Global warming deniers explain this.

Then why did the temperature drop after Mt. Pinatubo released that massive amount of particles?

That is direct evidence against your theory that you need to explain or your theory will be debunked.

According to your hypothesis the temperature should have spiked upwards not downwards.

 

I added heat to my home. Why didnt it stay warm? According to you my house should have become alarmingly warmer day after day.

 

One eruption has a localized a immediate impact. However, like the link I showed you studies have shown that volcanos produce about 200 million tonnes of CO2 a year. Whereas human activity produces an estimated 26.8 billion tonnes.

Regarding global warming and the mention of volcanos... it is not about the heat or the lava that it produces. It is about the gases. The gases which do circulate as they are not stationary. CO2 is a minor green house gas and it does take a lot for it to cause change, however industrialization has been around of over 200 years and has been growing and on top of all of that... you still have the volcanos which produce a fair amount of the greenhouse gases as well. Coupling the two, it is blatantly irresponsible to ignore.

 

Well then you would know that CO2 is a gas not a particulate. Particulates reflect many of the wavelengths that warm the earth. That is why clouds keep the the equator from warming as much when it heats up during the day and creates clouds, one of the negative feedback loops in the climate.

 

I wasn't arguing that volcanos are increasing global warming, I was arguing a specific point about heat being released. According to the OP that should temporarily spike up the temperature but we actually see the temperature drop.

 

Even so, that is technically inaccurate as your comment should turn and completely focus on the sun. As we know it is the primary source of heat as well as producing light... which Einstein thought and was thus proven that light acts as a wave and as particles. Using the term particles opens the terminology up too far in my opinion. Also, I don't see why the conversation should move away from CO2 to begin with. I understand that people be get tired of it, but CO2 is what is at the HEART of this issue as it and water are what is produced when a hydrocarbon undergoes a reaction. Denying that CO2 is not produced more than it was 300 years ago is a literal definition for asinine at least in my opinion.

 

No one argues that CO2 hasn't risen, one argues it's effect in a non linear chaotic system with many other influences, some of which are either not even considered or incapable of being modeled. After all, the hysteria is based on the models, not on observed science.

 

Oooook. Then yes, volcanos are hot.... but that is not the issue. When a volcano erupts, yeah it will release heat... that is what a volcano does. It is about the CO2 that the volcano releases into the atmosphere which builds up over time. To which EVERY piece of machinery that operated with oil, coal, gas, etc... (fossil fuels) releases CO2. So again, denying that CO2 production has not gone up over the past few centuries is literally asinine.

 

Here in the Northwest there is a curious phenomena that happens every winter. When the skies are covered in clouds the nights are warm - usually cooling only a couple of degrees from the daytime highs. However, on those days when there are no clouds it can get very cold.

As to Mt. Pinatubo, the particles emitted absorbed more heat/energy than normal atmospheric particles. That is the same that happens with clouds.

To get an idea of how this works. Say it you have one unit of heat and apply it to a material and it's temperature rises 1 degree. Then if you have a second material that takes four units of heat to rise the same one degree. Thus it can be seen that there is not a one to one correlation between heat and temperature.

 

That wasn't what we were debating though.

- - - Updated - - -

So first it was heat, then you changed it to particles, and now you are changing it to only certain types of particles.

Oh brother

 

Ok, perhaps I may have mistep if CO2 was not the issue here. Nonetheless, yes models have been made and some have been faulty, but it is still possible to know and understand the effects of gases. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, it is also known to have risen exponentially. Given the understanding of the Earths cycles and how the greenhouse gases trap the heat inside the atmosphere, that is why you have people talking about what is going to happen. Such that if all the ice melts, then the sea level will rise 100 feet or something along those lines. Which I think we can all agree, would be devastating.

 

AGW climate models are not based on the temperature of the gases being emitted, but on the heat-trapping properties of the gases.

 

Again, to everyone. If the CO2 argument was not what was at the issue here, then never mind. As I said previously I have not been through everyones comments yet and have simply been trying to get in where I could because of how quickly threads seem to grow on here.

 

No, which proves you don't even understand how standard AGW climate models work.

Whatever energy is emitted into the atmosphere will be lost to space.

 

A very fundamental property of nature is that every force, every transfer of energy requires a carrier. Thus, a photon is the carrier that brings energy from the sun to us. The photon then imparts its energy to those particles it collides with.

When one feels heat, what one is feeling are millions of little participles bouncing off of them. More particles = more heat More energy per particle = more heat

 

Yes but they work hand in hand. Say if there are a collection of particles and a few are high absorbers of heat like CO2 and H2O then the high absorbing particles give heat to the low absorbing particles as temperatures drop.

 

I don't live in the northeast, but to me this isn't a phenomena. The sun is beating down during the day and lets not undermine the power of the sun even if it is cloudy. Heat is absorbed everywhere... including the ground and the air. When the clouds are overhead at night, you have more mass, more atoms, more gases, more trapped gases so to me, it makes sense that it would be hotter at night. As for on days without the clouds, you obviously don't have the extra mass or gases or nearly the amount of trapped gases. So it causes for more free movement or dispersion.


and tell me if I am wrong, it has been a while since I have taken physics or chemistry... but the more particles released or entering... builds up pressure as well. When those particles are heated, that increases the pressure as well because they become more highly charged... so what does the pressure say about this?

 

I'm not trying to explain the AGW climate model but to explain how heat works.

Put it has to bounce off of a lot of particles to get there.

 

Actually, the average temperature of space is 2.7 Kelvin.

Space is not actually a vacuum as it contains cosmic dust.

 

More pressure = more energy. It is the pressure, mostly from gravity, that causes the reactions within the sun that turns hydrogen into helium releasing all those photons that bath us in light/energy/heat.

 

Except that it isn't, which is the problem.

I think it's pretty obvious that in terms of planetary heating, we have to be looking at the sun. Heating up a planet requires a net input of energy. Without a net input, what we have is just heat moving around from place to place. It takes a HUGE amount of net energy increase to heat a whole planet. Barring some sort of astronomical catastrophe like a collision with a comet or some such, that energy can ONLY come from the sun.

Now of course, solar energy is beating down all the time, and always has. The sun isn't getting signicantly hotter. Yes, it does change in output from time to time, but that change is relatively small from our perspective, and cyclical. We need an energy source that is cumulative. The only feasible source of that energy is retention of solar input in some way. That is, more energy needs to be beating down on us, than gets away back into space.

It's not the heat generated by burning things that heats up the planet - that's small, temporary, and local. Rather, it's that the gases of combustion get into the atmosphere and change the atmospheric characteristics. An atmosphere that traps more heat, given time, can do the trick. So can a change in albedo that makes the planet less reflective.

According to current best measurements (which can surely improve), heat entering the planet exceeds heat leaving the planet. It's not a very compelling argument to say "we can't figure out where that heat is going, therefore it's nowhere." Either our measurements of net energy influx are incorrect, or our measurements of heat levels across the planet are insufficient.

 

While that is true, it is not completely true. Light itself can be a particle.

 

That is because of the radiation that crosses it. Space itself doesn't have heat, objects in it do. In an ideal vacuum there is no heat.

 

Light is photons which are particles.

 

May I politely disagree? Radiation is a CONTENT of space. Space is full of it. Radiation is energy, so space has energy. Saying an ideal vacuum has no heat is saying that no radiation passes through that vacuum.

- - - Updated - - -

But they are very odd particles, because they have all of the characteristics of waves as well.