Dems rebel against Obama admin’s environmental agenda
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 06/01/2013 5:54:04 AM PDT by Bulwinkle
The warmer water gives up some of its stored CO2. IOW, "global warming" caused CO2 increases.
One of the best ways to increase yield in your indoor Marijuana garden is to inject CO2 into the canopy....
I hear.
I am not sure why suppressing tornado activity would be a bad thing...
What a mindblower! /s
Elevated CO2 is part of the reason why there has been such rapid recovery of Mt. St. Helens.
True, but CO2 is an mild amplifier of warming. If it were a major amplifier the earth would have turned into Venus a long time ago (when CO2 was much higher). Instead the natural warming from some other cause (e.g. solar) causes some release of CO2 from the oceans. That CO2 causes some further warming. If there were no manmade emissions the natural warming from the end of the Little Ice Age (about 1C in the oceans) would have caused about 5-10 ppm rise in CO2. The uncertainty comes from the uncertainty in how CO2 is released for example in upwelling regions where cool CO2-rich water gets warmed at the surface.
OTOH we have seen 110 ppm increase in CO2 and rising. But that takes us from basically CO2-starved to something more balanced. In the big picture we are still at a very low level of CO2.
True, but CO2 is an mild amplifier of warming.
Maybe, but there has to be some there to be able to say that.
Imagine the 100% of the atmosphere being $100...in pennies...on a table. That's 10,000 pennies. A penny is 1/100th of a dollar.
7809 pennies equal the Nitrogen.
2095 pennies equal the Oxygen.
93 pennies equal the Argon.
4 pennies equal the CO2!...Paint them green.
Now take these piddly four green CO2 pennies, and form a "greenhouse" layer. Were will you place it? How can it affect the other 9,996 parts of the whole?
It's not like it's Plutonium or something nasty.
Increase in foliage???!!! Heresy I say. The earth will get drier and more arid thanks to global warming all the warmists told us. So dispense with this “earth getting greener” jazz. Just because it’s an observable fact. Computer models are much more reliable than observable facts on the ground. (snicker)
It's also important to note that gas molecules are very small and even a tiny percentage of CO2 means that the outgoing IR photons are going to hit a CO2 molecule within 47 meters on average. Here's the calculation: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/attachment.php?aid=190
And the other 99.96% of the atmospheric gas molecules do nothing?
Are you trying to tell me that CO2 is smaller than O2?
Water vapor molecules do much more than CO2 molecules and their evenness or unevenness is what primarily determines the temperature. When we have uneven distributions of water vapor there is more convection and latent heat loss to space. If it is widespread we get global cooling which transitions into local warming once the clouds have rained out. The is also an flow of energy from the tropics to the poles that also relies on extra water vapor created in the tropics. The more water vapor created, the more the flow kicks in and cools the planet. And vice versa.
The bulk gases O2 and N2 are involved by storing heat. Since they are always next to some "greenhouse" gas they will be warmed by that gas, molecule by molecule. The overall amount of all bulk gases is the primary determinant of surface temperature like on Venus and Mars. More gas, higher temperature, nice and simple: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/despite-high-levels-of-co2-mars-is-cold/
Are you trying to tell me that CO2 is smaller than O2?
Not at all. The molecules are all small. The point is that they are so small and numerous the IR photons emitted from the earth's surface hit a CO2 molecule within 47 meters on average. This is despite the low concentration of CO2. That's why CO2 concentration matters although the heat trapping effect is logarithmic
That’s all very interesting inside baseball scientific stuff, I read and appreciated every word of it, but...
Do I not understand correctly that the latest findings are, no global warming has occurred in this century, and that most of it happened in the early part of the last century? (Oklahoma dust bowls etc)
Yes, no warming beyond what fluctuations would be expected naturally. The last significant warming was 80’s and 90’s but that had high solar activity and two strong El Ninos. Before that, the 30’s and 40’s had a lot of warming. A lot of warm model predictions are not happening like a stronger polar jet, tropical troposphere hot spot, weaker mid latitude storms, etc.
Thanks. Finally I’m getting an answer to the simple question I had. If carbon dioxide levels are elevated, wouldn’t that make photosynthesis metabolically easier, thus increasing growth of photosynthetic organisms such as plants, ie. living carbon sequestration?
CO2 - temp relationship is logarithmic, if this study is correct we may have reached the point where quadrupling the amount of CO2 would increase by 1degree
Dems rebel against Obama admin’s environmental agenda
Global Warming on Free Republic
350 PPM to 380 PPM isn’t a 14% increase. Their Math is as bad as their Science.
There's nothing the EPA can do to significantly affect CO2 content of our atmosphere. They can, however, shut down industry and ruin our economy in an effort to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.