Air Force, which was developing heat-seeking missiles and needed to understand how to detect heat passing through air. This research enabled scientists to understand the climate and atmospheric composition of all planets in the solar system by observing their infrared signatures.
For example, Venus is about F C because its thick atmosphere is People sometimes ask me why carbon dioxide is important for climate, given that water vapor absorbs more infrared radiation and the two gases absorb at several of the same wavelengths. The upper atmosphere is much less dense and contains much less water vapor than near the ground, which means that adding more carbon dioxide significantly influences how much infrared radiation escapes to space.
Have you ever noticed that deserts are often colder at night than forests, even if their average temperatures are the same? Without much water vapor in the atmosphere over deserts, the radiation they give off escapes readily to space. In more humid regions radiation from the surface is trapped by water vapor in the air. Similarly, cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights because more water vapor is present.
The influence of carbon dioxide can be seen in past changes in climate. With other greenhouse gases, the molecular bonds are different, but in all cases, they absorb photons, stopping them from leaving the atmosphere. Eventually, our CO 2 molecule will release these photons. Sometimes, the photons continue out into space.
Instead, they mostly take in photons leaving the Earth for space. But when the Earth re-emits this light, 2 it has a longer wavelength, in the infrared spectrum. And the range of wavelengths around 15 microns is a particularly crucial window. Methane, another greenhouse gas, reacts easily with oxygen, which removes it from the atmosphere within around 12 years. As we keep taking carbon-based compounds like coal and oil out of the ground, and put that carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO 2 , the added CO 2 piles up much faster than it can be naturally removed.
Thank you to Brittney Andrews of Clearlake, California, for the question. A traditional light bulb uses a large amount of electricity to heat the tungsten filament to temperatures around degrees, causing the filament to glow white hot. This high temperature is required to produce visible white light.
The glowing filament gives off a very broad spectrum of frequencies of radiation, however, that we perceive as heat. Only a very small number of the highest of these frequencies are useful as visible light. A new LED light bulb, on the other hand, uses a very small amount of electricity to cause a diode to emit a very narrow range of frequencies within the spectrum of visible light. The LED radiates only visible light — it does not radiate heat.
The primary purpose of a light bulb is to provide visible light. To repeat, a traditional light bulb radiates heat, a small portion of which is visible light. An LED on the other hand, only radiates visible light, requiring much less electricity. This is why you can substantially reduce your electric bills by replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with LED light bulbs. How does this apply to greenhouse gases? Detailed laboratory studies of absorption of radiation show that carbon dioxide absorbs less than 16 percent of all the frequencies making up the heat radiated by Earth.
Just like LEDs, this limited number of frequencies absorbed by carbon dioxide does not constitute heat. This limited number of frequencies cannot cause an absorbing body of matter to get much hotter because it contains only a very small part of the heat required to do so.
Also note on the 2nd point co2 incline follows warming, not the other way around so this is correct. Because of two things: Mars is much further away and energy dissipates at the inverse cube of the distance, so it will receive less than half the solar input we get. Not much energy there to hold on. So there is actually much less CO2 per volume than on Earth, and this is a function in part of its gravity.
So yeah.. This paper examines the thermal radiation of the 5 principal GH gases. So if co2 is so high up in the atmosphere how do plants in the ocean and on land absorb it? Do certain densities make it come down? Is the earth supposed to have ice on it? Have there been periods on this planet where it had no ice? If most of earths heat is released through the hole in the atmosphere in the Antarctic does the size of that hole change? How much have the ocean levels risin in the past years before we started burning fossil fuel?
Why is Mars frozen if co2 holds so much heat? The planet has gone thru several ice ages which were induced by the Milankovitch cycles—yes climate changes. Once the powers that be began to cease use fo CFCs, it was able to regenerate. The earth, like all planets follow an elliptical orbit, not an equidistant one. The earth is closest to the Sun-called perihelion in January while it is at aphelion 6 months later.
Now in the very far distant future this positioning will reverse. CO2 is. Saying that CO2 is causing global warming is like saying that 40 people in a stadium can out yell the other The truth is there for anyone who does not just want to believe it. Specific heat in physics proves the point.
However if you believe stop driving, heating your house and and any other activity not powered by solar or wind. Put your actions in line with what you believe. A cooler mass cannot heat a warmer mass. CO2 molecules cannot heat the earth in reverse back radiation.
The earth is the source of energy the CO2 above it in the atmosphere absorbs. Just like the radiators in your home or office cannot heat the boiler water in reverse. Heat flows from hot to cold. Correct, The colder atmosphere can not heat the warmer earth, this violates a law of thermodynamics.
Anyone with an under standing of basic science knows what happens when you violate a law with your theory. Basic math on how to convert the area of a sphere, into a flat 2 dimensional circle. Just ONE gram very negligible if polonium can kill 50 million people. The issue of climate change in my opinion does indeed hinge around just how much of an affect a change from 0.
Hence greenhouse effect…natural processes have been locking carbon away for millions of years!! Is the current situation sustainable? The carbon process has indeed operated for a gazillion years. Humans are lazy, sadly. There is some great tech out there to pick it up but the reason why they fuss on the carbon issue is because they want a carbon market system which is another gig for income redistribution.
I like the specific heat property you mention and will research this more as I am highly skeptical of C02 as a driver for any suggested global temp change.. Its only 0. Biological systems are not the same as systems governed by thermodynamics.
This answer seems to say that the molecules allow heat from the sun in but reflect them down when the heat is trying to escape. Is it because the infrared energy is only coming from the sun, while the atmospheric heat is just latent heat or something? So sunlight passes through unimpeded to hit the Earth and warm it. Then the warmed Earth radiates that heat as infrared back out into space.
However, some of that infrared is scattered by GHGs, half of it back at the Earth to be reabsorbed and converted back into heat. The greenhouse effect has been responsible for keeping the planet a comfortable temperature for billions of years. The public has been falsely indoctrinated about causes of climate change. Deeper penetration into science confirms that CO2 follows climate change, not causes it.
The irony is that reducing the use of fossil fuels, which is agenda of many, will have no effect on climate. Dan you are absolutely correct. Warming precedes Co2, not follows it. It may affect the clarity of the sky, but the Sahara Desert is not going to plunge to 20 during the summer. There is an agenda—carbon markets. But as we can see here:. I had a question about CO2 and Venus. But the temperature is only 2. Hi Andrew, good question!
To suggest this temperature from 50 km can warm a warmer surface is a violation of entropy. It takes 4, joules to heat 1 kg of water 1C. The idea co2 back radiation can penetrate depths of the ocean to increase its temperature is fiction. If in doubt, heat your bathwater with just co2. Your article is pseudoscience. Sounds like High Concept to me. There obviously needs to be more time spent on research before we knee jerk into a plan of action.
Regardless of the ongoing scientific research being done by many actual climate scientists not just modelers it should be noted that an over all decrease of pollutants has been achieved over the last 20 years. This means we have achieved cleaner air in the US and in the EU. It is to be commended and has not caused the economy to go into a tail spin. Cooler heads must prevail. We all know that politics is the real driving force to this issue and it must be stopped.
CO2 will retard heat transfer and will radiatively force SOME heat back towards earth but not all heat that contacts all CO2 molecules goes back to earth. So, how much heat, does the increase of ppm of CO2, from to ppm , add to earths atmosphere? Let me just point out that the public was led to believe that a doubling of co2 implies a doubling of temp. Not true. The correlation does not work like an arithmetic or geometric sequence. Rather the trend is logarithmically. Without CO2 plants and people could not survive.
To think man has any material affect on climate change is naive and defies facts, evidence and science. Ask yourself how the ice ages began and more importantly how they disappeared. Climate change is a natural occurrence. If so, does incoming heat to the Earth also bounce back?
I am truly interested in understanding the dynamics here. When water vapor cools below a pressure dependent temperature that decreases as pressure decreases, it condenses to liquid water or solid ice, This generally occurs at altitudes well below 50 Km, leaving the rarefied air at 50 Km, very dry, while the CO2 mole fraction stays nearly constant throughout the atmosphere.
Another question also puzzles me. As an engineer I must always be as objective as possible. If CO2 can reach as high as 50km, would that not mean the 0. This was a quick Calc and may have a bug or two so forgive any math issues and feel free to correct. If CO2 can rise to very high altitudes and heat energy will move in the direction of warmer to colder crudely put , would not more of the heat radiated from the gas be more likely to move further to the colder area of higher altitudes rather than toward the warmer Earth?
Grated convection would be more efficient in a denser has at lower altitudes. As O2 and N2 absorb heat at the surface and rise, does the CO2 in the atmosphere stop this cooling effect hot air rises, cool descends. Water vapor conducts heat even better, go outside on a frosty morning soaking wet. Takes alot of energy to turn water into vapor. This is not answering the question scientifficly.
Please explain with relevant physicd why waterwapor is not the main driver. Saying that «we cannot control it» makes absolutely no sense,. Prediction did not pan out. The incline over the century was 1. I would just not label this as alarming. It is also rather pointless to derive a planetary average. In any given year, some places may be warm, some cold, some very rainy or snowy. The media has faciliated attention toward a degree of warmth.
When I was growing up in the 70s, they were worried about an ice age. The bottom line is Mother Nature decides the climate, not mankind. The ulterior motive is to set up carbon markets where various entities can be taxed punished for using x amount of carbon that can be redistributed to some other poor region. Instead of trying to engineer a real economy, the powers that be always resort to manipulation of something that punishes humans. By the way one co2 molecule would not know the difference if it bumped into one that came out of a volcano or out of the mouth of a human or out of the back end of a car.
Co2 absorbs IR in 4 specific wavelengths, not the whole spectrum of light. People may be under the impression based on the selective language of the scientists who have an agenda, that the Sun emits only in 1 part of the spectrum.
It does not. It is the last factor that prevents the Earth from obtaining the runaway greenhouse effect of Venus. What people may not be aware of in circular reasoning on the co2. So it begs the question: well during the course of every day, vegetation during nighttime exhales co2.
Then we a tad of volcanic degassing, we have the oceans. A co2 molecule is a co2 molecule. So I reiterate my earlier point, this whole controversey has nothing to do with designing a strategy to cool the earth.
In terms of new technology I have nothing against solar or wind or biofuel but I want the grid to be decided by the market not politicians who could not pass a 3rd grade science test. The CO2 that we exhale is part of the carbon cycle. It ultimately came from eating food that grew when a plant took CO2 out of the air, so overall there is no net change in CO2.
It throws the cycle out of whack for a long time. So you have told by a certain sector of people. So it makes no difference if we have megatons or gigatons, because it still only occupies 0.
Why does it remain here? Because the majority of molecules are scooped up by the sinks of this unique planet. When one speaks in gigatons, it sounds enormously alarming; but when speaks in percentage composition, co2 does not hit the alarm. In fact some of it is necessary for life to go on. Regarding the percent of carbon in the atmosphere: It only takes a few drops of cyanide to poison somebody. The cyanide will probably make up 0. You are talking about 2 distinct molecules.
0コメント