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.
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.