Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes

[CycloWizard]

CycloWizard

"It would make sense if he had said, "One of the properties of CO2 is that it absorbs incoming solar energy "

The above statement seems to be the opposite of my understanding of the action of CO2. I was under the impression that that a greenhouse gas effect was not absorbing solar radiation, but absorbing the IR radiated from the Earth's surface. That solar radiation warms the surface, which cools by emitting IR.

The concept of a greenhouse after all is to allow energy to enter a structure and inhibit its exit.

It absorbs both incoming and outgoing rays. It's a weak absorber in the area of the spectrum where water has very low absorption, so it will transmit a fraction of the incident energy inversely proportional to its concentration in both cases. It is true that the radiation spectra of the sun and earth are quite different, though I honestly can't recall what the net effect is (I've been skipping most of the seminars in my department recently... I'm a bad departmental citizen ). I do know that it doesn't really matter, as the net absorption goes up with CO2 concentration in both directions.

 

[CycloWizard]

well, I don't see much point in these posts....

Most people will still buy cars on how cool they look not even caring about the EPA. Most people will still buy incandescent light bulbs. Most people will crank up the AC or Heaters not caring about power bills or how much damage they doing to the environment. Most people will drive even if the live walking distance to the store, most people will use a dryer instead of hanging cloths out to dry. Most people will choose LAZY over doing anything to protect the planet.

I see a lot of people throw out trash or won't even bother to pick up trash if they see it blowing up/down the street. Most people will wash their hands in super hot water or the dishes in hot water even tho it could have been done in cold water. Most people never even bother to check the thermostat on the hot water heater or the refrigerator.

Most people just don't care how many watts they are using... Or how much water they are wasting.

Global WARMING is just that!!! GLOBAL being the key word. Even if America STOPPED 80% of it's energy wasting and became totally green, you'd have to get china and India on board Plus Russia, Japan, BASICALLY it's a GLOBAL problem and I just don't see the ENTIRE WORLD caring much about it Esp, the biggest piglets of all the USA!

Sadly I think your wasting your time preaching to people on this board. Very few care, and the ones that do care are too lazy to give a shit anyway. Saving energy and going green is a personal choice and a personal commitment. It won't amount to anything until our government gets serious about 'regulating and mandating' energy use and green technology. Until then? Enjoy your cheap gas and V8! Vroom...Vroom!

You are just as much a part of the problem as the people you're railing against. The EPA standards are absolute garbage. Dishwater is more effective at higher temperatures and can do the same amount of work as much more colder water. "Long lasting lightbulbs" are still a scam. All of these things are simply myths that liberals believe because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside to think that they're saving the planet to the point where they don't even think about what they're throwing their money at. They feel that a company which produces wind/solar energy must be "better" than a coal/gas/oil company. Why? They are both in business for the exact same reason - to take your money and give you power in return. You're no more informed or reasonable than people who deny that man has any impact on the environment. As with most issues, the extreme idiots on both sides make the most noise and drown out all of the reasonable people between them on the spectrum.

 

[shira]

/thread.

Global Warming has been proven a farce time and again on these forums. The disgusting ClimateGate revelation was just one of the multitude of nails in the coffin for Global Warming.

Next topic please.

Climategate proved nothing of the sort. Virtually all of the actual science tells us that MMCC is real and getting worse.

You're sounding more and more like a flat-earther.

 

[shira]

I don't need Fox, okay I admit chicks are GTG but I mainly watch on mute - what I've seen working in the field is sense of urgency created by principle researchers for more grants. Selective data = selective results.

What you conspiracy-advocates never seem to explain is where all this supposed grant money supporting pro-MMCC research is coming from. And you also never explain why experts in the field whose livelihoods DON'T depend on a pro-MMCC agenda almost all believe in MMCC.

The article cited in the OP made the point: It's a DISADVANTAGE to be a climate researcher publishing pro-MMCC results. And any climatologist who published convincing proof that MMCC was false would probably win a Nobel prize for such a revolutionary scientific coup.

Despite what you deniers scream over and over and over again, the scientific debate on MMCC is SETTLED. MMCC is TRUE. The evidence to support it is just as strong as the evidence supporting the theory of evolution via natural selection.

You and your ilk are standing in a burning barn and the horses have all run away. Yet you keep insisting that if you just keep bringing more hay into the barn, everything will be just fine.

 

[manimal]

http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J0cSnYnFg


Cant wait for the new kirk cameron MMCC board game!

 

[shira]

It absorbs both incoming and outgoing rays. It's a weak absorber in the area of the spectrum where water has very low absorption, so it will transmit a fraction of the incident energy inversely proportional to its concentration in both cases. It is true that the radiation spectra of the sun and earth are quite different, though I honestly can't recall what the net effect is (I've been skipping most of the seminars in my department recently... I'm a bad departmental citizen ). I do know that it doesn't really matter, as the net absorption goes up with CO2 concentration in both directions.

Why do you pretend to understand a concept that you clearly don't? You may be a "scientist" in some other field, but your understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is crap.

Listen and learn:

CO2 is transparent to short-wavelength solar energy, which strikes the earth and causes heating. The heat energy is radiated from the earth primarily at infrared wavelengths. CO2 is an absorber and re-radiator of IF radiation. Some of the IF is re-radiated back toward the earth, thus effectively trapping the energy and warming the earth.

If you doubt this, perhaps you'll believe Wikipedia:

The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.2 - 4 μm, corresponding to the Sun's radiative temperature of 6,000 K.[11]. It is no surprise that this is the "visible" light; our eyes are adapted to use the most common radiation.

About 50% of the Sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface and the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The reflection of light back into space - largely by clouds - does not much affect the basic mechanism; this light, effectively, is lost to the system.

The surface of the Earth, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range 4 - 100 μm. At these wavelengths, greenhouse gasses that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent. Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium. Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.

 

[FuzzyBee]

I've posted this before, and you've seemed to ignore it: Wasn't the Earth, not that long ago (relatively speaking) a big chunk of ice? Did man defrost the planet? How do we account for that warming cycle?

 

[FuzzyBee]

if you doubt this, perhaps you'll believe wikipedia:

rotfl.

 

[CycloWizard]

Why do you pretend to understand a concept that you clearly don't? You may be a "scientist" in some other field, but your understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is crap.

Listen and learn:

CO2 is transparent to short-wavelength solar energy, which strikes the earth and causes heating. The heat energy is radiated from the earth primarily at infrared wavelengths. CO2 is an absorber and re-radiator of IF radiation. Some of the IF is re-radiated back toward the earth, thus effectively trapping the energy and warming the earth.

If you doubt this, perhaps you'll believe Wikipedia:

If you could extract your cranium from your rectum for three seconds, you'd be able to see that I did not in any way contradict that. Hell, you might even see that I was supporting that. However, both of these would require you to acknowledge that I'm not an idiot and agree with you on this subject. Are you man enough?

 

[ericlp]

You are just as much a part of the problem as the people you're railing against. The EPA standards are absolute garbage. Dishwater is more effective at higher temperatures and can do the same amount of work as much more colder water. "Long lasting lightbulbs" are still a scam. All of these things are simply myths that liberals believe because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside to think that they're saving the planet to the point where they don't even think about what they're throwing their money at. They feel that a company which produces wind/solar energy must be "better" than a coal/gas/oil company. Why? They are both in business for the exact same reason - to take your money and give you power in return. You're no more informed or reasonable than people who deny that man has any impact on the environment. As with most issues, the extreme idiots on both sides make the most noise and drown out all of the reasonable people between them on the spectrum.

I rest my case on stupidity and how we'll most likely not survive GW. Unless we start teaching GW in schools to kids. You know have a GW class for every grade to get the point across.

Never mind the wasting of HOT Water and that 1/3-1/2 of all the power you consume in your house is used to produce hot water... There are other factors I won't even get into. And if you can't do the math on a 60 watt light bulb vs a 13 watt that makes 60 watts. Then you may want to send your ass back to grade school.

 

[Genx87]

I've posted this before, and you've seemed to ignore it: Wasn't the Earth, not that long ago (relatively speaking) a big chunk of ice? Did man defrost the planet? How do we account for that warming cycle?

Prehistoric man and their gas guzzling SUVs melted the glaciers. For that I thank them. It left the beautiful state of MN with nearly 12,000 lakes after the 1-2 mile thick glacier melted.

 

[Elias824]

There are 2 problems with global warming
1. We have no idea how severe it really is, there is a big difference between 1c and 10c over the next hundred years. I believe its probably closer to the 1c then to 10c.

2. No one has suggested any kind of a decent solution, everyone just wants a carbon tax because killing anyone or any company that uses energy would probably be a "good idea". The only real solution is some other form of cheap energy that no one has been able to come up with.

 

[PokerGuy]

I rest my case on stupidity and how we'll most likely not survive GW. Unless we start teaching GW in schools to kids. You know have a GW class for every grade to get the point across.

Teaching other kinds of religions in school is a no-no, but now you want to push the global warming religion instead? Make up your mind, either you do or don't want religions being taught in school.

Do you really think your silly little feel-good measures add up to a hill of beans? You are a sad naive little man.

 

[CycloWizard]

I rest my case on stupidity and how we'll most likely not survive GW. Unless we start teaching GW in schools to kids. You know have a GW class for every grade to get the point across.

Never mind the wasting of HOT Water and that 1/3-1/2 of all the power you consume in your house is used to produce hot water... There are other factors I won't even get into. And if you can't do the math on a 60 watt light bulb vs a 13 watt that makes 60 watts. Then you may want to send your ass back to grade school.

Keep digging that hole. Do you know how compact fluorescent bulbs work? Do you know how much more glass is consumed on a per-bulb basis? Your myopia allows you to only see the energy used to power the thing, not the overall energy cost including production and disposal. I use hot water because water's ability to absorb solutes increases exponentially with temperature such that I will use less water by using hotter water. Sensible heat transfer to heat a small amount of dishwater up to working temperature is smaller than the amount of energy required to purify 3-4x the amount of water needed to achieve the same amount of cleaning as that same unit of hot water. What the hell do I know about it, anyway? I just teach courses on this stuff to people who will be process engineers.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Fact: Humans have an effect on this planet. Everything has an effect. Be it a microbe, dog, human, or whale.

The difference between humans and the rest of the living species on the planet is we are very much a parasite that uses the planet, where basically every other living species lives in a more symbiotic way and is more environmentally neutral. Personally, I think as a species we need to move past the Industrial Revolution mindset that resources are infinite, and move to a more sustainable future.

Then again, the Middle East needs to get the fuck over their differences as well, but obviously that's not happening anytime soon. Idealism doesn't always work in the real world unfortunately.

 

[ericlp]

Teaching other kinds of religions in school is a no-no, but now you want to push the global warming religion instead? Make up your mind, either you do or don't want religions being taught in school.

Do you really think your silly little feel-good measures add up to a hill of beans? You are a sad naive little man.

Bible quotes and saving some energy and spending less and having more money in the bank.

I'd rather keep my money in my pocket then tossing it in a collection plate on Sunday morning. Yeah, you could say saving money is a religion. Have more OF IT! Instead of Giving away more of it to someone man made up BS. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[ericlp]

Keep digging that hole. Do you know how compact fluorescent bulbs work? Do you know how much more glass is consumed on a per-bulb basis? Your myopia allows you to only see the energy used to power the thing, not the overall energy cost including production and disposal. I use hot water because water's ability to absorb solutes increases exponentially with temperature such that I will use less water by using hotter water. Sensible heat transfer to heat a small amount of dishwater up to working temperature is smaller than the amount of energy required to purify 3-4x the amount of water needed to achieve the same amount of cleaning as that same unit of hot water. What the hell do I know about it, anyway? I just teach courses on this stuff to people who will be process engineers.

I feel sorry for your students. I won't keep bashing over your silly BS thoughts ... But I guess you must feel the same way about hybrid cars. Your a disgrace to science. Please leave your field immediately maybe you should consider being a preacher ... sounds like you got what it takes to spew the bull shit. I guess you've never heard of elbow grease? Grow a pair and try it ... it works. Or maybe your just a bitch that can't figure out how to scrub?

 

[irwincur]

I find it hard to believe global warming when Al Gore decides to buy a new home on the coast in Malibu. If the water is going to rise so quickly - why the hell would he spend millions on a new house right where he predicts global warming will have the most immediate impact.

Either he does not care about the money, because he gets it so easily from global warming idiots, or he does not even buy into his own propaganda. I have a feeling that it is mostly both of these...

 

[PokerGuy]

I'd rather keep my money in my pocket then tossing it in a collection plate on Sunday morning.

So what you're saying is you're materialistic, selfish and greedy. And you want to convince others to be more like you? Seems like we need fewer idiots around, not more.

 

[CycloWizard]

I feel sorry for your students. I won't keep bashing over your silly BS thoughts ... But I guess you must feel the same way about hybrid cars. Your a disgrace to science. Please leave your field immediately maybe you should consider being a preacher ... sounds like you got what it takes to spew the bull shit. I guess you've never heard of elbow grease? Grow a pair and try it ... it works. Or maybe your just a bitch that can't figure out how to scrub?

I fully acknowledge that there are plenty of valid reasons and ways to decrease humanity's impact on the environment, but since I pointed out your ignorant faith in the ones you champion, you will hate me forever. You're too stupid to wrap your head around the fact that you are the reason why people hate "green" hippies, and you're too busy hating everyone who you think disagrees with you to care.

 

[DrPizza]

Keep digging that hole. Do you know how compact fluorescent bulbs work? Do you know how much more glass is consumed on a per-bulb basis? Your myopia allows you to only see the energy used to power the thing, not the overall energy cost including production and disposal. I use hot water because water's ability to absorb solutes increases exponentially with temperature such that I will use less water by using hotter water. Sensible heat transfer to heat a small amount of dishwater up to working temperature is smaller than the amount of energy required to purify 3-4x the amount of water needed to achieve the same amount of cleaning as that same unit of hot water. What the hell do I know about it, anyway? I just teach courses on this stuff to people who will be process engineers.

I think you meant "some solutes." Table salt's solubility increases pretty close to linearly with temperature, and only slightly at that. The solubility of some substances decreases with increasing temperature (sodium sulfate, for example, (iirc.)) Regardless, this point is ridiculous since A) I doubt you're even remotely close to saturation even at room temperature. At 20C, the solubility of sugar... oh heck, just think of how much sugar is dissolved in an ice cold can of soda. And, most non-polar things, such as oil, do not dissolve in water anyway.
And more importantly B) Washing dishes is both a mechanical and chemical process. There are surfactants added to compliment the mechanical process of using a washcloth, sponge, etc., removes the majority of the food.

There actually was a study done on restaurants and washing temperatures. While the FDA insists on 110F for washing (ditto health departments), it was found that when washed properly, temperature made little difference. Furthermore, the reason for the temperature had less to do with dissolving materials and more to do with killing bacteria.

 

[monovillage]

"do with dissolving materials and more to do with killing bacteria. "

I'm just glad i don't have to work right next to the guy.

 

[yllus]

Eh, not bad but rather poor on keeping his own bias out. I prefer the article linked to below (though much of it is now behind a pay wall).

The Economist – The science of climate change: The clouds of unknowing

For a planet at a constant temperature, the amount of energy absorbed as sunlight and the amount emitted back to space in the longer wavelengths of the infra-red must be the same. In the case of the Earth, the amount of sunlight absorbed is 239 watts per square metre. According to the laws of thermodynamics, a simple body emitting energy at that rate should have a temperature of about –18ºC.

You do not need a comprehensive set of surface-temperature data to notice that this is not the average temperature at which humanity goes about its business. The discrepancy is due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which absorb and re-emit infra-red radiation, and thus keep the lower atmosphere, and the surface, warm (see the diagram below). The radiation that gets out to the cosmos comes mostly from above the bulk of the greenhouse gases, where the air temperature is indeed around –18ºC.

Adding to those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere makes it harder still for the energy to get out. As a result, the surface and the lower atmosphere warm up. This changes the average temperature, the way energy moves from the planet’s surface to the atmosphere above it and the way that energy flows from equator to poles, thus changing the patterns of the weather.

No one doubts that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, good at absorbing infra-red radiation. It is also well established that human activity is putting more of it into the atmosphere than natural processes can currently remove. Measurements made since the 1950s show the level of carbon dioxide rising year on year, from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1959 to 387ppm in 2009. Less direct records show that the rise began about 1750, and that the level was stable at around 280ppm for about 10,000 years before that.

This fits with human history: in the middle of the 18th century people started to burn fossil fuels in order to power industrial machinery. Analysis of carbon isotopes, among other things, shows that the carbon dioxide from industry accounts for most of the build-up in the atmosphere.

The serious disagreements start when discussion turns to the level of warming associated with that rise in carbon dioxide. For various reasons, scientists would not expect temperatures simply to rise in step with the carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). The climate is a noisy thing, with ups and downs of its own that can make trends hard to detect.

What’s more, the oceans can absorb a great deal of heat—and there is evidence that they have done so—and in storing heat away, they add inertia to the system. This means that the atmosphere will warm more slowly than a given level of greenhouse gas would lead you to expect.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Denialists in one word: Fail

Show consistant evidence to back up the Global Warming claims. They couldn't do it so it became "Climate Change". A term that can't really be nailed down or rebuked because the climate chages all the time.
The Global Warming/Climate Change folks want us to move from oil/fossil fuels, to solar/wind/geothermal/tidal power but when someone wants to build such a facility the very people that say we need to get off of fossil fuels cry about having an alternative energy plant in their area. It happens everytime.
It's amazing how every paper published on the "warming" comes up with different numbers. Some say we're raising temps by 1-2 degrees a year, other say 1-2 degrees a decade, some call for the flooding of coastal cities ect, but whenever their data is scrutinized there is always information ommitted to make the numbers work out to their predetermind findings.
Missing temperature readings from polar regions for example. They leave the coldest climate info out of the equation, thus raising the temperature.
Scientist bring up the fact that the Sun in in a warming period and Global War,ing/Climate change people dismiss it saying that the sun can't have that kind of effect on the Earth's climate.
The real problem is the believers fell for Gore's scam hook, line, and stinker.

 

[bfdd]

Yes, clearly the scam being perpetrated is by crooked academia and greedy scientists and not the saintly oil/coal/gas companies.

who needs the money worse? the scientists and academia or the oil/coal/gas companies? these other companies can always spend their current profits etc to take over whatever new energy market emerges if they so felt like so they really don't have a whole lot to lose by ditching "fossil fuels". the scientists, academia and the politicians on the other hand have far more to gain.