Global warming deniers explain this.

A very fundamental characteristic of the way things work is that if you add heat to a system it gets warmer. The burning of fossil fuels has the effect of continuously pumping hundreds of millions of tons of hot gases into the atmosphere everyday and at an increasing rate. How can this not cause global warming?

If the deniers are in the right then everyone's furnaces should burn all day long and never warm up anyone's home.

 

Your little opinion is not even a figment of the current CO2 hypothesis.

 

I'm assuming you are talking about CO2.

The majority of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

CO2 only accounts for about 3 to 5 percent of greenhouse gas.

Out of that 3 to 5 percent of CO2, the majority of it comes from nature.

 

The planet is constantly radiating thermal energy into space. The energy added to the system by combustion is meaningless in that balance. Even global warming alarmists don't include that in their models.

It all about the "greenhouse gasses" capturing more of the thermal energy coming at the planet from the Sun that could over time make a difference.

 

Using your theory space is cold so how does something it surrounds stay warm? If the alarmists are right then everyone could put a cup of coffee in the fridge and it will stay hot, again using your theory.

 

Well as others have said, it is Co2 you are talking about but you are missing a key factor. You didn't mention the absorption rate of the Earth and its various system compared to the amount of Co2 put out. Its like trying to subtract two numbers when you are only giving us one number.

Man made global warming is now considered pretty much a joke.

 

Did I mention CO2?

The fact of the matter is that the burning of fossil fuels spews tons of hot gases which are energetic particles. These energetic particles then collide with other particles in the atmosphere imparting some of their energy. With the increase of energy and the number of particles the temperature rises. This is basic fundamental physics.

With the addition of particles the photons (the carriers of energy from the sun) have more particles to hit thus adding to the warming.

 

They really need a facepalm smiley.

 

Actually those particles would block radiation from the sun and actually cool the Earth. When Mt. Pinatubo spewed its hot gases and ash back in the 90's it actually lowered the Earths global temperature by about 2 degrees for roughly 3 years.

That right there disproves your theory.

Sorry

 

Nope because new particles are being added at an increasing rate. Greenhouse gases are particles - particles that absorb more heat than their temperature indicates. Thus when cooling they impart some of that stored heat to the cooler surrounding particles.

 

Nope, nope, nope. Those particles don't block the radiation they absorb it. Once absorbed the receiving particle is more energetic and thus contributes to a rise in temperature. I don't think that you have accurate information concerning Mt. Pinatubo.

 

The Earth itself emanates more heat than all Human activity combined.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
In other words: https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

 

Space contains no heat. You see in a vacuum there are no particles and as such no heat of any kind. Add a particle and you have added heat. Add a second particle with an equal amount of kinetic energy and you have doubled the temperature.

On a grand scale this can be seen by the fact that at low elevations where the air is more dense the temperatures are always warmer whereas at high elevations where the air is much thinner the temperatures are always cooler.

In your fridge there is a mechanical system that actively takes the heat out of everything inside of it at releases it outside of it. Put your hand around back where the condenser and stuff is and there you will find the heat from your cup of coffee.

 

Now you are moving the goal posts to fit your argument.

At first you said it was heat and when I prove you wrong you are now talking about particles.

You need to make up your mind what your argument is.

ABSTRACT

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/

 

In Before the Thread Lock

IBTL

Wow... the lack of scientific understanding by the Liberal that created the O.P. is sad.

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL!!!!

Get yourself a thousand miles from the sun and make that statement again.

 

Is that all you know? No wonder you have been so easily misled.

 

So now you are resorting to personal attacks because you have no argument left huh?

And I edited my above post to give you the Mt. Pinatubo information you thought I had wrong.

Have fun reading it.

 

Are you unaware of the relationship between heat and particles? Have you ever heard of the Kinetic Theory of Heat?

 

You should really take even a basic science course. I am not trying to be mean, but your statement is absolutely ridiculous. And you don't add heat, you add energy. The energy released (exothermic) from a reaction is what makes something hot and so there is no miscommunication, when the sun heats up your car... it is the energy that is release from the reactions that the sun produces and your car insulates that exothermic energy/heat to make it hot. When hydrocarbons react (talking about fossil fuels) with oxygen and a spark or enough energy is added to the mix, you will get the reaction that causes the release of CO2. For example, this is a combustion reaction... C3H8 + 5O2 --> 3CO2 + 4H2O. I won't delve into all of it as that would take a lot of time, but your comment is silly.

With all of that said, I do believe that human/industrial activity (or anthropogenic) has an effect on global warming and it is a major part of it. To ignore basic science is silly. Average college science students should be able to draw that conclusion. I do not believe in this 'save the earth' campaign that global warming in some cases is translated into as the Earth has experienced these cycles before. There is nothing that tells us that we need to worry about the Earth itself. What does need to be considered is how it will affect life (humans, animals, plants, etc), other than that, it is pointless.

The larger question between parties (in my opinion) is who should address this issue. The government should be as small as it can be, so giving the government the authority (the left leaning side) to deal with this could create massive problems down the line, especailly in our current situation. The other option (the right leaning side) is to have the private market handle this problem themselves through business and collaboration that would further the economy simulataneously as well. The only problem there is that our economy is in such unpredictable shape that the private market doesn't want to take a chance on establishing a renewable energy outlet without guaranteed returns. This is where the answer on the right is tax breaks and the answer from the left is encumbered legislation.

But that is just my opinion lol...

 

Are you saying the particles released by that volcano were not hot?

 

Heat is an effect of the motion of particles. Space doesn't hold heat. The particles in in do. If I am a thousand miles out in space from the sun it is particles from the sun carrying energy that will warm me, not the space around me.

 

I have not read every volcano, however if someone used the old ' a volcano produces more CO2 in one eruption than all of human activity in a year' or something to that.... that is simply wrong. You can read that here if you don't want to take my word for it....

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

 

Nobody has said that however it is a fact that one eruption can have a bigger change on temperature in the short term than 50 years or so of human activity. Of course after awhile the Earth returns back to normal but it shows you the power of nature compared to man.

 

Perhaps I should have put it in more scientific language but here I assumed I would be talking to persons of little scientific knowledge. Yes I am aware that heat, energy, and all that. What I have been trying to do here is take the argument away from a purely CO2 argument. I'm not a chemist but a physicist. I have experience following heat/energy through systems. When I see heat I see little particles bouncing around, spinning, vibrating. If there is global warming it means that there are more particles with more energy than before. Regardless of what caused it.