climate change

[lightforyoou]

Could climate change be caused by the heat water (thermodynamics pollution) discharged by once-through cooled natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants that heated water is disrupting the ocean currents similar to the water pump in a car malfunctioning?

 

Experimentally, increasing the 400 ppm CO2 (.04%) in a small glass greenhouse to 3,000 ppm (.3%) does not increase the temperature differential yet one would expect a 13° F temperature differential at the upper 3,000 ppm CO2 concentration. In the last 100 years, the atmospheric co2 has increased by 200 ppm which would result in a 1° F increase in the glass greenhouse for every 200 ppm increase in the co2 level; consequently, a 3,000 ppm co2 level in the glass greenhouse would result in a (3,000 ppm / 200 ppm) = 15° F increase in the temperature differential but the result was negative.

Does the negative result of the glass greenhouse experiment prove that climate change is not caused by greenhouse gases?

Edited January 26, 2023 by lightforyoou

[Sensei]

The Sun provides energy, some of the photons are reflected straight away, some are absorbed by the atmosphere, some by the earth and water. The land and water then cool, raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Any additional unexpected gas in the atmosphere can be considered a "greenhouse gas," because its mere presence prevents the Earth from cooling to cosmic space..

When fossil fuels are burned, air O₂ with 32u mass is replaced by CO₂ with 44u mass.

The greater mass of a molecule can accommodate more energy per molecule.

 

5 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

Experimentally, increasing the 400 ppm CO2 (.04%) in a small glass greenhouse to 3,000 ppm (.3%) does not increase the temperature differential yet one would expect a 13° F temperature differential at the upper 3,000 ppm CO2 concentration.

So you took 3000 ppm subtracted 400 ppm, got 2600 ppm, then divided by 200 ppm, and got 13° difference just because "the atmospheric co2 has increased by 200 ppm which would result in a 1° F increase"..

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Sensei

[exchemist]

50 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The Sun provides energy, some of the photons are reflected straight away, some are absorbed by the atmosphere, some by the earth and water. The land and water then cool, raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Any additional unexpected gas in the atmosphere can be considered a "greenhouse gas," because its mere presence prevents the Earth from cooling to cosmic space..

When fossil fuels are burned, air O₂ with 32u mass is replaced by CO₂ with 44u mass.

The greater mass of a molecule can accommodate more energy per molecule.

 

So you took 3000 ppm subtracted 400 ppm, got 2600 ppm, then divided by 200 ppm, and got 13° difference just because "the atmospheric co2 has increased by 200 ppm which would result in a 1° F increase"..

 

On one point, your comment that greater mass of the molecule is responsible does not sound right to me. CO2 and water molecules have dipoles, (O-C-O being - + - and H-O-H being + - + ) which will couple to the electric vector of radiation at characteristic frequencies, determined by the resonance frequencies of the stretching and bending of their chemical bonds. As a result they both absorb in the IR. By contrast, O2 and N2 have no dipoles and are therefore transparent in the IR.

So what happens is sun light of all wavelengths warms the ground, which then re-radiates predominantly in the IR and some of this gets absorbed by water and CO2 instead of being radiated directly out into space. 

(The molar specific heats of gases are not a function of their molecular weight, but depend on the number of degrees of freedom the molecule has to take up energy. For monatomic gases, which can't rotate and have only 3 translational degrees of freedom, it is 3/2RT. For diatomic gases, which can rotate in 2 dimensions as well, it is 5/2RT.) 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by exchemist

[CrystalMagic]

There are two theories that seem interesting to me 1 The theory of volcanologists that volcanoes can sometimes create more pollution than all the factories of people. 2 It is said that scientists studying the pattern of ice noticed that warming had already happened before. Do you think this could be true?

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, CrystalMagic said:

1 The theory of volcanologists that volcanoes can sometimes create more pollution than all the factories of people.

Sometimes. Millions years ago.

1 hour ago, CrystalMagic said:

2 It is said that scientists studying the pattern of ice noticed that warming had already happened before.

Sometimes. Millions years ago.

1 hour ago, CrystalMagic said:

Do you think this could be true?

It is true, but irrelevant to human-made global warming due to usage of fossil fuels..

 

"Global warming" is not about change on the Earth (which does not bother about such things, being just a planet), but a devastating change that will kill most humans, animals and plants. If you dramatically change the environment, living organisms will not survive, most of them. They are not accustomed to the new environment.

 

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, CrystalMagic said:

There are two theories that seem interesting to me 1 The theory of volcanologists that volcanoes can sometimes create more pollution than all the factories of people. 2 It is said that scientists studying the pattern of ice noticed that warming had already happened before. Do you think this could be true?

I can't see why anyone should give you a negative rep for these questions so I have reversed them.

+1 also to exchem for introducing some scientific sanity here.

 

26 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Sometimes. Millions years ago.

Sometimes. Millions years ago.

It is true, but irrelevant to human-made global warming due to usage of fossil fuels..

 

"Global warming" is not about change on the Earth (which does not bother about such things, being just a planet), but a devastating change that will kill most humans, animals and plants. If you dramatically change the environment, living organisms will not survive, most of them. They are not accustomed to the new environment.

 

 

 

I am suprised you are only offering these oversimplistic responses to someone who is perhaps a youngster trying to understand climate change.

 

@CrystalMagic

 

To answer you questions and offer some further information about the subject.

The fundamental driver for the average surface temperature of the Earth is the balance between energies reaching the Earth, energies leaving the Earth and energies being transported within the Earth.

None of these three energy flows have ever been constant.

As a result there have been periods when the Earth's surface has been warmer than at present and also colder than at present, both on average.

Climate is the result of the fact that the average surface temperature is the average of a very uneven distribution of temperature and also the three energy flows.
Climate is the response by the Earth's fluid environments (Atmosphere and Ocean) to this uneven distribution towards evening this out.

The processes of climate are affected by many factors including the two you have asked about.

The last major volcanic eruption, Krakatoa in 1883, cooled the Earth for about a decade becasue the dust released in the atmosphere reflected back some solar energy before it reached the surface.

And yes, as sensei says there were bigger and better eruption a long time ago.

As to your second question, yes the Earth has warmed and cooled many times before the present as the actual prevailing position of that energy balance shifts.

The shifts occur over periods of hundreds of years, thousands of years as well as the millions sensei mentioned. We are currently in a period between two much colder periods commonly called ice ages.

 

Please indicate if you have further interest when you reply.

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

Experimentally, increasing the 400 ppm CO2 (.04%) in a small glass greenhouse to 3,000 ppm (.3%) does not increase the temperature differential yet one would expect a 13° F temperature differential at the upper 3,000 ppm CO2 concentration.

Why is this the expected amount?

10 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

In the last 100 years, the atmospheric co2 has increased by 200 ppm

Citation?

Looks to me like it’s just over 100 ppm

https://www.co2levels.org

10 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

which would result in a 1° F increase in the glass greenhouse for every 200 ppm increase in the co2 level;

Citation?

My understanding is that it’s a logarithmic dependence, and you get a certain increase for each doubling of concentration.

10 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

consequently, a 3,000 ppm co2 level in the glass greenhouse would result in a (3,000 ppm / 200 ppm) = 15° F increase in the temperature differential but the result was negative.

Does the negative result of the glass greenhouse experiment prove that climate change is not caused by greenhouse gases?

Can you explain why you think this is a valid test?

[TheVat]

A problem is that a small greenhouse is not very analogous to the earth's biosphere and atmosphere.  Also worth mentioning that the GH effect of CO2 (as neatly explained by exchemist) is amplified by a feedback from an increase in atmospheric water vapor which is also a GHG.  Estimated at around 60% of the GH effect.   Not sure how you would reproduce that in a greenhouse, let alone all the other mechanisms in play on the earth.  Aside from questions of how to simulate an ocean, winds, Coriolis effect, day/night cycles, seasons, atmospheric particulates, clouds, etc. there is also the fact that a greenhouse is already structurally a, erm, greenhouse, rather than a sphere with an open layer of atmosphere.  My guess is that a "mini Earth" is terribly difficult to make in a lab.

 

 

[studiot]

The basis of the greenhouse effect in greenhouses is worth noting.

It is also worth noting that greenhouses come in two varieties. Heated and Cold. That is with internal heaters and those just warmed by the sun's rays. The Earth corresponds to the Heated type as already noted.

So the light of the Sun is of a frequency determined by the temperature of the surface of the Sun, by Stefan's Law.

Most of it arrives at the glass at a very low angle of incidence, nowhere near its 'critical angle' where it might be reflected.

When it falls on the ground or benches inside the greenhouse its energy is absorbed.

The ground and benches are at the internal greenhouse temperature and also radiate 'light' as very much longer wavelength EM radiation.

It is also known that the critical angle increases with increasing wavelength.

So the outgoing radiation strikes the glass at or above the critical angle and is reflected back into the greenhouse.

 

It is also this longer wave radiation that is reflected back to ground in the atmosphere.

[Ken Fabian]

20 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

Does the negative result of the glass greenhouse experiment prove that climate change is not caused by greenhouse gases?

No, you need a lot better designed experiment than that and begin by showing that what happens with a glasshouse is the same thing (at smaller scale) as The Greenhouse Effect. It is not. What you will "prove" is that a glasshouse does not work like The Greenhouse Effect.

Both get their heat primarily from visible light heating light absorbing materials - ground, water, plants etc including in the TGE case, absorption by clouds. A glasshouse works primarily by confining heat transfer by convection to a small volume, preventing loss of that heat to the greater atmosphere by that route. The Greenhouse Effect works by absorbing Infrared and re-radiating it. At the bottom of the atmosphere radiated heat is absorbed in the atmosphere above it, with about 1/2 of that radiating back downwards; more GreenHouse Gases means it is absorbed at lower altitude and down radiation is increased. At the top of the atmosphere the IR out to space is slowed by increased by more GHG's - it has to radiate from higher altitude to escape to space but the air is colder and it radiates less.

A few metres of optical depth within a glasshouse is not equivalent to 20,000m in the atmosphere, even at 3,000 ppm of CO2. You would need concentrations in the hundreds of thousands of ppm to have equivalent IR absorption - and you still have to address the differences from convection.

The question remains - why do you assume decades of top level science based studies and reports are wrong?

[studiot]

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

A few metres of optical depth within a glasshouse is not equivalent to 20,000m in the atmosphere, even at 3,000 ppm of CO2. You would need concentrations in the hundreds of thousands of ppm to have equivalent IR absorption - and you still have to address the differences from convection.

I agree with this statement.

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Both get their heat primarily from visible light heating light absorbing materials - ground, water, plants etc including in the TGE case, absorption by clouds. A glasshouse works primarily by confining heat transfer by convection to a small volume, preventing loss of that heat to the greater atmosphere by that route. The Greenhouse Effect works by absorbing Infrared and re-radiating it. At the bottom of the atmosphere radiated heat is absorbed in the atmosphere above it, with about 1/2 of that radiating back downwards; more GreenHouse Gases means it is absorbed at lower altitude and down radiation is increased. At the top of the atmosphere the IR out to space is slowed by increased by more GHG's

But this makes no sense to me.

If the lower atmosphere (ie the air directly above the ground) absorbed the incoming IR and only radiated 50% down to the ground as you seem to suggest that surely would result in a cooling compared to what would happen if the absorbing gases were not there so 100% reached the ground ?

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

No, you need a lot better designed experiment than that and begin by showing that what happens with a glasshouse is the same thing (at smaller scale) as The Greenhouse Effect. It is not. What you will "prove" is that a glasshouse does not work like The Greenhouse Effect.

You are correct that the glasshouse warming is more complicated since there is also a conduction and convection mechanism.

Radiation still dominates at night however.

This article is very readable.

https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/how-do-greenhouses-work

[CrystalMagic]

On 26.01.2023 at 14:15, Sensei said:

 

 

 

 

On 26.01.2023 at 15:26, studiot said:

 

 

Many thanks for your answers. Sorry, I know English very bad. I don't even speak my native language well because I don't have much dyslexia. The system said I can only write 5 messages a day. I'm not a teenager, I'm just not an expert in this topic. But I may not agree with you if I do not understand your conclusions. It doesn't mean that I doubt you. This means that I want to know more about it. I am not afraid of a bad reputation if it does not entail technical problems. I want to give myself a title that speaks of my poor knowledge of the language. I also want to understand the meaning of reputation. But I do not write specifically to argue. In some topics I have a position but this is not the topic. You might think that I do not agree with the ideas that you said? This is not true. I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that you can't be absolutely sure of anything. This topic is too complicated for our time. Perhaps if artificial intelligence or a quantum computer appears in the future, we will learn more. The weather around the world right now is like the wind from a butterfly's wing. I assumed that the reasons may be different. No, only humans can be the cause? But I completely agree with you. That humanity is polluting the planet. This is what needs to be changed. It's not just about the weather. There are other changes as well. Thinking about this, I came to the conclusion that humanity can understand the problem only when it becomes noticeable to them. Unfortunately this is often the case. We don't think about the future until it comes. About a topic similar to this one but a little different. I wanted to know to be in the core of our planet? Why does our planet have a magnetic field? Why does our planet have lava? Is there lava on the moon? Why is there no magnetic field on the moon? What can you say about these questions if we talk about Mars? Do you think we can make other planets look like our planet? I am not a supporter of this. I would like people to save our planet.

Edited January 27, 2023 by CrystalMagic

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, CrystalMagic said:

The system said I can only write 5 messages a day.

!

Moderator Note

This is just for your first day, to prevent spamming from bots. There is no limit for you now.

 

[studiot]

On 1/26/2023 at 12:26 PM, studiot said:

Please indicate if you have further interest when you reply.

 

39 minutes ago, CrystalMagic said:

This means that I want to know more about it.....

This topic is too complicated for our time.

I sincerely hope it is not too complicated for us since it human input needs to be resolved urgently.

 

42 minutes ago, CrystalMagic said:

The weather around the world right now is like the wind from a butterfly's wing. I assumed that the reasons may be different. No, only humans can be the cause? But I completely agree with you. That humanity is polluting the planet. This is what needs to be changed. It's not just about the weather. There are other changes as well.

I hope you understand the difference between weather and climate.

Weather is what happens on a day to day basis at a particular location.

Climate is the yearly pattern of weather across large regions of the Earth.

You are also correct that human generated pollution has become a major problem in other ways than climate change and also need sorting out.
But that is not the topic of this thread and should be discussed in a thread of its own.

This also applies to your other geophysical questions, which again merit their own threads.

There have been many attempts to explain the Earth's magnetic field and we are getting nearer one that fits all our data as we learn more.

Do you have access to library facilities ?

If so I can recommend suitable sources from modern researchers.

But please start your own thread about this.

[CrystalMagic]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

I sincerely hope it is not too complicated for us since it human input needs to be resolved urgently.

 

I hope you understand the difference between weather and climate.

Weather is what happens on a day to day basis at a particular location.

Climate is the yearly pattern of weather across large regions of the Earth.

You are also correct that human generated pollution has become a major problem in other ways than climate change and also need sorting out.
But that is not the topic of this thread and should be discussed in a thread of its own.

This also applies to your other geophysical questions, which again merit their own threads.

There have been many attempts to explain the Earth's magnetic field and we are getting nearer one that fits all our data as we learn more.

Do you have access to library facilities ?

If so I can recommend suitable sources from modern researchers.

But please start your own thread about this.

Thanks for your reply. I understand this is a bit off topic. I'm afraid to create new threads. I am newbie. Generally about the environment. This may sound sad. I think people will destroy the planet. The saddest thing. I don't think we can do anything about it. This does not mean that we should not talk about it. We should try to talk about it. But I don't think it will help. It remains only to hope for the best.

[Ken Fabian]

11 hours ago, studiot said:

If the lower atmosphere (ie the air directly above the ground) absorbed the incoming IR and only radiated 50% down to the ground as you seem to suggest that surely would result in a cooling compared to what would happen if the absorbing gases were not there so 100% reached the ground ?

I was referring to outgoing IR, ie from sun warmed ground radiating heat upwards. Optical depth in the IR band decreases with higher GHG concentrations, a bit like a fog getting thicker; more outgoing IR is captured at lower altitude with stronger down radiation. 50% upwards, 50% downwards is an alternative way to think of re-radiating equally in all directions; I've seen it described that way but it may be an approximation.

For incoming solar IR high in the atmosphere - it isn't a large part of incoming solar radiation but it is there - about 50% re-radiates back to space and the rest adds it's energy to the atmosphere. Not sure if that is changed by having more CO2; it should be absorbed a bit higher up, yes, but not more - unless slower re-radiation (due to lower temperature) allows atmospheric circulation to carry a bit more of what energy is absorbed to lower altitude, before it re-radiates, ie retains a bit more in the atmosphere, ie a bit of warming.

What happens at the bottom of the atmosphere is significant to surface temperatures but it is really just moving the same total amount of energy around - it isn't changing the amount of energy in the climate system. What happens at the top of the atmosphere is affecting the rate of outgoing IR reaching space and that is changing the overall balance between incoming and outgoing. That changes the total amount of energy. Top of atmosphere change is what makes heat accumulate.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[studiot]

46 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I was referring to outgoing IR, ie from sun warmed ground radiating heat upwards.

Thank you for clarifying that, it wasn't totally clear.

 

However here are two graphs

The first shows the clear big carbon dioxide absorbtion peak at 3000 nanometres.

The second shows where that falls on the ground emitted radiation spectrum.
As you can see at normal temperatures nearly all the absorbable IR energy is of way too long a wavelength.
The bottom black line is 0 C and the second one up (red) is 20 C.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Thank you for clarifying that, it wasn't totally clear.

 

However here are two graphs

The first shows the clear big carbon dioxide absorbtion peak at 3000 nanometres.

The second shows where that falls on the ground emitted radiation spectrum.
As you can see at normal temperatures nearly all the absorbable IR energy is of way too long a wavelength.
The bottom black line is 0 C and the second one up (red) is 20 C.

There’s a wide absorption peak out near 15 microns.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Carbon-Dioxide-CO2-absorption-coefficient_fig1_339314455

Blackbody at 293 K peaks at ~ 10 microns

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Normalised-black-body-spectral-emissive-power-at-room-temperature-293-K-used-in-the_fig2_334140221

[studiot]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s a wide absorption peak out near 15 microns.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Carbon-Dioxide-CO2-absorption-coefficient_fig1_339314455

Blackbody at 293 K peaks at ~ 10 microns

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Normalised-black-body-spectral-emissive-power-at-room-temperature-293-K-used-in-the_fig2_334140221

That's exactly what is shown on the graphs I posted.

What I actually said was the

12 hours ago, studiot said:

The first shows the clear big carbon dioxide absorbtion peak at 3000 nanometres.

The absorbtion coefficient of the big carbon dioxide peak is shown on the first graph is shown to be at least two orders of magnitude, (nearly 3) greater than the 15 micron one.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

That's exactly what is shown on the graphs I posted.

The graph you posted only goes out to 3 microns, so no, it didn’t show the peak at 15 microns (or the ones near 10 microns)

When you said “As you can see at normal temperatures nearly all the absorbable IR energy is of way too long a wavelength.” it’s because you weren’t showing the right ones.

 

Quote

The absorbtion coefficient of the big carbon dioxide peak is shown on the first graph is shown to be at least two orders of magnitude, (nearly 3) greater than the 15 micron one.

But there isn’t much light there. There’s a lot more light emitted from the earth out at 10-15 microns. The absorption peaks there aren’t quite as tall (but not 2-3 orders of magnitude), but they are a lot wider.

Were you looking at the ~1.5 micron features? Your statements make a lot more sense for that, but that’s not the absorption that’s important.

[Lee0110]

No, the negative result of the glass greenhouse experiment does not prove that climate change is not caused by greenhouse gases. This experiment was conducted on a small scale and may not accurately reflect the complexity of the Earth's atmosphere and climate system. Climate change is a complex issue with multiple contributing factors, including greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, deforestation, changes in land use, and natural climate cycles.

[Intoscience]

On 3/7/2023 at 4:56 AM, Lee0110 said:

Climate change is a complex issue with multiple contributing factors, including greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, deforestation, changes in land use, and natural climate cycles

A recent news alert from the UN is now pushing for carbon net zero to be brought forward from 2050 to 2040. Is this achievable, and is it going to solve the climate change issue if successful?

There seems to be a lot of debate among scientists around this. I'm not sure the authorities approach of scare tactics (seemingly supported and dramatized by the media) is fair. The vast majority of people and certainly many poorer nations are being scared into taking action towards a goal which they cannot achieve, stating that if its not reached we are all doomed. 

People like Greta Thunberg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg in my humble opinion don't help matters. She recently deleted a twitter message she posted back in 2018 where she stated that in 5 years time we will be all wiped out if we don't act now. 

No one (who has any reasonable sense) can argue that the climate is not changing. The evidence is there across the globe. If human generated carbon is a major factor in the acceleration of this, then sure it needs addressing. How, well I have no clue cause it seems that to achieve this with any real success, we would either have to heavily invest in cleaner energy technology very quickly, to a point where it is effect, cheap and easy to roll out. Or we radically reduce emissions such that it slows down the climate change. The problem with the second option is that no one can afford it and industry across the globe would collapse. 

So for me there are a few points that require focus. More in depth investigation to find irrefutable evidence that human carbon emissions is the key factor in climate change. Heavy investment in clean cheap accessible energy generation. Investment towards third world countries who emit high carbon emissions to help reduce this. Sensible achievable carbon reduction initiatives that are achievable by most without any major impact. Less scare mongering, tactics and more focus on educating people.    

 

[iNow]

Sometimes the truth is scary and needs to be spoken plainly. 40-50 years of using the approach you advocate hasn’t been getting it done  

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There seems to be a lot of debate among scientists around this.

Is there?