Global warming basics.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would like to cover the basics of this so that people have more than just denial when trying to argue against the science.

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.

 

[exchemist]

Not only that, the mean temperature of 1999 was extremely high compared to everything that came before, and the first of the really high temperature peaks that have become the norm over the last decade. BSM's choice of 1999 clearly shows his complete and total dishonesty when Global Warming is the issue.

Ah OK, thanks, it was, was it? I hadn't checked. He'll have got that from some propaganda website I expect.

I do know it has been found there are shorter term variations in stratospheric water vapour that have an effect, lasting on the order of a decade or so. Water of course is another molecule with a strong IR absorption, so it too is a greenhouse gas. I don't know if such effects were occurring over the period he is so anxious to discuss. To be honest I'm not keen to go down that rabbit hole as it tells us little about the bigger picture.

 

[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.

Just so everyone knows, this gas-phase absorption of infrared radiation is the foundation of the very useful analytic method called absorption spectroscopy that I and many many engineers regularly use to detect trace species in gas mixtures. Its well understood and very reliable science.

 

[sayak83]

Ah OK, thanks, it was, was it? I hadn't checked. He'll have got that from some propaganda website I expect.

I do know it has been found there are shorter term variations in stratospheric water vapour that have an effect, lasting on the order of a decade or so. Water of course is another molecule with a strong IR absorption, so it too is a greenhouse gas. I don't know if such effects were occurring over the period he is so anxious to discuss. To be honest I'm not keen to go down that rabbit hole as it tells us little about the bigger picture.

It was El Nino year if I recall.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I wanted to go over the science since one denier went so far as to deny the Greenhouse Effect. That has been accepted for over a hundred years and it is only due to the obvious fact that if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the realization that more CO2 would mean warmer temperatures that they deniers had to begin to deny that accepted bit of science as well. I too used to deny AGW but I noticed that my sources did not hold up in debates and finally I saw that Lord Monckton was no different from a creationist in his debating techniques that the penny finally dropped for me.

 

[exchemist]

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.

......Just one minor quibble: polar diatomic molecules e,g, NO, CO, do have an IR spectrum. The crucial thing, if I recall correctly, is the presence of a change in dipole moment during the vibration, for the electric vector of the radiation to couple with. But as such polar diatomic molecules don't seem to be important in the atmosphere, it makes no difference to your main point.

P.S. good graph.

 

[BSM1]

That is not When it started. It began in roughly 1900. At least that is when man began to have a measurable effect. And that change is around one degree Celsius.

"Around one degree Celsius..." since 1990 hardly seems cataclysmic. You'll excuse me if I scoff, and if it's all the same to you I think I'll choose some other 'sky is falling' hysteria to worry about. Have a nice day.

 

[metis]

One degree C is "cataclysmic" because of what that means in pretty much a closed system whereas there's also no reason to suspect it will stop just at one.

The unfortunate reality is that so many will reject the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists in order to believe in right-wing politicians, many of the latter of which receive lotsa $ from the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Around one degree Celsius..." since 1990 hardly seems cataclysmic. You'll excuse me if I scoff, and if it's all the same to you I think I'll choose some other 'sky is falling' hysteria to worry about. Have a nice day.

That is only because you have no idea what changes will arise from AGW. One can't point to any one storm, that is weather. But we can point to the increased damage done by storms, that is climate. One can't point to any one hot day. But we can point to the increased number and magnitude of heat waves. Right now we are relatively early in the change. The climate is changes slowly in the terms of one human life, but if you care for those that come after you then you should be concerned. Sadly climate deniers tend to be a rather selfish lot. They care very little for their children and not at all for their grandkids and beyond.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wanted to go over the science since one denier went so far as to deny the Greenhouse Effect.

I saw a story in the news this week about a woman who was gassing up with her infant in the sealed car (all windows rolled up and all doors closed), when she had a technical problem with her fob, and couldn't unlock the door. By the time they got the car open, the infant was crying and sweating profusely. Tell her that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect:

Mom relives terrifying moment car unexpectedly locked baby inside on hot day

As you well know, this process occurring in a parked car is the same as the geological one, with the car playing the role of the earth and the windshield and other glass the role of the greenhouse gases. The glass is transparent to visible sunlight, which is absorbed by the car's interior and re-emitted at an infrared wavelength. The glass absorbs this infrared emission, and re-emits in part back into the car until the car heats enough that the fraction of heat lost equals that entering the car. The net effect is to raise the temperature of the interior of the car : auto warming.

 

[Audie]

Soooo...how much has the globe warmed since Al Gore started making millions of dollars promoting this nonsense?





Sooo...how much has the troposphere warmed up since Al Gore started making millions promoting this nonsense?

Does this seem to you like a killer argument of some sort?

 

[BSM1]

Does this seem to you like a killer argument of some sort?

Just a simple question. With all the 'conclusive evidence' being bandied about surely someone can provide an answer.

 

[Audie]

Just a simple question. With all the 'conclusive evidence' being bandied about surely someone can provide an answer.

Did someone say "conclusive evidence"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a simple question. With all the 'conclusive evidence' being bandied about surely someone can provide an answer.

You got answers to a poorly formed question. It was poorly formed because it demonstrated your ignorance and was largely pointless. Did you not understand the answers? They were rather basic. A noisy signal needs a longer time period to demonstrate meaningful results. Over the last 100 years there is no doubt about global warming. Over any ten to twenty year period that warming can be masked by noise.

 

[Valjean]

"Around one degree Celsius..." since 1990 hardly seems cataclysmic. You'll excuse me if I scoff, and if it's all the same to you I think I'll choose some other 'sky is falling' hysteria to worry about. Have a nice day.

It only takes a few degrees to shift a temperate climate into an ice age or a greenhouse Earth, and a 100+ ppm change will definitely have an effect.
Moreover, the degrees of warming are just an average. The arctic, for example, is warming a lot faster than lower latitudes.

Just a simple question. With all the 'conclusive evidence' being bandied about surely someone can provide an answer.

Answer: Ad homs don't address the issue.

 

[Audie]

It only takes a few degrees to shift a temperate climate into an ice age or a greenhouse Earth, and a 100+ ppm change will definitely have an effect.
Moreover, the degrees of warming are just an average. The arctic, for example, is warming a lot faster than lower latitudes.

Answer: Ad homs don't address the issue.

Ad hom?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Many fossil fuel companies now fear they may be left with resources in the ground that they cannot sell, due to the decline in demand for fossil fuel driven by climate change countermeasures. This is almost certainly going to be true of coal, as it is useless for transport fuel. So you may find the stuff becomes dirt cheap, as nobody wants it! So much for the "Peak Oil" catastrophists, eh?

As for the effect of a "few degrees", don't be naive. The effects will not simply be a temperature change. The will be (already is) a shift towards more extreme weather, - even Australia, a bastion of coal export and hence of climate change scepticism is becoming convinced it is real and happening now - a likely change in what crops can be grown where, a change in the patterns of desertification and, not least, a rise in sea level. The effects of these on humanity and on the wider ecosystem could be considerable.

We (Australia ) are in the grip of a terrible drought, and iirc, 9 of the ten hottest years on record have been since 2000. Global average temps may only be up a degree or so, but when you guys in the North get record cold temps, we're dying here of record heat

 

[exchemist]

We (Australia ) are in the grip of a terrible drought, and iirc, 9 of the ten hottest years on record have been since 2000. Global average temps may only be up a degree or so, but when you guys in the North get record cold temps, we're dying here of record heat

Indeed, so I have read. Lots of pics of sad farmers beside the carcasses of dead cattle etc. About time someone took on the coal lobby in Oz. Maybe it is happening at last now.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Indeed, so I have read. Lots of pics of sad farmers beside the carcasses of dead cattle etc. About time someone took on the coal lobby in Oz. Maybe it is happening at last now.

The entrenched conservatives here (of whom i was once a paid up member) are saddly beholden to 1950sish economic models where we're all about selling our raw materials as fast as we can, and the opposition "liberal" party are the definition of callow and directionless. Both sides have a few outstanding shining lights, but the short version is, we'll keep selling coal right up to the instant it stops being profitable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We (Australia ) are in the grip of a terrible drought, and iirc, 9 of the ten hottest years on record have been since 2000. Global average temps may only be up a degree or so, but when you guys in the North get record cold temps, we're dying here of record heat

The "record cold" was not all that record. I grew up in Minnesota many years ago. During the winter it used to get down to -20 Fahrenheit almost every winter/ The coldest I ever experienced was -29 Fahrenheit, that is without the windchill factor. After I left winters mellowed a bit in that state. Then a couple of years ago there was a, now, rate "Arctic Blast" and it got down to an amazing -20 degrees. It made national news. In a discussion with my brother I told him that it used to get that cold every winter and he had to check the internet way back machine to see if I was correct. What AGW does it to make weather more severe. So it may be warmer overall in the winter, but when it gets cold, it will really get cold (again).

And part of AGW is that there will be continually more new high temperatures than new low temperatures. That has been trending for quite some time. If you look at the graph from the following site you might be able to guess when I grew up in Minnesota:

Record Highs vs. Record Lows