The Science of Global Warming : Explained

[wellwisher]

Greenhouse gases are not a one way valve. They also block the sun, just as water vapor; clouds can block solar heating. The greenhouse gases block the sun during the day and blanket the earth at night. By not including the decrease in solar input to the earth, due to greenhouse gases, the models are always too high.

Forest fires, which are not always discussed have a double impact on global temperate. These fires give off CO2 from plant materials, while also eliminating carbon fixating plants. This causes the global warming affect of forest fires to be twice as effective as auto emissions.

Although the exact quantities are difficult to calculate, scientists estimate that wildfires emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2 per year for the past 20 years. In 2017, total global CO2 emissions reached 32.5 billion tons, according to the International Energy Agency.

Humans account for about 3.4% of the total.

Land management policies and foresting burning, in the various rain forests, such as the Amazon River Forests, have added to the global warming affect. Below is an interesting video of a time lapse of world forest fires over about a decade.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Greenhouse gases are not a one way valve. They also block the sun, just as water vapor; clouds can block solar heating. The greenhouse gases block the sun during the day and blanket the earth at night. By not including the decrease in solar input to the earth, due to greenhouse gases, the models are always too high.

Forest fires, which are not always discussed have a double impact on global temperate. These fires give off CO2 from plant materials, while also eliminating carbon fixating plants. This causes the global warming affect of forest fires to be twice as effective as auto emissions.



Humans account for about 3.4% of the total.

Land management policies and foresting burning, in the various rain forests, such as the Amazon River Forests, have added to the global warming affect. Below is an interesting video of a time lapse of world forest fires over about a decade.

Yes, humans may contribute a small amount of the annual amount of carbon dioxide produced, but it is the increase that we are worried about and that has been shown to be caused by people.

EDIT: And very basic science can be used to explain how Greenhouse gases work. Your claim is incorrect.

 

[shunyadragon]

Greenhouse gases are not a one way valve. They also block the sun, just as water vapor; clouds can block solar heating. The greenhouse gases block the sun during the day and blanket the earth at night. By not including the decrease in solar input to the earth, due to greenhouse gases, the models are always too high.

The problem with this claim of 'too high' is models are first based on actual increase due to human influence, and then estimate the relationship with the increase in relationship of the insulating effects that effect the incoming and outgoing heat from the atmosphere. Yes the decrease in solar output is taken into consideration, and without the human influence we should be in a decrease in global temperatures likely since the Little Ice Age and we are on the increase and increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere beyond recent geologic records science the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which can be measured..

I mentioned this before: It is like the frog in the pot slowly raising the temperature, once it reaches boiling it is frog legs for dinner..

 

[sayak83]

I have been wanting to do a complete thread on the science of global warming for a long time. Starting it today and hope to continue it over time. I will discuss the foundations of the relevant science and the evidence collected that backs up the current conclusions.

Some ground rules:-
1) Questions are welcome but need to pertain to the post I have actually made. I will not answer questions about topics that I am yet to cover. Others are free to do so.
2) Philosophical questions about the validity of the scientific process etc. will not be answered by me.
3) Others can contribute as they see fit.




TO BE CONTINUED......

From the introductory post, it is clear that the wavelength at which a body is radiating heat energy depends on its temperature. The temperature of the Sun is around 6000 K, and the temperature of earth when viewed from space (by satelites) is 255 K (

From the introductory post, it is clear that the wavelength at which a body is radiating heat energy depends on its temperature. The temperature of the Sun is around 6000 K, and the temperature of earth when viewed from space (by satelites) is 255 K (-18 C). Thus the solar radiation incident on earth and the radiation emitted by earth will have very different wavelength spread. This can be seen in the figure below,

As can be seen, the majority of sun's rays are in the visible, short infrared and UV bands (0.2 - 3 micrometers). Most of earth's radiation is coming in the long infrared bands (5 - 100 micrometers). And as Fourier noted, gases like CO2 and H2O are opaque to the wavelengths at which earth radiates heat.

The two most important gases that absorb radiation emitted by earth are CO2 and water vapour. The absorption intensity for CO2 for radiation passing through it has been measured experimentally and is shown in the figure below.

As one can see, the CO2 absorption is strongest at the peak wavelengths corresponding to radiation emitted by earth. This is why CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas. The extent to which the radiation emitted by the earth can be absorbed by a specific type of gas is called its GreenHouse Potential (GP). The GP of CO2 is taken as 1 and that of all other gases expressed relative to CO2's GP. The net These values have been experimentally determined for various atmospheric gases and can be seen in the Table below:-

The total effect of any gas is its Greenhouse Potential multiplied by its abundance in the atmosphere (either in the absolute number of moles or the concentration written in parts-per-million-volume). This total effect is shown in the rightmost column where it is clear that CO2 and water vapor are by far the strongest greenhouse gases. Water vapour absorbs about 3-4 times more radiation than CO2 overall as H2O is more abundant. However, the increase in absorptivity has been almost entirely due to rise in CO2 which is now 1.5 times its pre-industrial values (280 to 400 ppmv).

The complete absorption plot for all the greenhouse gases is shown in the figure below,

It can be seen that water vapour absorbs nearly everything beyond about 20 micrometers and below 7 micrometers, while CO2 has strong absorptivity between 13 - 18 micrometers and O3 (ozone) has strong absorption peak at 8 micrometers. The atmosphere is transparent to outgoing radiation between 9 - 13 micrometers.

That's enough for today. The bottom line:-
1) The radiation emitted by earth is absorbed by CO2 and H2O causing earth to warm.
2) H2O is the most important greenhouse gas followed by CO2. But the recent increase is caused by increasing CO2 concentrations.

The next post will consider how the absorption of radiation can actually cause the earth to warm up.

 

[sayak83]

I understand it, but also understand that the largest insulator is water vapor. So, again, minute additions by human activities really amount to nothing. And, even with that insulation the heat still eventually moves to space. Nothing in my initial statement is refuted... (All the "greenhouse gas" on the planet that isn't H2O is less than 10% of the total. Fairly insignificant. This means we'd have to increase our production of these gasses exponentially for it to matter.)

No. CO2 and methane jointly account for over one-third of the total greenhouse effect. This can be seen in the table in my previous post.

 

[Phaedrus]

Not science related, but I think it important to share.

Obama meets with Greta Thunberg: 'One of our planet's greatest advocates'

Former President Obama met with 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg on Tuesday as part of her visit to Washington, D.C., to lobby lawmakers on environmental issues.

“Just 16, @GretaThunberg is already one of our planet’s greatest advocates. Recognizing that her generation will bear the brunt of climate change, she’s unafraid to push for real action. She embodies our vision at the @ObamaFoundation: A future shaped by young leaders like her,” Obama tweeted, including a photo of the meeting.

 

[Pete in Panama]

No. CO2 and methane jointly account for over one-third of the total greenhouse effect. This can be seen in the table in my previous post.

Like I was saying in the other thread, my thinking is we need to start by looking at what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?

To me this sounds basic, it would tell us something that makes sense and whether it's unprecedented. Nobody's ever shown me this and that by itself would seem to make the entire claim vacant.

 

[exchemist]

Like I was saying in the other thread, my thinking is we need to start by looking at what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?

To me this sounds basic, it would tell us something that makes sense and whether it's unprecedented. Nobody's ever shown me this and that by itself would seem to make the entire claim vacant.

The data on warming is pretty clear and has been publicised abundantly to anyone with a bit of interest in the topic. What is this "mass" you are talking about?

 

[sayak83]

Like I was saying in the other thread, my thinking is we need to start by looking at what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?

To me this sounds basic, it would tell us something that makes sense and whether it's unprecedented. Nobody's ever shown me this and that by itself would seem to make the entire claim vacant.

I do not quite understand your question. We usually measure the surface air temperature and ocean surface temperature. Satellites and balloons are used to measure temperature of upper layers of air as well. Temperature sensors are put on buoys that help to measure temperature of deeper oceanic layers. Based on this the overall warming of oceans and air can be estimated

Based on temperature rise of the full ocean, it is estimated that in the last thirty years the ocean is absorbing excess heat at the rate of 0.64-0.8 Watts/m^2. (There is a spatial difference between equatorial, temperate and polar oceans ....hence the range).
Watts is Joules per second. So you can multiply the value with the number of seconds in thirty years and the total oceanic surface area to get the cumulative heat absorbed by the oceans in that time.

You can see further details here
Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

The total heat added due to global warming for earth system as a whole is given in the article below.

ESSD - Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?

Quoted


This study is a Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) concerted international effort to update the Earth heat inventory and presents an updated assessment of ocean warming estimates as well as new and updated estimates of heat gain in the atmosphere, cryosphere and land over the period 1960–2018. The study obtains a consistent long-term Earth system heat gain over the period 1971–2018, with a total heat gain of 358±37 ZJ, which is equivalent to a global heating rate of 0.47±0.1 W m−2. Over the period 1971–2018 (2010–2018), the majority of heat gain is reported for the global ocean with 89 % (90 %), with 52 % for both periods in the upper 700 m depth, 28 % (30 %) for the 700–2000 m depth layer and 9 % (8 %) below 2000 m depth. Heat gain over land amounts to 6 % (5 %) over these periods, 4 % (3 %) is available for the melting of grounded and floating ice, and 1 % (2 %) is available for atmospheric warming. Our results also show that Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is not only continuing, but also increasing: the EEI amounts to 0.87±0.12 W m−2 during 2010–2018. Stabilization of climate, the goal of the universally agreed United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and the Paris Agreement in 2015, requires that EEI be reduced to approximately zero to achieve Earth's system quasi-equilibrium. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would need to be reduced from 410 to 353 ppm to increase heat radiation to space by 0.87 W m−2, bringing Earth back towards energy balance. This simple number, EEI, is the most fundamental metric that the scientific community and public must be aware of as the measure of how well the world is doing in the task of bringing climate change under control, and we call for an implementation of the EEI into the global stocktake based on best available science.


Hope this helps.

 

[rational experiences]

Was conscious bio life present when all mass conditions balanced it's position... s as bodies in space as earth? Reactive terminology...to an outcome.

No.

It's why you're wrong using a biological experience...is termed and known as a lie in natural science.

 

[rational experiences]

I admit I know next to nothing of the science of global warming, but I do know we've had one of the hottest summers, the stormiest, coldest winters and the hurricanes are getting stronger.

Earth status by all men living thinking owning all bio expressed conditions shares its advices.

Father in heavens.

Said earths mass becomes colder as you remove it's nuclear mass inside radiations yourselves.

So ice mass melts but temperature of ice freeze drops to colder temperatures as heavens mass heats.

It contradicts the heating in a false condition not vacuum voided as laws.

So as gases above sacrifice it's spirit body above as removed suddenly a real hole opens above as a mass caused space hole that cannot shut out like. Tornado or hurricane.

Men of invention don't ever own it. Theory to I want it. So inventions intent I will cause my thesis by man's science.....the hole.

As he wants a hole in heavens space not in earths mass as sin..K hole cave opening.

Instant life snap freeze returned ice age is invented earths saviour body returned.

Rome was taught already and said lucky enough heat existed above for not a snap freeze and outlawed all Alchemy.

Geo central earth In space owned immaculate clear coldest gas relativity so you are wrong. Not any sun status said holy men. Clear gases.

 

[shunyadragon]

I admit I know next to nothing of the science of global warming, but I do know we've had one of the hottest summers, the stormiest, coldest winters and the hurricanes are getting stronger.

In Hillsborough, NC the high today was a record 85, and more than a dozen days in February over 80.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I still love Carl Sagon on the subject.

Very simple and not complex, Sagon elegantly puts it in layman's terms that is well explained and informative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still love Carl Sagon on the subject.

Very simple and not complex, Sagon elegantly puts it in layman's terms that is well explained and informative.

Sabine takes a deeper dive. She explains it at several levels. The more advanced levels has a prediction that a certain layer of the upper atmosphere would cool due to global warming. This was predicted before it was observed:

 

[Pete in Panama]

I do not quite understand your question. We usually measure the surface air temperature and ocean surface temperature. Satellites and balloons are used to measure temperature of upper layers of air as well. Temperature sensors are put on buoys that help to measure temperature of deeper oceanic layers. Based on this the overall warming of oceans and air can be estimated

Based on temperature rise of the full ocean, it is estimated that in the last thirty years the ocean is absorbing excess heat at the rate of 0.64-0.8 Watts/m^2. (There is a spatial difference between equatorial, temperate and polar oceans ....hence the range).
Watts is Joules per second. So you can multiply the value with the number of seconds in thirty years and the total oceanic surface area to get the cumulative heat absorbed by the oceans in that time.

You can see further details here
Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

The total heat added due to global warming for earth system as a whole is given in the article below.

ESSD - Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?

Quoted


This study is a Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) concerted international effort to update the Earth heat inventory and presents an updated assessment of ocean warming estimates as well as new and updated estimates of heat gain in the atmosphere, cryosphere and land over the period 1960–2018. The study obtains a consistent long-term Earth system heat gain over the period 1971–2018, with a total heat gain of 358±37 ZJ, which is equivalent to a global heating rate of 0.47±0.1 W m−2. Over the period 1971–2018 (2010–2018), the majority of heat gain is reported for the global ocean with 89 % (90 %), with 52 % for both periods in the upper 700 m depth, 28 % (30 %) for the 700–2000 m depth layer and 9 % (8 %) below 2000 m depth. Heat gain over land amounts to 6 % (5 %) over these periods, 4 % (3 %) is available for the melting of grounded and floating ice, and 1 % (2 %) is available for atmospheric warming. Our results also show that Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is not only continuing, but also increasing: the EEI amounts to 0.87±0.12 W m−2 during 2010–2018. Stabilization of climate, the goal of the universally agreed United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and the Paris Agreement in 2015, requires that EEI be reduced to approximately zero to achieve Earth's system quasi-equilibrium. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would need to be reduced from 410 to 353 ppm to increase heat radiation to space by 0.87 W m−2, bringing Earth back towards energy balance. This simple number, EEI, is the most fundamental metric that the scientific community and public must be aware of as the measure of how well the world is doing in the task of bringing climate change under control, and we call for an implementation of the EEI into the global stocktake based on best available science.


Hope this helps.

That's lots of numbers and words but somehow you missed my query of 13 words:

what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?​

If you told me a temperature I missed it. What mass are you taking a temp of --the earth, the biosphere? the atmosphere? What is the previous temp? We need to know if the rise is unprecedented.

Tossing out lots of numbers quotes links and citations doesn't cut it. I've talked to astrologers that say astrology is in fact scientific because they use numbers and measurements. Numbers and measurements are not enough.

Can u see my problem here?

 

[Pete in Panama]

The data on warming is pretty clear and has been publicised abundantly to anyone with a bit of interest in the topic...

OK, so you're saying we're in some kind of crisis, I ask what the crisis is, you say that everyone already knows about it and I'm supposed to do the research. When I've researched it I find a controversy. When I present the controversy I hear (from all sides) "there is no controversy because we're right and they're wrong".

Fine. I'd still like to know what temp measurements show what mass is heating up how much.

...What is this "mass" you are talking about?

It has to do w/ the science that we got in middle school. A calorie is the amount of heat that raises one gram of water one degree C. We're taking the temps (before and after) of a mass (one gram of water) and that tells u how much heat's gone in. Basic.

None of the AGW advocates I've talked to are willing to go that far, the convo usually ends long before w/ my being a bad guy because I ask too many questions. My thinking is that middle school science is really not all that deep.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's lots of numbers and words but somehow you missed my query of 13 words:

what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?​

If you told me a temperature I missed it. What mass are you taking a temp of --the earth, the biosphere? the atmosphere? What is the previous temp? We need to know if the rise is unprecedented.

Tossing out lots of numbers quotes links and citations doesn't cut it. I've talked to astrologers that say astrology is in fact scientific because they use numbers and measurements. Numbers and measurements are not enough.

Can u see my problem here?

Yes, you obviously have no idea of how even the temperatures of local weather is taken. They are mostly atmospheric temperatures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so you're saying we're in some kind of crisis, I ask what the crisis is, you say that everyone already knows about it and I'm supposed to do the research. When I've researched it I find a controversy. When I present the controversy I hear (from all sides) "there is no controversy because we're right and they're wrong".

Fine. I'd still like to know what temp measurements show what mass is heating up how much.It has to do w/ the science that we got in middle school. A calorie is the amount of heat that raises one gram of water one degree C. We're taking the temps (before and after) of a mass (one gram of water) and that tells u how much heat's gone in. Basic.

None of the AGW advocates I've talked to are willing to go that far, the convo usually ends long before w/ my being a bad guy because I ask too many questions. My thinking is that middle school science is really not all that deep.

Yes, when you try to deny something that everyone else is aware of the you should be going to rreal experts and educating yourself. Instead you have only visited science deniers. If you don't know and won't let learn then the one totally wrong thing to do is to deny the science.


Do you know how the real experts are identified?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Yes, you obviously have no idea of how even the temperatures of local weather is taken. They are mostly atmospheric temperatures.

Right, that's about as far as convos w/ AGW advocates go. Here it ends w/ no temps, no mass etc., just that I'm a bad guy. In this case I'm bad because I got no idea of the basics.

Cheers. .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, that's about as far as convos w/ AGW advocates go. Here it ends w/ no temps, no mass etc., just that I'm a bad guy. In this case I'm bad because I got no idea of the basics.

Cheers. .

You have been given links to the sources. People have helped you and offered to help you. The problem is that you know so little that you don't even know the right questions to ask, yet you arrogantly blame others for your ignorance.

And yes, you have not behaved properly. When you do not now ask questions politely of others. You need to answer questions when asked too.