The Science of Global Warming

Except for a few gravitational and geothermal effects all of the energy on earth comes from the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The electromagnetic radiation comes in the form of little packets of energy called photons. As the photons rain down upon the earth they collide with or are absorbed and readmitted by the particles in the atmosphere - bouncing around like pinballs.

Heat is the kinetic energy of particles. Thus the bombardment of photons warms the atmosphere. However the vast majority of photons eventually fall upon the earth giving their energy to the materials on the surface of the earth - warming it. At night, as the earth turns away from the sun, the energy (heat) that was gained throughout the day begins to dissipate into space, cooling the earth's surface and atmosphere.

On places like the moon and Mars where there is no atmosphere, when their surfaces turn away from the sun they lose all of the energy (heat) that they had gained while those surfaces faced the sun. However on places like the Earth and Venus, which have a strong atmosphere much of that energy (heat) is retained. The mechanism at play is that atoms want to be in their lowest energy state. They give off their excess energy in the form of a photon. Just like the photons had to do the pinball thing coming in they have to do the same thing going out. Thus some of the energy (heat) is bounced around between atmospheric particles and the surface - keeping the surface warmer than if there had been no atmosphere.

The excess energy (heat) that atoms give up has the energy levels that put it in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Most of our atmosphere is made up of N2, which is mostly inert, and O2 - neither of which absorb infrared radiation (photons) However there are other things in the atmosphere such as CO2, CH4, and H2O that readily absorb infrared radiation (photons) and emit it (photons) back to the surface; and other directions as well.

On Venus the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are considerably greater than on earth with the retained surface heat greatly exceeding that of the earth. Early in its life the earth's atmosphere also had high concentrations of CO2. Then life happened and for millions of years single celled plants sucked the carbon out of CO2, leaving behind O2 while cooling the earth enough to allow animals to come into existence and thrive as we have.

A couple of hundred years ago we humans began to burn fossil fuels at an accelerated pace that continues to this very day. As the fossil fuels burn; the carbon that plants took out of the atmosphere is being put back. As the carbon is reintroduced in the atmosphere (mostly as CO2) the earth has been warming and the air we breath has been becoming more noxious. If this continues without abate we will eventually reach a point where our atmosphere will become inhospitable to animal life.

And just to make it clear that we are here talking empirically here is the data in four charts, the emissions of CO2, the increasing CO2 concentrations that now fall far outside normal natural variation, surface temperatures, and a chart showing the connection between CO2 concentrations and temperature.

 

If atmospheric heat is a function of CO2 concentratino, you guys aren't doing a good job of showing it.

 

About 1,000 years ago, Vikings colonized Greenland and got 80% of their dietary protein from animals they grazed there such as goats, sheep and cattle.

There are written accounts yet conveniently ignored by alarmist.​

Wake me up when grazing domesticated animals is again possible in Greenland.

Ref.: The Medieval Climate Optimum.
And the Little Ice Age followed.


Moi
History, not HERstory


r > g

The Northwest Passage will open again ​

 

Have you never learned how to read a graph? If there were no CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in our atmosphere the earth would be a much colder place. CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is the primary thing that keeps our temperatures at levels that allow animal life to flourish. Scientists can take samples of air of differing concentrations of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and subject those samples to sunlight and the darkness of night and those sample with the greater concentrations of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] retain more heat than the samples with lower concentrations.

 

Do you mean like these grazing domesticated animals in modern day Greenland?

 

I'm curious how you reconcile the fact that Co2 levels were 5 times greater during the dinosaur era....yet obviously animal life not only thrived, but grew to sizes of....dinosaurs, literally.

Co2 does not stymie animal life because it does not stymie plant life. On the contrary it increases plant life which in turn increases oxygen levels which in turn promotes animal life.

Co2 simply isn't a bad thing.

 

Global warming "science" is based on modeling. Too bad they can't get the damned models to work.

 

They do work.

 

Hey Oliver,

Now I was curious of your take on this theory. Now if CO2 rises and heat rises wouldn't the extra abundance of energy lead to more green foliage and counterbalance with new O2 output and CO2 intake?

Also, what about the possibility that despite CO2 levels, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and it much more abundant, plus when water heats up they form clouds which block heat.

I don't necessarily believe in these ideas but if you could clarify your interpretations I would appreciate it. Thanks!

 

Just curious:

Would the answers to these questions change your vote on this issue?

 

What caused the almost identical warming from 1900 to 1940?

BTW, tacking on current instrument record to a proxy is misleading.

Also Venus atmospheric density is much greater than ours. No comparison.

 

In case you didn't notice, dinosaurs have gone extinct, along with much of the plants and everything else that lived at that time. Evolution being what it is life evolves in accordance with the environment it finds itself in, or it dies off. Life has evolved considerably since the time of the dinosaurs as has the earth and its climate.

Actually the rise in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and the accompanying rise in temperatures has stymied the life process of many animals. There are fish that aren't reproducing at rates they used to because of higher than normal water temperatures. There are shell fish and corrals that are having problems due to changes the water's pH balance.

The major cause of health problems from smoking cigarettes comes from CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the smoke. It displaces oxygen that would normally be in one's bloodstream - leaving the blood deficient in oxygen which deprives the body of all the necessary energy oxygen provides. That is why people who smoke don't have the energy of non-smokers.

 

Mostly carbon dioxide sinks. Most that sinks ends up in the ocean.

 

I have spent zero time examining Carbon dioxide inhaled by smokers. I believe the deadly gas is Carbon Monoxide but noticed you ignored that gas. You may or may not comment, as you wish.

 

I used to post on this topic a lot. Now it does not matter to me because I believe Trump is smarter than the politicians who joined the cult of the monetary redistribution and proceeded to toss the middle class of their countries lifestyle down the Malthusian rat hole hole of man made climate change. You want to live in a real life hunger games then embrace man made climate change. But then I guess in their deluded dreams they are not the ones in the slave class

 

You are doubly wrong. First of all global warming is based on empirical evidence - the fact that our thermometers keeps getting a little bit warmer every year. The natural processes at play are very well known and the amount of new data is accelerating which will only make our models even more accurate.

From 1959 until 1970 data at a site in Hawaii was collected. In the early seventies a model was created that predicted CO[SUB]2[/SUB] would rise to 380 PPM in 2000 - up from the 310 that it was in 1970. Extrapolating that same calculation puts the current concentration at a little over 400 which it is.

 

Any of you notice that though carbon dioxide in the 1940s was stable, this produced the terrible drought and heat waves of that era?

 

I can put up with them until they commence the name calling.

I still wonder why the graph gets used at all?

Do we honestly try to average given the vast oceans?

Average given you have two poles of the earth?

Given the two poles are very cold, do we mind it that at one pole, ice melts but less so at the other pole where ice is still forming in massive sums.

Does the average temperature of Chicago matter to me who is much closer to the Pacific ocean and San Francisco?

Does the snow in winter in Chicago do a thing to my non snow area part of California?

What is the average temperature of the peak of Mt. Shasta, even though in CA have to do with my average temps in the SF Bay Area? Mind you our ocean is cold enough you will die if you are stuck in it for much time.

 

Possibly, I try to stay open-minded.

 

First we have to separate science fact from science fiction.

 

Venus is also only about 30 million miles closer to the sun, but...CO2!

 

Yes. I don't believe those are the problems at all.

The problems are more likely to be like Syria, only multiplied to match the populations of other areas where agriculture change and shoreline impact will cause people to move.

 

What a beautiful day in Tampa FL today! Pretty much everything I expect for this time of the year.

 

Ayuh,.... Cold, 'n snowy up here,..... Got the wood boiler Roarin',....

Pretty much everything I expect for this time of the year,.....

 

The OP is utter scientific B.S.!

It gets it completely WRONG, starting the stupidity of the Statement claiming that Nitrogen is Inert!

What Ignorance!

What Lies!

What total scientific Claptrap!

Atomospheric Nitrogen, and the Rayleigh Scattering it makes, is the single biggest element of global climate change!

And it is driven by the changes in the sol spectral output, which when shifted into the Blue, by high sun spot activity, causes large amounts of energy to be scattered back out into space, leading to lower Global Temperatures.

Fool, Learn the REAL science!

-