It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So it's heat being re-radiated by the Earth's surface AND heat produced by humans living on Earth's surface along with the CO2 emissions that accompany that?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: paradoxious
The problem is not so much heat being produced. The Sun heats the surface of the Earth far (far) more than human activity does.
The problem is that heat being trapped in the atmosphere.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: paradoxious
Well, yes. But the heat produced by human activity doesn't really count for much in comparison to solar heating.
Not in comparison to solar insolation.
and heat we generate here doesn't count at all....
I guess not. Can you state your point plainly instead of apparently playing games?
... are you not getting it yet?
originally posted by: paradoxious
So heat from insolence has to hit the ground and be re-radiated before it counts, and heat we generate here doesn't count at all....
... but the CO2 we generate in the process of making that heat is important.
... are you not getting it yet?
Why do you trust the scientists whom you agree with? What makes them more trustworthy than the ones that don't agree with Al Gore?
originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Uh because we are facing abnormal droughts. I see them everyday firsthand in Northern California. The food basket of your country. If there's no water...no food. Nio food, starving people. It's a serious issue. Stop watching football and TV, go outside, read a book and get genuinely cultured on what's happening, a reply to: VoidHawk
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: paradoxious
So heat from insolence has to hit the ground and be re-radiated before it counts, and heat we generate here doesn't count at all....
... but the CO2 we generate in the process of making that heat is important.
... are you not getting it yet?
I see what your getting at i think how can CO2 be counted but not the heat mankind creates. Well alot of that has to do with physics and statistical analysis. Phage is right the amount of energy the sun is hitting our planet with far outways anything we produce. What that means its like throwing a bucket of water in the ocean.An estimate would be about 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year, assuming say 1 square foot receives about 100 watts per hour in full sunlight. But Co2 it takes much smaller quantities to affect our atmospheres composition. Though i will say yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas most are actually. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. With this im wondering if It makes as big a difference as we think it does. Sorry going off on one of my tangents but any way i just realized after about 20 meters of atmosphere the reradiated IR wouldn't exist. Ill get back to you guys but i think i just discovered a problem with global warming.
What green house gasses should do is lessen the distance are heat can be radiated into the upper atmosphere not warm it up.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr
What green house gasses should do is lessen the distance are heat can be radiated into the upper atmosphere not warm it up.
You are not taking re-emission of infrared radiation by CO2 into account. CO2 does not only absorb infrared, it re-emits it. Low level CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) absorbs infrared from the surface. Some of that energy is retained as heat, some of it is re-emitted as infrared. Some of that infrared (roughly half, by chance) is emitted upward (above the horizon) and some is emitted downward. The process continues. The more CO2 there is, the less infrared will escape into space and the more heat will be retained by the atmosphere.
scied.ucar.edu...
originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Phage
In the case of our current climate, that mechanism is radiative forcing.
Aren't there other players causing radiative forcing besides co2? I've read that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than
co2 and we're adding a fair amount of water by burning fossil fuels. Doesn't that water we 'create' remain in the cycle?
I've wondered if contrails might actually persist and spread more now than before due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. IIRC, NASA has said that contrails could account for all of the warming since 1980, or something close to that.
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: dragonridr
The physics and experiments on radiative transfer in atmosphere have been studied for many decades now, starting with investigations by US Air Force & Navy in the 1950's.
Infrared from the ground can in fact go up to the upper atmosphere (most important area of greenhouse effect). As Phage said, the absorbers there interact with upward going infrared, and then re-emit it in all directions.
From the point of view of somebody on the ground, when there's a bigger greenhouse effect, the sky is shining more in infrared so it's warmer on the ground. Why is it cool at night in the desert when it's clear, but warmer when it's humid and cloudy? Same reason. The vapor and clouds are re-emitting infrared which would otherwise be going out to space.
If humans could see infrared, there would be no debate. Old-timers would all say, "sky looks hotter these days than it used to" and old photographs and paintings would look different than today's."