Global warming

[Hank]

Scientist say global warming is the result of greenhouse gases. Are they actually correct? Do they have proof? If yes please show it; not propaganda actual scientific proof.

 

[notto]

EPA - Global Warming

NASA - Global Warming

 

[Hank]

Thanks notto!

Question.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is 370 ppm, and is responsible for 1.4w/m2 of added heat. I find this amazing. Considering the similarities between the other gases, it seems O2 and N2  have no affect on the heat build up in the atmosphere whatsoever, if they had we would have roughly 3400w/m2 of heat. The sun on a good day ‘only’ generates ~520 w/m2  - How does CO2 do it?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:18 PM Hank said this in Post #3

Thanks notto!

Question.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is 370 ppm, and is responsible for 1.4w/m2 of added heat. I find this amazing. Considering the similarities between the other gases, it seems O2 and N2  have no affect on the heat build up in the atmosphere whatsoever, if they had we would have roughly 3400w/m2 of heat. The sun on a good day ‘only’ generates ~520 w/m2  - How does CO2 do it?

The C=O bond absorbs infrared light that is radiated from the earth. The shorter wavelengths from the sun pass thru the atmosphere and are absorbed by the ground and water.  The ground and water then re-radiate in the infrared range. Without the CO2 it would radiate out into space and be lost.  But the CO2 aborbs the infrared and keeps the heat on the planet.

 

[Morat]

A lot of global warming denial seems to boil down to the ludicruous contention that CO2 doesn't absorb heat.

Seriously, it's pretty straightforward. More C02 in the atmosphere, more heat retention.

Which is why, I suppose, even the Greener Earth group (Oil and Energy industry) has moved on to "Yeah, it's happening, but it's good for us!".

Reminds me of the cigarette industry.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 04:37 PM Hank said this in Post #1

Scientist say global warming is the result of greenhouse gases. Are they actually correct? Do they have proof? If yes please show it; not propaganda actual scientific proof.

No one knows for sure that there is global warming. There was a case of some airplanes that got lost in greenland during WW2 and recently they found them under 268 feet of snow and ice. That is about 5 feet a year of new snow in that section of Greenland. It sure does not sound like it is melting there.

BTW that is one of the young earth arguements. If the earth was billions of years old how much snow would there be if is getting 5 feet thicker each year on the average. That would be a mile deep thickness of snow every 1000 years. I think what happens though is the snow packs down and then slides out to the sea and melts there, because of the salt content.

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/1999/squadron.htm

 

[Arikay]

Many YEC like to believe the earth follows simple math patterns, like a constant exponential growth of something, which it rarly does.

One fun thing, Salt can be used to make things freeze faster, or make things melt faster.

 

[Morat]

No one knows for sure that there is global warming. There was a case of some airplanes that got lost in greenland during WW2 and recently they found them under 268 feet of snow and ice. That is about 5 feet a year of new snow in that section of Greenland. It sure does not sound like it is melting there.

Hehehe. I love that argument. Just goes to show what you can do with a complete lack of knowledge.

Ever heard of compression melting? Or, here's a good one, ever thought what happens to a heavy object (one heavier than ice) ontop of a moving glacier flow?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:34 PM Morat said this in Post #8 

Ever heard of compression melting? 

Actually, I heard that as the snow compresses it turns to ice. I never heard of compression melting. I ran a search on the internet and nothing came up.

 

[David Gould]

When you put something under extreme pressure, its temperature rises.

PV = NrT is an example of how an increase in pressure will increase temperature.

If the pressure increase is sufficient to cause the temperature to rise above the  melting point of the material, it melts.

Hence, compression melting.

Compression melting is why mountains cannot be very high - the weight on top causes such extreme pressure at the bottom that the rocks there melt.

The same is true for snow and ice sheets - there are limits to how thick a snow or ice sheet can be.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:58 PM David Gould said this in Post #10 Compression melting is why mountains cannot be very high - the weight on top causes such extreme pressure at the bottom that the rocks there melt.

The same is true for snow and ice sheets - there are limits to how thick a snow or ice sheet can be.

Oh, ok, that is interesting, thanks.

 

[paulewog]

Yeah, but where is the extreme pressure on earth ;()

Scientists think that the middle of the earth is actually liquid, right... or, know, one of those. It's under extreme pressure, and is very hot, and liquid.... I always enjoyed that part of school/science

Anyways, global warming - 20 years ago it was an imminent ice age - the earth's temperatures fluctuate a lot...?

 

[David Gould]

Today at 11:35 AM paulewog said this in Post #12

Yeah, but where is the extreme pressure on earth ;()

Scientists think that the middle of the earth is actually liquid, right... or, know, one of those. It's under extreme pressure, and is very hot, and liquid.... I always enjoyed that part of school/science

Anyways, global warming - 20 years ago it was an imminent ice age - the earth's temperatures fluctuate a lot...?

There is extreme pressure on earth at a lot of places - the centre of the earth, as you say, is one of those places.

As to temperature fluctuations, this is one of the big misunderstandings in regard to global warming. Global warming means that the average temperature across the whole globe rises. This can actually cause it to be colder in some parts of the earth.

This is because our weather system is so complex - we have a four day window for reasonably accurate prediction of local conditions before the calculations start to become impossible to do.

 

[Praxiteles]

Today at 11:35 AM paulewog said this in Post #12


Anyways, global warming - 20 years ago it was an imminent ice age - the earth's temperatures fluctuate a lot...?

Greetings, orange behatted fellow!

Yes, it's true that in the 70's the fears were for global cooling.  The reason this changed is that data gathering became more accurate and more widespread.  Therefore a bigger picture becomes available. 

Whereas once the available data led climatologists to ponder a forthcoming ice-age, a more accurate prediction is now available.  That is not to say that it is 100% correct, but it is more accurate.

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Hank]

Yesterday at 09:26 PM lucaspa said this in Post #4

The C=O bond absorbs infrared light that is radiated from the earth. The shorter wavelengths from the sun pass thru the atmosphere and are absorbed by the ground and water.  The ground and water then re-radiate in the infrared range. Without the CO2 it would radiate out into space and be lost.  But the CO2 aborbs the infrared and keeps the heat on the planet.

 


Thanks

CO2 still is a gas like O2 and N2.
http://pump.net/thebasics/physpropgases.htm

Infrared heat lamps are used in the construction industry. Instead of warming the air of huge warehouses only solids (products) are kept warm. This would not be possible if any gas where to deflect any radiation. The only exception would be charged particles as can be found in the ionosphere and short wave bounce of this layer. Even so the Oxygen-Carbon-Oxygen covalent bond is highly polar, the molecule is neutral. There too is no logical explanation for it being considered a greenhouse gas.

So my question stays.

 

[Hank]

Today at 12:25 PM Morat said this in Post #5

A lot of global warming denial seems to boil down to the ludicruous contention that CO2 doesn't absorb heat.

Seriously, it's pretty straightforward. More C02 in the atmosphere, more heat retention.

Which is why, I suppose, even the Greener Earth group (Oil and Energy industry) has moved on to "Yeah, it's happening, but it's good for us!".

Reminds me of the cigarette industry.

Yeah, like smoking? LOL I am not questioning that the atmosphere is getting poisoned by our car/industrial emissions. I have not had a car in three years, and am very much against pollution. You should see the smog we have in the summertime here in Toronto.

But that I can explain with chemistry/physics. But I am not so sure about this greenhouse idea. So you wanna help or do rhetoric?

 

[Hank]

Today at 08:39 PM Praxiteles said this in Post #14
Whereas once the available data led climatologists to ponder a forthcoming ice-age, a more accurate prediction is now available.  That is not to say that it is 100% correct, but it is more accurate.

Cheers,

Prax

One more question, percentage wise how accurate is that data?

I still can't find actual literature where the data is collected from and how.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

John. Global warming does not always mean melting ice. In a place like greenland a slight warming can actually have an increase in the amount of snowfall. If the mean temperature is still too low for that snow to melt, you get an increase in the amount of ice. THroughout much of the arctic it hardly snows at all because the air is too dry and cold. Here where I live, the colder is it the less chance of snow - in fact most of our snowfall is associated with relatively warm and moist pacific air from the west as opposed to the cold dry arctic air from the north that it alternates with. Some parts of antarctica have a mile or more of ice, but less then an inch per year of snow. That ice must have been built up during warmer periods of the earths history. There are very likely to be some glaciers that would grow larger if the planet heated up. It would depend upon if the warming was felt more in the winter then the summer.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Objects on a frozen lake, or even dog poop on a layer of snow, will absorb sunshine - warm up, and melt their way down through the ice or snow. Even on the coldest days. Maybe something like that played a role in those airplanes in Greenland.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:03 PM Hank said this in Post #15 

 CO2 still is a gas like O2 and N2.
http://pump.net/thebasics/physpropgases.htm

Infrared heat lamps are used in the construction industry. Instead of warming the air of huge warehouses only solids (products) are kept warm. This would not be possible if any gas where to deflect any radiation. The only exception would be charged particles as can be found in the ionosphere and short wave bounce of this layer. Even so the Oxygen-Carbon-Oxygen covalent bond is highly polar, the molecule is neutral. There too is no logical explanation for it being considered a greenhouse gas.

So my question stays.

Hank, I didn't say "deflect" the radiation, I said absorb the radiation.  If you shine light on any chemical, you find that the bonds between the atoms absorb some wavelengths of light.  The atoms also absorb some wavelengths.  Microwaves work by having the H-O bonds of water absorb the light waves of the microwave which causes the molecules to move faster which means that the food becomes hotter.

So yes, shining a heat lamp in a warehouse will cause the the solid objects to warm up because there are so many photons of infrared light that there is not enough CO2 to absorb all of them and a lot get through to the solid objects. But the temperature of the air also increases a bit.

Now, remember what I said: the ground radiates the infrared light so that it would leave the earth, thus cooling it. However, the C=O bonds in CO2 absorb some of that light instead, keeping it from escaping.  Thus, the earth is warmer because it can't get rid of the heat.