Any evidence linking carbon dioxide to temperature? - Political Fever

nerv14 · #1 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 12:30 AM

once again another global warming thread...

I have looked at many graphs relating global temperature and carbon dioxide levels and there is a clear similarity between them because as one increases so does the other.

However, that doesn't at all proove that because carbon dioxide levels are increasing that is the reason for the increased temperature.

I have looked on google searching "proof of global warming" and "evidence of global warming" for a while and I haven't found any evidence actualy linking that the REASON for the increased temperature on the Earth is because of increased carbon dioxide levels.

If I linked those two it would be as if because the costs of the government are increasing and the carbon dioxide levels on the Earth are increasing then they are connected in some way. If anyone has ANY scientific proof at all for Global Warming please tell me.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #2 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 01:19 AM

Co2 is a greenhouse gas. It helps trap heat. This has been demonstrated in laboratory settings. It's what the gas does. We are pumping a lot of it into the atmosphere, yet still receiving energy from the Sun.

What do you think will happen? Magic?

Recusant · #3 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 04:40 AM

It's pretty well established dude. Try reading any one of the dozen's of peer reviewed science reports. Or one of the many books on the topic.

nerv14 · #4 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recusant

It's pretty well established dude. Try reading any one of the dozen's of peer reviewed science reports. Or one of the many books on the topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

Co2 is a greenhouse gas. It helps trap heat. This has been demonstrated in laboratory settings. It's what the gas does. We are pumping a lot of it into the atmosphere, yet still receiving energy from the Sun.

What do you think will happen? Magic?

ummm... I was asking for real scientific proof and unless someone can demonstrate the connection between CO2 levels and the increased temperature on the Earth I am not going to just take your word for it.

I just need scientific proof. I am a liberal and everything but I noticed that there was no real proof that humans are causing the Earth's temperature to increase so I looked for proof and I found none.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #5 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

ummm... I was asking for real scientific proof and unless someone can demonstrate the connection between CO2 levels and the increased temperature on the Earth I am not going to just take your word for it.

You have given no standard for "proof." You merely say you want it. Desire without standard is vague.

Moreover, have you actually done independent research on this? If so, you would already know there's a wealth of information out there.

Methinks you're pretending to be Liberal (I fail to see why it's relevant to mention it anyway), so it can somehow make your Global Warming Skepticism and denial of evidence less offensive.

You want lab testing to show that CO2 has the property of raising atmospheric temperature? Where did you look for this proof? It's implausible that you didn't find it. I can find it from major scientific organizations in less than 4 min of googling.

Oregon Elephant · #6 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 12:54 AM

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions

A little further down than 1/2 the page,

Quote:

Q. Why do certain compounds, such as carbon dioxide, absorb and emit infrared energy?

A. Molecules can absorb and emit three kinds of energy: energy from the excitation of electrons, energy from rotational motion, and energy from vibrational motion. The first kind of energy is also exhibited by atoms, but the second and third are restricted to molecules. A molecule can rotate about its center of gravity (there are three mutually perpendicular axes through the center of gravity). Vibrational energy is gained and lost as the bonds between atoms, which may be thought of as springs, expand and contract and bend. The three kinds of energy are associated with different portions of the spectrum: electronic energy is typically in the visible and ultraviolet portions of the spectrum (for example, wavelength of 1 micrometer, vibrational energy in the near infrared and infrared (for example, wavelength of 3 micrometers), and rotational energy in the far infrared to microwave (for example, wavelength of 100 micrometers). The specific wavelength of absorption and emission depends on the type of bond and the type of group of atoms within a molecule. Thus, the stretching of the C-H bond in the CH2 and CH3 groups involves infrared energy with a wavelength of 3.3-3.4 micrometers. What makes certain gases, such as carbon dioxide, act as "greenhouse" gases is that they happen to have vibrational modes that absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths at which the earth radiates energy to space. In fact, the measured "peaks" of infrared absorbance are often broadened because of the overlap of several electronic, rotational, and vibrational energies from the several-to-many atoms and interatomic bonds in the molecules. (Information from "Basic Principles of Chemistry" by Harry B. Gray and Gilbert P. Haight, Jr., published 1967 by W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York and Amsterdam)

Q. What kinds of radiation pass through the atmosphere, and what kinds are absorbed?

A. Visible radiation ranges from about 0.35 to about 0.75 micrometers in wavelength. Very little visible radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere. About 30-31 percent of incoming solar radiation is reflected and about 19 percent more is absorbed, mostly by clouds and particulate matter rather than by carbon dioxide and water vapor and oxygen. Those gases absorb a small amount of visible light, but not much. This is in contrast to the infrared (wavelengths greater than about 0.75 micrometer) radiation emitted by the earth's surface. This radiation has wavelengths mostly between about 2 and 20 micrometers and over 90% of it is absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorocarbons, and other radiatively active ("greenhouse") gases on the way up.

Radiatively active gases are active in specific wavelengths of radiation. For example, if we could see in the infrared spectrum between 5 and 8 micrometers, we could not see the earth's surface (even on a clear day) from an aircraft at 10 km altitude. This is because water vapor is "opaque" in those wavelengths, and there is water vapor in the atmosphere even when there are no clouds. On the other hand, on a clear day, you can see snow-capped mountains pretty clearly at distances of over 100 km, because water vapor is transparent in the visible wavelengths. Admittedly, at large distances (e.g., about 100 km), things usually get pretty hazy because of light scattering by particulate matter and other aerosols in the atmosphere, which increase with line-of-sight distance. However, this reduction in visibility is not due to absorption by atmospheric gases. Because "seeing" in the infrared is not a part of most people's everyday experience (unless they work for the border patrol or as a bombardier), it is a little difficult to come up with "everyday" examples of what things would be like, for comparison with "everyday" visibility.

Probably the best example from "everyday" experience in the visible range, at least for those of us who fly a lot, is to notice that the moon is not any brighter when you're flying above 80% of the atmosphere than it is at the ground on a clear night. (Checking this by looking at the sun is NOT recommended, you can injure your retina pretty badly that way). If you live near the mountains, you can vary your elevation without having to fly. Also, a temperature map of the United States reveals that surface temperature is more related to latitude and distances from the coast than to elevation; the amount of solar radiation available to warm the earth's surface is about the same at high elevations as it is near sea level. In fact, at a given latitude it's often colder at higher elevations (one would expect it to be warmer if higher elevations get more solar radiation), but this is due to factors other than solar radiation.

Solar radiation" and "visible light" are not exactly the same thing. Solar radiation contains some wavelengths less than 0.35 micrometers, and some longer than 0.75 micrometers. Fortunately for us and other living things, most of the ultraviolet radiation (wavelengths shorter than visible) from the sun is picked off in the high atmosphere. This highly energetic radiation can strip electrons from atoms, causing the ionosphere and its associated phenomena such as aurora and the variations in your radio's ability to pick up distant broadcasting stations. Ozone in the middle and high stratosphere also picks off a lot of ultraviolet radiation, thereby preventing it from reaching the surface and causing skin cancers. The atmosphere's ability to absorb radiation drops off sharply between about 0.3 micrometers (near-visible ultraviolet) and 0.4 micrometers (visible blue-violet). Thus, we are protected from the harmful ultraviolet radiation, but still can see clearly for large distances. This differentiation is not always made in meteorology textbooks, so students sometimes come away thinking that the small percentage of "solar radiation" absorbed by the atmosphere is a part of the visible spectrum; instead, a lot of it is in the ultraviolet.

In simple terms, the sun emits mostly visible light and ultra-violet light. These high energy waves (high frequency, low wave length), pass by the CO2 (uninterupted) in the atmosphere to go heat the earth. The heat from the earth emitts low energy infared (black body emisions, everything does this), but those low energy waves are absorbed by CO2 and are re-emited by the CO2 but back towards the earth. These infared emisions are basically the Earth's way of "sweating," and the CO2 prevents the "sweat" from leaving the planet, so it doesn't cool as well.

Recusant · #7 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 05:42 AM

That's not proof - that's just words on a screen! :P

nerv14 · #8 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

You have given no standard for "proof." You merely say you want it. Desire without standard is vague.

Moreover, have you actually done independent research on this? If so, you would already know there's a wealth of information out there.

Methinks you're pretending to be Liberal (I fail to see why it's relevant to mention it anyway), so it can somehow make your Global Warming Skepticism and denial of evidence less offensive.

You want lab testing to show that CO2 has the property of raising atmospheric temperature? Where did you look for this proof? It's implausible that you didn't find it. I can find it from major scientific organizations in less than 4 min of googling.

When I say proof I mean scientific proof, which are experements where all factors are the same except in some experements there is more CO2 in a certain area.

If a satelite could measure the heat leaving the Earth in areas with more and less CO2 and greenhouse gases that would convince me if the more CO2 in an area the less heat.

I have done alot of research and I haven't found any scientific evidence. It is still a theory and I am not saying that we shouldn't do anything to combat what may happen.

I need evidence linking that increased CO2 levels cause the temperature of the Earth to increase. Not that CO2 levels are higher and the Earth is hotter.

so you said you found it in 4 minutes of searching and you didn't get the link thx.

and I don't care what political ideology you think I really am, that isn't important.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #9 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

I have done alot of research and I haven't found any scientific evidence. It is still a theory and I am not saying that we shouldn't do anything to combat what may happen.

Let's start here.

Do you know what a theory is? If so, please tell me what it is.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password