Climate change and California fires

[DarthCervantes]

First climate change is gonna cover us in oceans, making everything WETTER
and NOW its everything DRYER (because it fits the narrative)
The funny thing is, most of these climate crazies don't even recycle!
Pathetic!!!!

 

[Scooby]

As i suspected, your are ignorant of basic earth science...

Hey dipshit, you didn't even answer your own question.

You didn't ask what would happen if the Earth had no atmosphere.
You didn't ask how much heat the Earth absorbs.
You didn't ask what would happen if there were no greenhouse gases.

You asked "What would the average temperature of the earth's surface be if carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas ?" The question implies that everything else stays the same, so your own question implies that our atmosphere still has some greenhouse gases.

You can't even answer your own question and you ain't qualified to teach shit.

 

[Stalin]

so you can see comrade, it is not a guess.

climate scientists have been proven right time and time again

QED

comrade stalin
moscow

You didn't ask what would happen if the Earth had no atmosphere.
You didn't ask how much heat the Earth absorbs.
You didn't ask what would happen if there were no greenhouse gases.

You asked "What would the average temperature of the earth's surface be if carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas ?" The question implies that everything else stays the same, so your own question implies that our atmosphere still has some greenhouse gases.

 

[Stalin]

as is usual in the poisonous climate of intellectual debate, abuse is the order of the day

if there’s more water than CO2 in the atmosphere, how do we know that water isn’t to blame for climate change? ​

Water is indeed a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, and thus makes the planet warmer. However, Smerdon says the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a consequence of warming rather than a driving force, because warmer air holds more water.

“We know this on a seasonal level,” he explains. “It’s generally drier in the winter when our local atmosphere is colder, and it’s more humid in the summer when it’s warmer.”

As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases heat up the planet, more water evaporates into the atmosphere, which in turn raises the temperature further. However, a hypothetical villain would not be able to exacerbate climate change by trying to pump more water vapor into the atmosphere, says Smerdon. “It would all rain out because temperature determines how much moisture can actually be held by the atmosphere.”

Similarly, it makes no sense to try to remove water vapor from the atmosphere, because natural, temperature-driven evaporation from plants and bodies of water would immediately replace it. To reduce water vapor in the atmosphere, we must lower global temperatures by reducing other greenhouse gases.

Water is indeed a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, and thus makes the planet warmer. However, Smerdon says the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a consequence of warming rather than a driving force, because warmer air holds more water.

“We know this on a seasonal level,” he explains. “It’s generally drier in the winter when our local atmosphere is colder, and it’s more humid in the summer when it’s warmer.”

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.

news.climate.columbia.edu

comrade stalin
moscow

 

[Stalin]

Methane (CH4) is the second most important greenhouse gas. CH4 is more potent than CO2 because the radiative forcing produced per molecule is greater. In addition, the infrared window is less saturated in the range of wavelengths of radiation absorbed by CH4, so more molecules may fill in the region.

However, CH4 exists in far lower concentrations than CO2 in the atmosphere, and its concentrations by volume in the atmosphere are generally measured in parts per billion (ppb) rather than ppm. CH4 also has a considerably shorter residence time in the atmosphere than CO2 (the residence time for CH4 is roughly 10 years, compared with hundreds of years for CO2).

Natural sources of methane include tropical and northern wetlands, methane-oxidizing bacteria that feed on organic material consumed by termites, volcanoes, seepage vents of the seafloor in regions rich with organic sediment, and methane hydrates trapped along the continental shelves of the oceans and in polar permafrost.

The primary natural sink for methane is the atmosphere itself, as methane reacts readily with the hydroxyl radical (OH−) within the troposphere to form CO2 and water vapour (H2O). When CH4 reaches the stratosphere, it is destroyed. Another natural sink is soil, where methane is oxidized by bacteria.

As with CO2, human activity is increasing the CH4 concentration faster than it can be offset by natural sinks. Anthropogenic sources currently account for approximately 70 percent of total annual emissions, leading to substantial increases in concentration over time. The major anthropogenic sources of atmospheric CH4 are rice cultivation, livestock farming, the burning of coal and natural gas, the combustion of biomass, and the decomposition of organic matter in landfills. Future trends are particularly difficult to anticipate. This is in part due to an incomplete understanding of the climate feedbacks associated with CH4 emissions. In addition, as human populations grow, it is difficult to predict how possible changes in livestock raising, rice cultivation, and energy use will influence CH4 emissions.


It is believed that a sudden increase in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere was responsible for a warming event that raised average global temperatures by 4–8 °C (7.2–14.4 °F) over a few thousand years during the so-called Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). This episode took place roughly 55 million years ago, and the rise in CH4 appears to have been related to a massive volcanic eruption that interacted with methane-containing flood deposits. As a result, large amounts of gaseous CH4 were injected into the atmosphere. It is difficult to know precisely how high these concentrations were or how long they persisted. At very high concentrations, residence times of CH4 in the atmosphere can become much greater than the nominal 10-year residence time that applies today. Nevertheless, it is likely that these concentrations reached several ppm during the PETM.


Methane concentrations also varied over a smaller range (between roughly 350 and 800 ppb) in association with the Pleistocene ice age cycles. Preindustrial levels of CH4 in the atmosphere were approximately 700 ppb, whereas levels exceeded 1,867 ppb in late 2018. (These concentrations are well above the natural levels observed for at least the past 650,000 years.) The net radiative forcing by anthropogenic CH4 emissions is approximately 0.5 watt per square metre—or roughly one-third the radiative forcing of CO2.

Greenhouse gas - Methane, Climate Change, Emissions | Britannica

Greenhouse gas - Methane, Climate Change, Emissions: Methane (CH4) is the second most important greenhouse gas. CH4 is more potent than CO2 because the radiative forcing produced per molecule is greater. In addition, the infrared window is less saturated in the range of wavelengths of radiation...

www.britannica.com

 

[Stalin]

Lesser greenhouse gases​

Surface-level​

The next most significant greenhouse gas is surface, or low-level, ozone (O3). Surface O3 is a result of air pollution; it must be distinguished from naturally occurring stratospheric O3, which has a very different role in the planetary radiation balance. The primary natural source of surface O3 is the subsidence of stratospheric O3 from the upper atmosphere. In contrast, the primary anthropogenic source of surface O3 is photochemical reactions involving the atmospheric pollutant carbon monoxide (CO). The best estimates of the natural concentration of surface O3 are 10 ppb, and the net radiative forcing due to anthropogenic emissions of surface O3 is approximately 0.35 watt per square metre. Ozone concentrations can rise to unhealthy levels (that is, conditions where concentrations meet or exceed 70 ppb for eight hours or longer) in cities prone to photochemical smog.

Additional trace gases produced by industrial activity that have greenhouse properties include nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated gases (halocarbons), the latter including CFCs, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Nitrous oxide is responsible for 0.16 watt per square metre radiative forcing, while fluorinated gases are collectively responsible for 0.34 watt per square metre. Nitrous oxides have small background concentrations due to natural biological reactions in soil and water, whereas the fluorinated gases owe their existence almost entirely to industrial sources.

Greenhouse gas - Methane, Climate Change, Emissions | Britannica

Greenhouse gas - Methane, Climate Change, Emissions: Methane (CH4) is the second most important greenhouse gas. CH4 is more potent than CO2 because the radiative forcing produced per molecule is greater. In addition, the infrared window is less saturated in the range of wavelengths of radiation...

www.britannica.com

anymore "alleged" greenhouse gases

comrade stalin
moscow

 

[Stalin]

what numbers are you presenting ?

comrade stalin

 

[Stalin]

Greenhouse gas emissions

Which countries emit the most greenhouse gases each year? How do they compare per person?

ourworldindata.org

 

[Stalin]

maybe i should have stated "greenhouse gas" instead of carbon dioxide

one should never too small to accept a minor correction

however this does not change the fact that greenhouse gases are driving up the temperature and soon
there will be a myriad of california-type fires

after all, the "wrong" climate scientists have predicted the fires and floods currently ravaging the earth.

comrade stalin

 

[Stalin]

First climate change is gonna cover us in oceans, making everything WETTER
and NOW its everything DRYER (because it fits the narrative)
The funny thing is, most of these climate crazies don't even recycle!
Pathetic!!!!

inoring the "climate crazies" ad hominem logical fallacy

both increased rainfall and drought are exlained here

A warmer average global temperature will cause the water cycle to “speed up” due to a higher rate of evaporation. More water vapor in the atmosphere will lead to more precipitation. Global average precipitation can increase by 7% for each degree of warming, which means we are looking at a future with much more rain and snow, and a higher risk of flooding to some regions. With a 2°C temperature increase, heavy rain events are expected to become 1.7 times more likely, and 14% more intense. However, changes in precipitation will not be evenly distributed. Some locations will get more, and others will see less.

Drought is defined as “a period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently long enough to cause a serious hydrological imbalance,” according to the AMS Glossary of Meteorology. The term drought is relative, so drought conditions in a region mean that there is significantly less precipitation relative to normal conditions. Precipitation patterns are changing in response to climate change, and they are predicted to continue to change as climate continues to warm. It is likely that more areas will be affected by drought over the next century. In general, arid parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are predicted to become more arid. As the area becomes more arid, 75-250 million people in Africa could be affected by water shortages, and agriculture could drop by half in some areas.

Predictions of Future Global Climate | Center for Science Education

Climate models predict that Earth’s global average temperate will rise in the future. By the end of the century, 2°C of warming may be inevitable and, if greenhouse gases continue to rise at current levels, warming of about 4°C (7.2°F) can be expected. Only with swift action to reduce greenhouse...

scied.ucar.edu

Extreme Events and Human Health | Center for Science Education

Extreme Events and Human Health

scied.ucar.edu

comrade stalin

 

[Stalin]

nasa primer on climate change

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Earth’s temperature depends on how much sunlight the land, oceans, and atmosphere absorb, and how much heat the planet radiates back to space. This fact sheet describes the net flow of energy through different parts of the Earth system, and explains how the planetary energy budget stays in balance.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

comrade stalin
moscow

 

[Boris Norris]

As i suspected, your are ignorant of basic earth science...

i should be paid for teaching you science ( as I am indeed a qualified science teacher )

read and learn

"
If the Earth had no atmosphere, then the entire energy received from the sun would reach the surface undisturbed, to be reflected from and/or absorbed by it. As it stands, the Earth's surface reflects part of the solar energy. This is what makes the part of the Earth lit by the sun visible from space (Figure 8) in the same way that the moon and the other members of the solar system are visible to us, despite the fact that they lack an inner source of visible radiation. The most obvious aspect of Figure 7 is the brightness of the Earth's cloud cover. A significant part of the Earth's reflectivity can be attributed to clouds (this is but one reason why they are so important for the Earth's climate). In climate texts the reflectivity of a planet is referred to as the albedo of the planet and is expressed as a fraction. The Albedo of Earth depends on the geographical location (can you tell from Figure 7 which has higher albedo, the land or the ocean?). On the average however, the Earth's albedo is about 0.3. This fraction of incoming radiation is reflected back into space. The other 0.7 part of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by our planet.

Effective temperature.​

By absorbing the incoming solar radiation, the Earth warms up and its temperature rises. If the Earth would have had no atmosphere or ocean, as is the case for example on the moon, it would get very warm on the sunlit face of the planet and much colder than we experience presently, on the dark side (the little warmth on the dark side would come from the limited amount of heat stored in the ground from the previous daytime - this is, to some extent, what we experience in a cloud-free, land locked desert climate).


We have seen that all heated objects must emit electromagnetic radiation, particularly so if they are surrounded by empty space. This radiation is referred to as outgoing. As long as the incoming radiative flux is larger than the outgoing, the radiated object will continue to warm, and its temperature will continue to increase. This in turn will result in an increase in the outgoing radiation (according to the Stefan-Boltzman law the outgoing radiation increases faster than the temperature). At some point the object will emit as much radiation as the amount incoming and a radiative equilibrium (or balance) will be reached. Using what we have learned about radiative heat transfer and some geometric calculation we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of an object if we know the amount of incoming energy. Here is how we do that in the case of a planet rotating around the Sun:


First let us denote the solar radiative flux at the top of the planets atmosphere by S (for solar constant) and the albedo of the planet by A. Then let us figure out the total amount of radiation absorbed by the planet. To overcome the difficulty posed by the fact that the planets are spherical and their surface tilts with respect to the incoming radiation, note that the amount distributed over the sphere is equal the amount that would be collected on the planets surface if it was a disk (with the same radius as the sphere), placed perpendicular to the sunlight. If the planet's radius is R the area of that disk is πR2. Thus:


heat absorbed by planet = (1 - A) πR2S


The total heat radiated from the planet is equal to the energy flux implied by its temperature (from the Stefan-Boltzman law) times the entire surface of the planet or:


heat radiated from planet = (4πR2) σT4


In radiative balance we thus have:

(4πR2 ) σT4 = (1 - A) πR2S


Solving this equation for temperature we obtain:

Te = [(1-A)S / 4σ] 1/4


We have added a subscript e to the temperature to emphasize that this would be the temperature of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet. According to this calculation, the effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (or -18 °C). With this temperature the Earth radiation will be centered on a wavelength of about 11 μm, well within the range of infrared (IR) radiation.


Because of the spectral properties of the Sun and Earth radiation we tend to refer to them as "shortwave" and "longwave" radiation, respectively.

Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

It would be easier to pick up the clean end of a turd than teach him anything.

Why do the people who post on a subject are always the ones who knows the least?

 

[Starcastle]

more...

The greenhouse effect.​

The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is the effect of our atmosphere, or more precisely, the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is traditionally referred to as the greenhouse effect referring to the warming of garden plots by covering them with a glass enclosure.


Here is how the greenhouse effect works: The Earth's atmosphere contains many trace (or minor) components (see Figure 9 for the composition of the atmosphere). While the major atmospheric components (Nitrogen and Oxygen) absorb little or no radiation, some of the minor components are effective absorbers (Figure 10). Particularly effective is water vapor, which absorb effectively in the IR wavelength range (Figure 10).


Because the atmosphere is almost transparent to sunlight most of it is absorbed at the surface (some is reflected, as we saw earlier, from the surface and by clouds and other light particles suspended in the air). When the surface warms and emits IR radiation, this radiation can not freely escape into space because trace gases such as water vapor absorb it. These gases (and their surrounding air) warm up, emitting radiation towards the Earth's surface, as well as upward, towards space (half is emitted up and half down). This effectively traps part of the IR radiation between ground and the lower 10 km of the atmosphere. The surface temperature then rises above the effective temperature calculated above (Te). The effect is similar to that of a blanket that traps the body heat preventing it from escaping into the room and thus keeps us warm on cold nights.


So how then is radiative balance maintained? All that the IR absorbing gases do is make it more difficult for heat to escape, they don't (and can't) stop the heat output, because half of their emission is directed upward towards space. The greenhouse effect forced the planet to raise it's surface temperature until the amount of heat radiated from the top of the absorbing layer is equal to the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It is at the top of the absorbing layer that the effective temperature is reached, while down at the surface of the Earth it is much warmer.

Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

got that ?

comrade stalin
moscow university

Was that written in 1975? They have been wrong ever since. A permanent crisis.

 

[Starcastle]

It would be easier to pick up the clean end of a turd than teach him anything.

Why do the people who post on a subject are always the ones who knows the least?

Please explain that to us. The quality of life in the world has improved over the last 50 years while the population increased by 5 billion, 166% increase.

Where is the crisis? Seems like this warming is a good thing. Less hunger and a higher standard of living thanks to fossil fuels.

What happened to peak oil? What happened to acid rain? Bullshit!

Fracking has reduced our carbon footprint and you pricks are against that. Science!

China responsible for 1/3 of the world's carbon emissions. Shut up racist!