but I do get that there are alternative interpretations of the processes. I just don’t care to try to explain the nuance and details to average laypersons.
I was saying that it’s not really confusing…
And then used the thermal blanket analogy to try and give an example.
How do I know this isn’t that confusing to the average person?
I teach it to high schoolers in environmental systems. They get the hang of it pretty easily if you just give them a decent example with a visual.
Unless high schoolers aren’t average people anymore…
I try to explain to people in simplified ways, it’s pure pedantry at best or totally confusing at worst to the average person if the heat that CO2 is storing is coming from the sun directly, or the heat being reflected back into space, either way the mechanical idea is the same, that CO2 stores energy.
That’s the point, CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference). What it does is blocks the energy from leaving (until you reach a high altitude).
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-carbon-dioxide-has-such-outsized-influence-on-earths-climate-123064
I understand there’s many dimensions and factors involved in the entire process, but it’s not a wrong interpretation to say it stores more energy, even if it’s just borrowing it for a moment. It acts like both a heat sink and a thermal blanket. While I’m not a climatologist, I have a pretty good grasp of physics so I’m guessing we’re just talking about pedantic or technical differences in description of the process… something that again, average layperson does NOT need to hear about, people can barely understand scientific concepts as it is.
The slinky model makes good sense and it’s not wrong, it was described to me BY a scientist in RL, so I will keep using it.
edit: I genuinely wish the scientific community could embrace being “not perfect” for like, just a week or something. The science-denial and pushback on everything that could save our future is mind-meltingly simple and it doesn’t waver. Stupid people grasp onto it, and they believe it because the story is consistent and everyone they know repeats it. The way we cannot seem to educate people in simple, consistent ways without a hundred different “scientists” online (let’s be honest, college students and post grads) giving us thirty thousand reasons why you’re wrong in your interpretation of the details because they think their own way of talking about a thing is more important than YOUR way of talking about a thing. It’s the same as the drama that boils over in the pseudoscience world, but with real science. Just because someone knows science they are not immune to the human responses and justifications we make when we’re emotional.
This is what happened with covid.
This isn’t helping people. If you care, please get better about this.
Not really. CO2 is effectively a thermal blanket. It traps your radiant heat. The environmental heat still affects you, additively.
The only real difference is that people also generate their own heat instead of just storing it. But you could say a thermal blanket on a snake and have the same effect.
Yes really.
You’re right, it’s a thermal blanket but it also absorbs and holds more heat energy more efficiently than other molecules because infrared radiation can actually be absorbed by CO2, this isn’t a fringe interpretation, but I do get that there are alternative interpretations of the processes. I just don’t care to try to explain the nuance and details to average laypersons.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-carbon-dioxide-capture-more-heat-than-oxygen
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-carbon-dioxide-has-such-outsized-influence-on-earths-climate-123064
I was saying that it’s not really confusing… And then used the thermal blanket analogy to try and give an example.
How do I know this isn’t that confusing to the average person? I teach it to high schoolers in environmental systems. They get the hang of it pretty easily if you just give them a decent example with a visual. Unless high schoolers aren’t average people anymore…