• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Basic Science of Global Warming

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Global warming

The reality of global warming can be demonstrated from simple physical principles of physics and chemistry that governs the everyday operations of power plants to cook stoves and light bulbs. At its heart is simple balancing of energy. How much energy comes in, how much goes out and how much is absorbed... and how those ratios change when the matter composition of gases and oceans and land are altered. The principles of physics and chemistry needed are elementary and have been known for over a hundred years. All it requires is middle school algebra.

Energy coming in:
The main energy input to earth is the Sun, whose surface temperature and net energy output is very well known. At earth’s radial distance the energy per square meter is,
Total solar energy Flux from the sun at earth-sun radius is S= 1360 W/m^2
For Venus, which is much closer, it is 2600 W/m^2.

The total effective area on which this sunlight falls is equal to the circular shadow/projection of earth. The radius of earth is R=6400 km. So the total circular area is π*R^2 .
Earth is not black,but a blue planet. So part of this incoming light energy is reflected back.
Part of the sunlight is reflected back and is measured by its albedo α.
Thus total light energy absorbed by earth
E_in = S(1-α)π*R^2
For earth reflectivity α=0.3
This energy is distributed over earth's spherical surface of 4πR^2.
Thus incoming solar energy per unit area of Earth's surface is
(E_in) /A = S(1-α)/4 = 238 W/m^2.
There is large variation on where and how this energy falls and is absorbed. It's concentrated on the day side and equatorial regions get more than high latitudes. Summer hemisphere gets more than winter hemisphere. For one can neglect these when only mean temperature is to be calculated.

Energy radiated if there were no atmosphere

Now suppose earth had no atmosphere. Earth's surface will absorb this incoming energy, attain a certain temperature and radiate this energy back into very cold space. If T be the temperature of earth in Kevins, the rate at which earth will radiate is
E_out/A = σ*T^4 where σ is the well known Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

At equilibrium we must have energy in = energy out
This gives S(1-α)/4 = σ*T^4
Putting in the values, the expected temperature of earth without an atmosphere will be 255 K or -18 Centigrade.
Earth would be entirely frigid if it had no atmosphere.

Energy balance with atmosphere

The atmosphere of planets are composed of gases that absorb the outgoing radiation (partly or wholly) and remit them both upwards and downwards. If the atmosphere is thick, or is made up of especially absorbant gases, then the process may repeat itself several times... with higher layers absorbing the radiation emitted by the lower layers.

Let's consider a simple 1 layer model. Here the idea is that the atmosphere acts as a single layer that absorbs all radiation coming from earth's surface and then radiates it upwards and downwards. The important thing to note here is that energy from the sun comes mostly as light energy that passes through the transparent atmosphere. But Earth radiates it as longer wavelength heat energy and this is absorbed by the gases.
When we have one layer of atmosphere that radiates, for thermal equilibrium, it must radiate the same amount of energy as absorbed by earth. So,
Energy radiated by atmosphere towards space =S(1-α)/4
But the atmosphere will radiate the same amount of energy downwards towards the surface of earth as well.

So net energy incoming for earth’S surface = Net light energy from Sun + Net downward heat energy from atmosphere. = 2*S(1-α)/4.
For energy balance on earth's surface, it's temperature must be such that the net outgoing energy equals this net incoming energy. So
2*S(1-α)/4 =σ*T^4

This gives for earth 2*238 W/m2 =σ*T^4
Or T= 303 K or 30 C
Thus a single fully insulating layer of atmosphere increases the average temperature from - 18C to +30C.
In general for n number of fully insulating layers of atmosphere (n can be fractional for partially transparent atmospheres) we have temperature at the surface
σ*T^4 = (n+1)*S(1-α)/4

For earth, the observed surface temperature is 289 K and hence n=0.65.
For Venus, S=2650 W/m^2 with albedo α = 0.7. The temperature is 735 K and n=82. This attests to the thick and highly thermally insulating nature of the atmosphere of Venus.


Thus we can see that average temperature of the planet can change if
I) There is a change in incoming solar radiation Flux S
2) There is a change in the albedo alpha.
3) There is a change in the composition or thickness of the atmosphere changing n.

All global warming calculations of average temperature boils down to evaluating changes in these three factors.

To be continued...

Questions?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How many light bulbs did the cavemen use to bring us out of the iceage we've heard so much about? Did some of them leave them on all day?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
It's too bad that many don't have a basic education in how science works. To me, they're closing their eyes on the beauty and wonder of God's world as revealed in the laws of nature discovered by science.

The basic science is not disputable. There are complexities to the environment we don't know that either mitigate or enhance the effect of the basic laws and that's an interesting to me field of research.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's too bad that many don't have a basic education in how science works. To me, they're closing their eyes on the beauty and wonder of God's world as revealed in the laws of nature discovered by science.

The basic science is not disputable. There are complexities to the environment we don't know that either mitigate or enhance the effect of the basic laws and that's an interesting to me field of research.

Here is a link to an excellent blog post series on how CO2 causes warming. I will refer to it later, but happy reading for now.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One

The plotted picture show that the radiation spectra of sun and earth are completely distinct, and this is the reason why energy can enter through the gases but has difficulty getting out.
planck-300-to-5780-toa-log-typ-albedo-453.png


The absorption bands picture is also very informative

800px-atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity-svg.png
 
Last edited:

The Holy Bottom Burp

Active Member
It is a tad depressing that many religious people are global warming deniers, and just as depressing that Trump seems to be happy to join that club.
The model that you outline could eventually save us from ourselves, it is a vital area of research. The world could be a very different place in 50 or 60 years. Hope we're still here to see it!
 

Electra

Active Member
Yes, but it is every planet in the Milky Way being effected.

(shhh it is a secret)

we are growing hehe
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ah..so what will happen if 800milion + beef consumers just added to the problem.. can we help kill the planet faster ? why be by standers when the whole world is enjoying steaks? How soon can we kill earth if we joined in?
Animal 'agriculture' is, indeed, a major driver of global warming, possibly exceeding that of vehicular emissions. Facts and Sources
But unfortunately this pales when compared to the Massive quantities of methane and lesser amounts of Co2 bubbling out of arctic tundra from melting permafrost. In some places you can throw a tarp over the ground, lift the edge in an hour and ignite an impressive fireball with a match (preferably on a long stick). Sometimes the trapped methane builds up enough pressure to blow craters in the ground:
Siberia’s Permafrost Is Exploding. Is Alaska’s Next?
And it's not just the tundra that's problematic. In some places deep arctic seafloors are covered with millions of tonnes of methane hydrate "snow" or large, snowball-like nodules of the stuff. If the water warms to the freezing point the trapped methane will boil out like a shaken soda bottle.
Before the Flood - Methane

The arctic , land and sea, is warming many times faster than more temperate latitudes. Tundra snowcover is disappearing and the dark tundra heating faster than anyone had anticipated.
We may already have reached a tipping point where the process becomes self-sustaining and unstoppable.
 

RoaringSilence

Active Member
so least we can do is eat more beef , coz dying with nuclear bombs is slightly less fun than dying with a belly full of beef...we're catching up since our media is propagating beef= tasty ..so that hindu's get ridiculed for the n'th time for their stupid beliefs.And it helps the evangelists of peace for conversions.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ah..so what will happen if 800milion + beef consumers just added to the problem.. can we help kill the planet faster ? why be by standers when the whole world is enjoying steaks? How soon can we kill earth if we joined in?
I will check this. Problem is one still raises cows for milk. So I need to check what is the added impact of beef eating specifically over and above that of milk production when it comes to GHG footprint of cows and buffaloes.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
How many light bulbs did the cavemen use to bring us out of the iceage we've heard so much about? Did some of them leave them on all day?
Very nice, but for the sake of those with no training in Thermodynamics if its not too much trouble would you add references for where your equations come from and what other kinds of problems they are applied to? I have seen them before, but it might be good if you can demonstrate that these are not just equations made up in order to support your opinions about climate change.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
How many light bulbs did the cavemen use to bring us out of the iceage we've heard so much about? Did some of them leave them on all day?
You obviously don't understand what Climate Change means. No one argues that the climate doesn't change naturally. Humans simply speed up the process BIG TIME, leading to disastrous results.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Global warming

The reality of global warming can be demonstrated from simple physical principles of physics and chemistry that governs the everyday operations of power plants to cook stoves and light bulbs. At its heart is simple balancing of energy. How much energy comes in, how much goes out and how much is absorbed... and how those ratios change when the matter composition of gases and oceans and land are altered. The principles of physics and chemistry needed are elementary and have been known for over a hundred years. All it requires is middle school algebra.

Energy coming in:
The main energy input to earth is the Sun, whose surface temperature and net energy output is very well known. At earth’s radial distance the energy per square meter is,
Total solar energy Flux from the sun at earth-sun radius is S= 1360 W/m^2
For Venus, which is much closer, it is 2600 W/m^2.

The total effective area on which this sunlight falls is equal to the circular shadow/projection of earth. The radius of earth is R=6400 km. So the total circular area is π*R^2 .
Earth is not black,but a blue planet. So part of this incoming light energy is reflected back.
Part of the sunlight is reflected back and is measured by its albedo α.
Thus total light energy absorbed by earth
E_in = S(1-α)π*R^2
For earth reflectivity α=0.3
This energy is distributed over earth's spherical surface of 4πR^2.
Thus incoming solar energy per unit area of Earth's surface is
(E_in) /A = S(1-α)/4 = 238 W/m^2.
There is large variation on where and how this energy falls and is absorbed. It's concentrated on the day side and equatorial regions get more than high latitudes. Summer hemisphere gets more than winter hemisphere. For one can neglect these when only mean temperature is to be calculated.

Energy radiated if there were no atmosphere

Now suppose earth had no atmosphere. Earth's surface will absorb this incoming energy, attain a certain temperature and radiate this energy back into very cold space. If T be the temperature of earth in Kevins, the rate at which earth will radiate is
E_out/A = σ*T^4 where σ is the well known Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

At equilibrium we must have energy in = energy out
This gives S(1-α)/4 = σ*T^4
Putting in the values, the expected temperature of earth without an atmosphere will be 255 K or -18 Centigrade.
Earth would be entirely frigid if it had no atmosphere.

Energy balance with atmosphere

The atmosphere of planets are composed of gases that absorb the outgoing radiation (partly or wholly) and remit them both upwards and downwards. If the atmosphere is thick, or is made up of especially absorbant gases, then the process may repeat itself several times... with higher layers absorbing the radiation emitted by the lower layers.

Let's consider a simple 1 layer model. Here the idea is that the atmosphere acts as a single layer that absorbs all radiation coming from earth's surface and then radiates it upwards and downwards. The important thing to note here is that energy from the sun comes mostly as light energy that passes through the transparent atmosphere. But Earth radiates it as longer wavelength heat energy and this is absorbed by the gases.
When we have one layer of atmosphere that radiates, for thermal equilibrium, it must radiate the same amount of energy as absorbed by earth. So,
Energy radiated by atmosphere towards space =S(1-α)/4
But the atmosphere will radiate the same amount of energy downwards towards the surface of earth as well.

So net energy incoming for earth’S surface = Net light energy from Sun + Net downward heat energy from atmosphere. = 2*S(1-α)/4.
For energy balance on earth's surface, it's temperature must be such that the net outgoing energy equals this net incoming energy. So
2*S(1-α)/4 =σ*T^4

This gives for earth 2*238 W/m2 =σ*T^4
Or T= 303 K or 30 C
Thus a single fully insulating layer of atmosphere increases the average temperature from - 18C to +30C.
In general for n number of fully insulating layers of atmosphere (n can be fractional for partially transparent atmospheres) we have temperature at the surface
σ*T^4 = (n+1)*S(1-α)/4

For earth, the observed surface temperature is 289 K and hence n=0.65.
For Venus, S=2650 W/m^2 with albedo α = 0.7. The temperature is 735 K and n=82. This attests to the thick and highly thermally insulating nature of the atmosphere of Venus.


Thus we can see that average temperature of the planet can change if
I) There is a change in incoming solar radiation Flux S
2) There is a change in the albedo alpha.
3) There is a change in the composition or thickness of the atmosphere changing n.

All global warming calculations of average temperature boils down to evaluating changes in these three factors.

To be continued...

Questions?

"All global warming calculations of average temperature boils down to evaluating changes in these three factors. "

Yes, 1 and 2 are responsible for most of the actual scientific climate change, the dynamic system that put > a mile of ice over my head where I sit, a few thousand years ago, and melted it all again. Has done so several times, and all without a single SUV or subsidized solar panel to help

Yes CO2 traps heat, but quantities matter here

a couple of molecules extra CO2 in 10000 of air, can not trap enough heat to have any significant impact on real, natural, scientific, climate change, to believe so is simply scientifically illiterate.

Consider that the Ordovician ice age had >4000 PPM CO2- it's forcing is simply not a significant factor at the levels we are talking about. Rather CO2 levels respond to temp fluctuations with a lag time of about 800-900 years. (800-900 years ago was the medieval warm period) Even though the reverse is often suggested by zooming out on the chart far enough as Al Gore did, so that the order is not obvious.


Now, Venus IS an example of extreme CO2 induced warming at around 98 % or 980,000 PPM

So Venus must have terribly unstable, violent weather right? just like the climastrologers warn us of? In fact there is barely a breath of wind at the surface-

Because powerful weather systems require the contrast of heat AND cold to energize them (consider the spring storms in the midwest)
whereas the GH effect reduces this contrast- and so adding CO2 to our atmos. actually reduces the severity of weather systems- albeit to a infinitesimal degree.

This is just touching on the basic science, all the Hollywood style scare stories you hear about beyond this rely 100% on computer simulations from various political/activist groups- they have no scientific basis and are nothing to be afraid of.

Bad weather being caused by bad people is the oldest superstition known to mankind, it has always been used to create fear and extract sacrifices. Educate yourself on this and you have nothing to fear.

We have real problems to worry about, some of them environmental, this is not one
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It is a tad depressing that many religious people are global warming deniers, and just as depressing that Trump seems to be happy to join that club.
And so many of these same people even deny that there's been an evolutionary process, resorting to "micro-evolution" that somehow has a mysterious and magical wall that it hits before going into "macro-evolution".

It's like as if they're saying "Scientists are so dumb but my religious leaders are so smart so as to know more science than these ignorant scientists".
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You obviously don't understand what Climate Change means. No one argues that the climate doesn't change naturally. Humans simply speed up the process BIG TIME, leading to disastrous results.

Yeah, today was 98.5 degrees outside. If everybody stopped using electricity and traded their cars for horses it could have been 98.4999999 degrees.
 
Top