CO2 Levels Highest in 3 million years (interview, illegal, environmentalists, dollars)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not the point. The point is that Venus is much hotter than it otherwise would be if it didn't have 100% of the planet covered 100% of the time by greenhouse gases.
That's the atmosphere in Venus. We don't have that here. We won't have that here.
It's a thicker atmosphere.
If you sleep with three blankets on, are you hot because of some greenhouse gas theory? - or is it a simple matter of heat transfer where the heat underneath can't escape because you have three blankets on?
The earth has one blanket... Venus has two blankets and a sheet.
That's the atmosphere in Venus. We don't have that here. We won't have that here.
It's a thicker atmosphere.
If you sleep with three blankets on, are you hot because of some greenhouse gas theory? - or is it a simple matter of heat transfer where the heat can't escape.
The earth has one blanket... Venus has two blankets and a sheet.
Yes, the Earth has one blanket, and it is slowly getting thicker over time as the concentration of greenhouse gasses increase in the atmosphere over time, which in the case of CO2 is currently at 2.0 ppm/yr.
If you sleep with a thick blanket, aren't you going to be warmer than if you slept with a thinner one?
Yes, the Earth has one blanket, and it is slowly getting thicker over time as the concentration of greenhouse gasses increase in the atmosphere over time, which is currently at 2.0 ppm/yr.
If you sleep with a thick blanket, aren't you going to be warmer than if you slept with a thinner one?
Understand that the blanket analogy was used to compare the atmospheres of Venus and Earth. But I don't think you can transfer the analogy to global warming.
Because with regards to earth, "under the blanket" are bodies that absorb CO2. And also - there's a lot of volume between us and the blanket - so that it would require a ton of heat generated under the blanket to make it hotter.
The blanket is not a heat source. People are not heat sources. CO2 is not a heat source. Greenhouse gas has never caused a significant increase in temperature.
CO2 also blocks heat from the sun coming in, since it's an insulator... not all of it, but some of it. That would seem to slow down the heat transfer through the atmosphere.
Actually it doesn't block incoming radiation.
Greenhouse gases are transparent to the wavelengths of the incoming radiation.
Explanation:
Everything reacts differently to energy at different wavelengths. This is why xrays (very short wave lengths) can travel through your skin while light (short wave lengths but much longer than x-rays) is blocked by your skin.
Incoming solar radiation (visible spectrum for the majority) that heats the Earth is about 1/10th the wavelength of outgoing radiation (infrared or heat). For a gas like carbon dioxide this means that in coming radiation is like an x-ray, traveling cleanly through it, but the out going radiation hits it like a wall, trapping the heat.
Understand that the blanket analogy was used to compare the atmospheres of Venus and Earth. But I don't think you can transfer the analogy to global warming.
Because with regards to earth, "under the blanket" are bodies that absorb CO2. And also - there's a lot of volume between us and the blanket - so that it would require a ton of heat generated under the blanket to make it hotter.
The blanket is not a heat source. Greenhouse gas has never caused a significant increase in temperature.
That's pretty twisted. The interior of the car doesn't need an interior heat source to reach 135 degrees if left out in the sun.
Yes, there are sources and sinks of CO2 under our atmosphere "blanket". Currently they are not balanced; the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising by 2.0 ppm/year. You can't dispute that, it is a hard fact.
So, that "ton of heat" that is required to make it hotter is coming from the sun. The increasing CO2 levels is blocking only a very small percentage of the sun's heating power, while at the same time increasing the atmosphere's ability to retain heat by a larger percentage. Eventually, that would indeed lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, but I am not saying that is going to happen here.
The blanket analogy is very relevant to Earth and its atmosphere. Not as it relates to other planets, but in how it relates to greenhouse gasses increasing the "thickness" (insulating properties) of the blanket. Over time, that does indeed warm the atmosphere and the planet.
The effects of that warming? That's the real debate.
Understand that the blanket analogy was used to compare the atmospheres of Venus and Earth. But I don't think you can transfer the analogy to global warming.
Because with regards to earth, "under the blanket" are bodies that absorb CO2. And also - there's a lot of volume between us and the blanket - so that it would require a ton of heat generated under the blanket to make it hotter.
The blanket is not a heat source. People are not heat sources. CO2 is not a heat source. Greenhouse gas has never caused a significant increase in temperature.
The greenhouse effect has been known for a very long time, and yes it does increase temperature.
In 1862, John Tyndall discovered that certain gases (water and carbon dioxide) help trap heat from escaping the atmosphere. Later, in 1895, Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius observed the infrared-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide and water molecules.
The greenhouse effect has been known for a very long time, and yes it does increase temperature.
In 1862, John Tyndall discovered that certain gases (water and carbon dioxide) help trap heat from escaping the atmosphere. Later, in 1895, Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius observed the infrared-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide and water molecules.
but if ""certain"" gases like co2 actually did trap the heat (water vapor certainly does) than mars which is 95% co2 would be an oven
both Mars and Venus are majority co2 (Mars slightly more) yet drastically different in temps... Venus very heavy atmosphere, while Mars very thin atmosphere
water vapor is much more of a 'green house gas" than is co2
That's pretty twisted. The interior of the car doesn't need an interior heat source to reach 135 degrees if left out in the sun.
Yes, there are sources and sinks of CO2 under our atmosphere "blanket". Currently they are not balanced; the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising by 2.0 ppm/year. You can't dispute that, it is a hard fact.
So, that "ton of heat" that is required to make it hotter is coming from the sun. The increasing CO2 levels is blocking only a very small percentage of the sun's heating power, while at the same time increasing the atmosphere's ability to retain heat by a larger percentage. Eventually, that would indeed lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, but I am not saying that is going to happen here.
The blanket analogy is very relevant to Earth and its atmosphere. Not as it relates to other planets, but in how it relates to greenhouse gasses increasing the "thickness" (insulating properties) of the blanket. Over time, that does indeed warm the atmosphere and the planet.
The effects of that warming? That's the real debate.
The interior of a car is a very small space. The airspace under your blanket is a small space. There's not much air to heat up. And - it only reaches a certain temperature. You leave a car alone all day in the sun... the temperature doesn't keep rising to 250deg. It will only heat up as much as the source of heat allows (sun)... not the radiated heat.
Here's another thing, since you brought up the car... you and your date get into a hot car... how much do you two exhaling CO2 in the car increase the temperature in the car? Probably not much.
Anyway - the earth's atmosphere is a different story... it's huge. And there are other factors that come into play that I haven't even talked about yet - that don't exist under the blanket or in the car.
Greenhouse gases are transparent to the wavelengths of the incoming radiation.
Explanation:
Everything reacts differently to energy at different wavelengths. This is why xrays (very short wave lengths) can travel through your skin while light (short wave lengths but much longer than x-rays) is blocked by your skin.
Incoming solar radiation (visible spectrum for the majority) that heats the Earth is about 1/10th the wavelength of outgoing radiation (infrared or heat). For a gas like carbon dioxide this means that in coming radiation is like an x-ray, traveling cleanly through it, but the out going radiation hits it like a wall, trapping the heat.
but if ""certain"" gases like co2 actually did trap the heat (water vapor certainly does) than mars which is 95% co2 would be an oven
both Mars and Venus are majority co2 (Mars slightly more) yet drastically different in temps... Venus very heavy atmosphere, while Mars very thin atmosphere
water vapor is much more of a 'green house gas" than is co2
Yes, water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas. That is one of the reasons global warming is so serious, because the warmer it gets more evaporation of water happens....It is a feedback effect of warming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
