No wonder you are confused. You either do not understand the basics of the science or you are being deceptive. There is very little "thermal retention"; because the warming of the atmosphere does not come from thermal retention of CO2; it comes about because the IR is reflected back towards the ground. Some of the IR (heat) cannot escape back into space. CO2 absorbs and then emits the infrared radiation; some downward; some upward and some sideways. The molecules of CO2 do not get warmer. http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm For more thorough scientific explanation: CO2 An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
No confusion here, just actual CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE. The deflection of thermal energy is only possible due to thermal retention in the lower atmosphere. It is a relatively simple concept, and complete nonsense, insofar as CO2's involvement in it. .000382 CO2 is causing ZERO thermal reaction....sorry. Cute video though, despite being nothing more than an illustration of completely unproven bunk. It is not a significant enough amount to cause much of anything, beyond provide the carbon and the O2 molecules in the carbohydrates and oxygen produced by photosynthesis... My BS in Chemistry is from UMR...
According to research i have done, higher temperatures actually cause higher atmospheric CO2 not necessarly the other way around. i believe that this is quite well established by geologists/climatologists.
It's what nearly ALL geo-chemists ( and backyard BBQers) have determined; heating things releases carbon from them...
Astrologic alignment is a valid avenue to explore in my opinion. axial, equinox and orbital processions could align in a way to make us closer to the sun.
So maybe climate change warming is happening for other reasons and increased co2 is just a correlating effect. Co2 is good for plants too, it grows bigger, stronger plants no?
Sure does; I'm a big fan of increased CO2 AND a warmer climate; both good for plants AND animals, including HUMANS...
I am very glad you asked these questions, Mannie. Do you agree that the radiation emitted by the sun warms the surfaces of the land masses and the oceans? Also, water vapor in the atmosphere is also a very powerful greenhouse gas. In fact, water vapor has many more more absorption bands in the IR than does carbon dioxide. The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is 10,000 to 20,000 ppm, depending on the value of the relative humidity levels. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~390 ppm. Water vapor is 25X to 50X as effective as CO2 in heating the atmosphere and the surfaces of the earth as is CO2. The contributions of CO2 as a "greenhouse" gas are small in comparison to the contributions that water vapor makes to "global warming".
As far as we are concerned the earths atmosphere is a closed system. Yes it loses gases to space, but it doesn't get any gases from space. The atmosphere is generated by the planet. Perhaps you should get your scientific facts straight. You might want read Buckminster Fullers - Operating manual for spaceship earth. Quite enlightening from one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. So, billions of tons of pollutants every year don't have any effect. I just luv your anecdotal evidence. Perhaps you should look up the wide ranging medical effects of air pollution. I mean really, what's a little soot and poison gas in the atmosphere. I agree that anthropogenic warming is disproportionately emphasized in this discussion. Most scientists and intelligent people recognize it as simply one of a number of factors that contribute to the dynamic nature of climate. Outright denial of its contribution (large or small) is just as dumb as claiming its the sole cause of all of the worlds problems.
The "warmies" do not realize it, but they have been duped and their policies will help line the pockets of wealthy corporatists and hedge fund managers.
Jonsa, my eighth grade students know more about science than you. The earth's atmosphere is not a closed system. It is open to the space environment. The sun's environment causes our atmosphere to expand during high sunspot activity and to contract during low sunspot activity. If the earth were a closed system, these outside influences would not happen. Also, during less active periods the solar winds allow many more outer space cosmic rays to penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field and to enter our atmosphere to nucleate low-level clouds. This contribution from outside sources causes the earth to cool by reflecting more solar energy back into space where it is no longer available to heat the environment, the oceans and the land masses. By the way, now that many new facts are known, the global warmist "Carbonistas" will now have to find new "gods" to worship!
I agree! Think how much carbon dioxide is released into the earth's sensitive environment each time 7 billion people exhale!
Do you want to correct Wiki too - because that is where I got the quote from Once again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere And I think you better check your own math http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts-per_notation The actual problem arises in Grokkies failure to define what he is talking about. as commonly gases are either stated as PPM or percentages
James stated that CO2 concentration is 0.000387 x 100% = 0.0387%. You state ''the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387% by volume" Can you tell me how much is James of your number -% wise -volume wise ? I am not Einstein, but I have 2 things in common with Einstein: 1. I am a human. Einstein is a human,too. 2. Einstein confessed that he had problems with math. I do confess I do , too. If you'd be so kind to answer the ? to those who do accept the fact that they are not Einsteins your kind help will be greatly appreciated.
"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earths atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.short The above quote was taken from a 2010 paper published in Science- arguably the highest impact scientific journal in publication. Those who take the time to study the current primary scientific discourse will find that the ACC hypothesis is almost universally supported by the data and conclusions published in reputable scientific journals.
I think more research is needed, maybe it will just postpone the next ice age another question, if the earth is like a well oiled machine, what happens when it's not so well oiled?
This is wonderful information, cooky. thanks for sharing. The "warmies" in our group often overlook these very important scientific facts. "Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."
You are much too trusting, bird. Wiki is often wrong about a lot of things! If you knew how to do the math you would know my answer is indeed correct.