Global warming basics.

[Subduction Zone]

In all seriousness don't allow my input derail the thread. It's great to see people talking about the big pink elephant in their room.

I think we are going to reach the +10 degree mark real soon. 2033? Then look out cuz we don't know the meanin' of storms and high water now compared to what it will be. We are not going to stop the sea or the skies at this point. What to do? That's going to be a whole heck of a lot of people to have to move. I suggest charging the fossil fuel people along with all who denied and delayed viable options to greenhouse gas reductions.

Just passing the time until there are some serious questions.

 

[sayak83]

There doesn't seem to be much interest in learning the science, including from those who don't know it yet still insist it's wrong and that the scientists aren't credible.

Here's a bit more of the science :

These curves show the peak wavelengths of the sunlight being absorbed by the earth (about 0.5 microns) and the much larger infrared wavelength of the re-emitted heat (about 10 microns):

"Wien's displacement law states that the black body radiation curve for different temperature peaks at a wavelength is inversely proportional to the temperature." - Wiki

As you noted, the greenhouse gases are transparent to the former, but absorb (and re-emit) the longer infrared wavelengths, and continue to heat the atmosphere until the atmosphere is warm enough to emit as much energy into space as is coming in.

It's interesting what makes a molecule a greenhouse gas. Monoatomic (Ar) and diatomic atmospheric molecules (O2 and N2) are not greenhouse gases, but CO2, O3, CH4, N2O and H2O are. Diatomic molecules can translate, rotate, and stretch or contract, but not bend. It's this last action that allows for absorption in the infrared region.

To continue this excellent description...
It is possible (from the laws of physics) to determine the temperature of a body based on the wavelength at which it is radiating electromagnetic energy. Specifically the temperature of the body is inversely proportional to the peak radiation wavelength. Thus, if you send a satellite to space to measure earth's radiation to the outer space, we see that earth is radiating as if its temperature is 255 Kelvins (-18 C). However the mean temperature on earth's surface is measured to be about 288 Kelvins (+ 15 C). This 33 degree C increase of earth's surface temperature compared to the temperature at which earth is radiating energy to space is the Greenhouse effect caused by our atmosphere.

 

[Valjean]

In all seriousness don't allow my input derail the thread. It's great to see people talking about the big pink elephant in their room.

I think we are going to reach the +10 degree mark real soon. 2033? Then look out cuz we don't know the meanin' of storms and high water now compared to what it will be. We are not going to stop the sea or the skies at this point. What to do? That's going to be a whole heck of a lot of people to have to move. I suggest charging the fossil fuel people along with all who denied and delayed viable options to greenhouse gas reductions.

A ten degree increase and you could have crocodiles at the north pole and camels at the South, and a lot of uninhabitable areas between.

 

[sayak83]

I see many people denying anthropogenic global warming. Or if you prefer climate change. I would like to cover the basics of this so that people have more than just denial when trying to argue against the science.

I would like to start with the greenhouse effect which was universally accepted before this became a political issue. So would anyone care to learn how the greenhouse effect works?

Others who understand the science better than I do, and I am sure that there are those here, are more than welcome to chime in.

Best short video explanation on the physics of greenhouse effect.

 

[wandering peacefully]

A ten degree increase and you could have crocodiles at the north pole and camels at the South, and a lot of uninhabitable areas between.

I sure hope I am wrong. And I was being a little dramatic, I thought, with +10 degree increase. However, I see NASA agrees it is possible but gave it a century to occur.

"Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

It sure is going to be interesting. We already have seen changes in insect, plant and animal ranges. No doubt crocs will be the ones to adapt and survive. They've done it before. Hopefully birds too although many species are seeing declines in numbers.

I am still optomistic humans can adapt or science can come up with a solution. I don't know about the other animals. That is a lot of change for them to deal with in a short time period.

It is amazing though how so many people don't find it alarming or believe they won't be affected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Best short video explanation on the physics of greenhouse effect.

I was thinking of adding this video since it took another tack at explaining both the Greenhouse Effect and AGW. Thank you.

 

[UpperLimits]

I see many people that have a skepticism about AGW, not denial. Don’t start your case with false dichotomies. Furthermore how much AGW is occurring and what should be the best response is the more important discussion. The real problem with the AGW debates usually aren’t the “deniers” [sic], more often it is the AGW extremist alarmists. We can deal with any AGW without fear mongering and intrusive statist “solutions”.

Ding ding! Give the man a cookie!!

 

[Valjean]

I object to calling scientific prognoses extremist alarmism. It feeds into the idea that the truth lies somewhere in the middle in the 'controversy'.

 

[metis]

I object to calling scientific prognoses extremist alarmism. It feeds into the idea that the truth lies somewhere in the middle in the 'controversy'.

Exactly, plus the reality is that climate scientists well know that reducing emissions is a gradual process involving taking one step at a time. These scientists are not dummies believing in magical quick fixes.