CO2 Global Warming Connection

[captainplanet97]

Hey everyone I'm new here but I just had a crazy thought that I wanted to spitball with people who are well......smarter than my friends =) Anyways I was wondering: the general theory behind global warming is that CO2 generated from fossil fuels acts as a greenhouse gas which traps the energy generated by the sun in the form of heat, ultimately increasing our atmospheres average temperature(this is my understanding of it). So my idea is that perhaps the excess energy isn't coming from the sun and is instead a result of burning fossil fuels in the first place? It makes sense and really does a nice job(at least in my mind) of explaining the whole situation. Think about it this way:

A)Fossil fuels are hydrocarbon chains which contain energy in the C-C bonds

B)These fuels are pumped to the surface of the planet and combusted, releasing heat+CO2

C)Politically driven idiots see higher temperatures and higher concentrations of CO2, and assume that because of the correlation and CO2s ability to be a greenhouse gas that it is indeed trapping the suns heat

 

While this does still leave the problem of getting off of fossil fuels untouched, I think that realizing that CO2 is just an indicator that lags behind temperature change is crucial to understanding climate change as opposed to thinking that higher CO2 precedes temperature increases. Because by this logic not only is global warming a limited phenomenon that is constrained by the amount of fossil fuels on the planet(and thus the amount of heat stored as chemical energy), but it also shows how perfectly able bodied scientists can have their results and public/professional opinions skewed by political interference(do you really think that after politicians jumped on the band wagon that the theory would be so heavy refined? Politicians aren't exactly the kind of people to admit to being wrong after all)

 

Anyways this was just a thought. I'd love to hear people opinions on this because my friends aren't nearly as sciencey as I am. Oh yes and I apologize in advance for any trash talking =) Peace out nerds!

[Chrisan]

I think that realizing that CO2 is just an indicator that lags behind temperature change is crucial to understanding climate change as opposed to thinking that higher CO2 precedes temperature increases. Because by this logic not only is global warming a limited phenomenon that is constrained by the amount of fossil fuels on the planet(and thus the amount of heat stored as chemical energy)

 

 

It was previously unclear whether CO2 increases preceded or followed global warm ups based on ice cores taken in Antarctica. Further recent research based on cores taken from lakes and such around the world have concluded CO2 precedes global warming.

 

Chris

[AustinWhite]

You can think of the greenhouse effect as a car sitting in the sun. You probably know that if you leave your car in the sun for a few hours the inside will be much hotter than the outside. When heat enters through the windows some of it is absorbed by the seats, armrests, ect. and some is reflected back away from the inside and out the windows. But since the heat being reflected from the inside of the car is a different wavelength than what entered the car some of it can't escape and is trapped within the car raising the temperature.

 

Co2 is a greenhouse gas along with water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and CFC's. What happens is the greenhouse gases absorb some of the radiation and reflect is back to earth making the earth warmer. The warm temperature on earth evaporates the water in the oceans creating water vapor (which is a greenhouse gas) making the earth even hotter. Scientists have actually found a direct correlation between the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth. Most of the temperature increase has happened after the industrial revolution which leads me to believe we are the cause of it.

 

The greenhouse effect is pretty much proven science at this point.

[swansont]

Hey everyone I'm new here but I just had a crazy thought that I wanted to spitball with people who are well......smarter than my friends =) Anyways I was wondering: the general theory behind global warming is that CO2 generated from fossil fuels acts as a greenhouse gas which traps the energy generated by the sun in the form of heat, ultimately increasing our atmospheres average temperature(this is my understanding of it). So my idea is that perhaps the excess energy isn't coming from the sun and is instead a result of burning fossil fuels in the first place? It makes sense and really does a nice job(at least in my mind) of explaining the whole situation. Think about it this way:

A)Fossil fuels are hydrocarbon chains which contain energy in the C-C bonds

B)These fuels are pumped to the surface of the planet and combusted, releasing heat+CO2

C)Politically driven idiots see higher temperatures and higher concentrations of CO2, and assume that because of the correlation and CO2s ability to be a greenhouse gas that it is indeed trapping the suns heat

 

 

This basically ignores the existence of physics. We can do the experiments and make the models and do the calculations. It is't simply a correlation between CO2 and temperature, there is a confirmed effect: the absorption characteristics of CO2 have been measured, long ago, and it absorbs IR near 4 and 15 microns. These are wavelengths that aren't strong for incident radiation from the sun (at about 6000K) but are prevalent in the outgoing radiation (at around 300K). This basic mechanism was noted a century ago, so it's kind of hard to pass this off as being politically driven.

 

As for whether this is from burning fossil fuels in the first place, once again one can do some physics. Solar incident radiation is around 1350 W/m^2, with about 1 kW/m^2 penetrating. Multiply by the area of the earth and you get around 1.5 x 10^17 W. In 2008, worldwide energy consumption (not all of which was fossil fuels) was 1.5 x 10^13 W. The equivalent forcing of CO2 and other effects is in the range of a few Watts/m^2, or around 0.001 of the solar input, i.e. around 1.5 x 10^14 W. That's 10 times larger than the worldwide power consumption. So the answer is no, the effect you're looking for is 10x too small.

[iNow]

This basic mechanism was noted a century ago, so it's kind of hard to pass this off as being politically driven.

More here:

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

[vampares]

At its highest CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water at the same time is 1% of the atmosphere, or 25 fold greater.

 

 

There we see that CO2 has not much to do with this thing any more than O2 which we hope IR radiation will never slip past.

 

The absorption in the stratosphere or upper troposphere of the IR radiation would not considerably alter temperatures here on earth (cold goes down, hot goes up).

 

The problem is:

CO2 is an acid. It *attacks* the water. CO3-2 is very uncommon while CO3H- is somewhat common and CO3H2 is very common.

 

Water vapor is not as common in the upper atmosphere because it exists at near saturation at the surface but due to Van Der Wals forces it forms clouds and precipitates. CO2 does not precipitate except with the water.

 

SO, water is here V but up there ^, not so much. SO not so much that you get microwaved. The emperical evidence of this is Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma. They had ranges around 20% RH to close to 3%. Temperatures were in the 110's. Need something to keep it off of you. Problem is heat only excites molecules more and more.

 

NOW near Salt Lake city there's a pressure drop of 10, 16 even 20 millibars! Very tight topography. This is because there is water in the lake which evaporates. That water in the atmosphere absorbs more and more energy and excites every thing around it and this rises and continues into the column of atmosphere above it. That atmosphere is hot, it expands and there is a marked pressure drop despite there being more water in the air which tends to make it heavier, I think.

 

Again it is cold above Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The more farming they do the hotter it gets on the ground. That same heat is above locations with sufficient a sufficiently hydrated atmosphere.

 

They talk about the long-term effects but this is actually very unpredictable weather. It could or could not happen at any point in time. The natural world does not want to stay this way. It is like someone turning the volume of a TV or radio up and down, up and down, up and down. Very annoying.

Edited September 17, 2012 by vampares

[ralfy]

From what I remember, the NAS discusses this point in its final report. You may visit the "America's Climate Choices" website to read it.