Got a burning question about climate change? Feeling curious about conservation? “You Asked” is a series where Earth Institute experts tackle reader questions on science and sustainability. To submit a question, drop a comment below, message us on Instagram, or email us here.
A reader named Paul submitted this question on one of our previous posts:
Why does CO2 drive global warming when there is only 0.04% of it in the atmosphere? And why isn’t water vapor the major driving factor?
Answer provided by Yochanan Kushnir
Earth absorbs energy from sunlight, but as the surface warms, it also emits energy in the form of infrared radiation (which we know of as heat) out into space. Water vapor and CO2, however, act like a cap, making it more difficult for Earth to get rid of this energy. Without gases like these to absorb the energy, our planet’s average surface temperature would have been near zero degrees Fahrenheit.
About 99 percent of the atmosphere is made of oxygen and nitrogen, which cannot absorb the infrared radiation the Earth emits. Of the remaining 1 percent, the main molecules that can absorb infrared radiation are CO2 and water vapor, because their atoms are able to vibrate in just the right way to absorb the energy that the Earth gives off. After these gases absorb the energy, they emit half of it back to Earth and half of it into space, trapping some of the heat within the atmosphere. This trapping of heat is what we call the greenhouse effect. Because of the greenhouse effect created by these trace gases, the average temperature of the Earth is around 15˚C, or 59˚F, which allows for life to exist.
CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it has “windows” that allow some of the infrared energy to escape without being absorbed. In addition, water vapor is concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.
The burning of fossil fuels affects the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century. Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius. We are already increasing the amount of energy that bounces back to the Earth. Because of the greenhouse effect, this is causing global warming with its many destructive impacts.
Both water vapor and CO2 are responsible for global warming, and once we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans warm up, which inevitably triggers an increase in water vapor. But while we have no way to control water vapor, we can control CO2. And because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by continuing to burn fossil fuels, even in relatively small amounts compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere, we are disturbing the entire heat balance of the planet.
For more information on how carbon dioxide traps heat, why water vapor isn’t the culprit, and answers to several other interesting questions, check out this post: How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?
Why can’t you think of any way to control water vapours? Simple, plow up a field and watch the water vaporize, put rain on concrete, drain a swamp and make it farmland. What percentage of America is farmland or paved etc..? How much water vaporizes from a pasture land or forest?
The expanse of water vapor is that it resides mostly in the ceiling-less atmosphere. Water vapor provides us with an essential nutrient for survival, retains some warmth so that the planet is not ice-cold, & provides necessary humidification for proper skin moisture & sinus cavity moisture. Well rain does fall on concrete. Swamps are 1 type of wetland used to absorb nature’s runoff. They occupy an ecological niche & act as a sink for runoff pollutants. Wetlands also photosynthesize.
1. how high is atmospheric Co2 compared to Earth’s life giving climate history?
A. for over 85% of the 550M) years of Earth’s life giving history Co2 has been higher than now.
2. How high was Co2 in Earth’s most productive period for diversity of life (Cambrian period) compared to now?
A. Co2 was 20 times higher than now for tens of millions years.
3. Why do they think Earth’s climate is in danger of “runaway warming” when it has never happened in history over hundreds of millions years with co2 much higher?
A. The laws of physics have not changed, clearly Co2 is not the driver climate change.
4. When do you think climate change began?
A Climate change is a constant in Earths climate history.
5. What has the most correlation with increased temperatures on Earth a) high atmospheric Co2 levels b) Solar cycles c) Milankovitch cycle (Earths irregular solar orbit and wobble)?
A Both B an C have higher correlation with higher temperatures than A
6. Is it possible to have an ice age with Co2 as high as it is now?
A. We have had ice ages and glaciation with Co2 two and three times higher than now.
7. In the last 100 million years has the Earth’s pole ever had no polar ice caps?
Yes it has been ice free for around 2/3 and had polar ice caps through ice ages for only about 1/3 (Also the Earth has been Polar ice free for over half of Earth’s life giving climate history)
8. How much of Earth’s atmosphere is made up of Co2?
A 0.04%
9. Is Co2 the only greenhouse gas and if not is it the most powerful?
A.,. There are many Greenhouse gasses besides Co2. No, there are many more powerful greenhouse gasses than Co2. Methane is 80 times more powerful. SF6 used in windfarms is nearly 25,000 times more powerful!
10. If we eliminate Co2 from the atmosphere what do you think would be the average temperature on Earth?
A The earth would be between minus100F and minus 10F killing all animal life.
11. If the UK hit net zero tomorrow how much would atmospheric Co2 be theoretically reduced?
A The UK is responsible for 1% of man made Co2 and Co2 makes up just 0.04% of atmosphere so 0.0004% is UK but only a small fraction of that Co2 gets high enough and stays long enough in the atmosphere to be considered a greenhouse gas, let’s say 10% which means UK net zero tomorrow would reduce atmospheric Co2 by 0.00004% (4 parts per 10 million) over around a thousand years. (Saving the planet!)
12. How much Co2 do you think has been added to Earth’s carbon cycle through manmade Co2 emissions?
A Zero because the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle is a constant.
13. How much global manmade Co2 is China responsible for?
A Around 2/3, more than the whole of Europe and US combined!
14. Given the UN say the Earth is dying due to Co2 emissions, why did they leave China exempt from all climate rules and carbon taxes encouraging them to build many hundreds of new dirty burning coal plants? Are those the actions of people who think the Earth will die within a generation unless we hit zero Co2 emissions?
A. They left China exempt because their think tanks are funded by the global elite and those same elite moved their industry and finance from the West they had crippled with expensive climate policies to cheap dirty energy China making trillions and creating China’s economic boom while deindustrialising the West with millions of job losses and replacing cheap energy with much more expensive and ineffective “green energy”
We have to consider all the facts including deforestation.The University of Maryland and The World Resource Institue had published data from 2019 that 3.35 million hectares of forest have been removed. Since 2002 60 million hectares have been removed .A hectare is 2.75 acres of landmass.
This is the size of Calif. and Missouri.However the numbers may not capture the full extent of loss due to the deforestation that occurred in the later part of 2019 in the Amazon.All this is a part of climate change.
If the planet warms won’t new forest arise won’t the addition of C02 increase the size and density of existing forest thereby removing more c02 from the atmosphere? Weren’t there times in earths history where c02 was much higher than 400 ppm?
If CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than oxygen and it converts to a liquid at 81 degrees F how can it exist in the upper atomo sphere?
If these fossil fuels were once ancient forests and plant life, their mass came from the co2 of their time. Why is it an existential threat to return that carbon to the atmosphere of originally came from? Why not just plant trees to restore the balance, as we burn fossil fuels? The problem is an imbalance in the carbon cycle, not co2.
0,04 % CO2 in in the atmosphere today according to Professor Kushnir.
According to Meyer´s universal encyclopedia 1927 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0,04 %.
Exactly the same number.
Where is the increase Dr. Kushnir ?
Why the tax ?
Thank you very much
You all neglect to say that some of the energy is reflected in the visible light range. Otherwise we would need an infrared camera or similar to view the earth from space, say the moon. This wasn’t necessary.
Published data suggest CO2 levels go up because of increasing temperatures associated with whatever caused the last ice age to end. The last ice age ended due to warming about 11,000 years ago. CO2 levels started going up roughly 4,000 years later. Therefore CO2 starting going up about 7,000 years ago – long before significant human activity.
Why do I read that co2 levels were 5-18 times greater than now when dinasaurs were on the earth?
I presume carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red in a narrow band because of certain modes of molecular bond vibration. What proportion of the energy in these quanta are re-emitted (in a random direction?) as “virtually” identical quanta and what proportion through general atmospheric layer heating as a black body spectrum. What impact does this proportion have on CO2’s greenhouse effect?.
This question could be answered by a chemist. I’m assuming all. It has to do with electrons as they step up vs step down their ladders. In a certain direction they release light energy.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and so increases the temperature of the lower atmosphere but must also reduce the temperature in the upper atmosphere (and so reduce the water vapour content in the upper atmosphere). What is the net effect on water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas?) and therefore on the total greenhouse effect? P.S. it would be good if the loose term “positive feedback” were not used in this context on this site. Unrestrained positive feedback leads to exponential increase which is not the case here. This is something quite different – amplification.
Why can’t we just dump all the waste we as a species produce into space or other planets to keep ours even if our plan is maintain earth environment as it is?
Maybe we should be concentrating on doing that efficiently.
Otherwise earths environment is bond to change whether humans are here or not. Humans leave trash everywhere anyway its what we do( look at all that trash orbiting planet earths, wonder how that got there.
Who measured the 288 parts per million that CO2 allegedly had before the industrial revolution, since the beginning of measurements started in 1974?
Why don’t we just put the carbon dioxide into the oceans where Plankton can absorb it?
Is it true that volcanos cool the earth releasing the heat from inside the earth.
How about the emmision s from Jets and commercial planes which is about 2.5% to 3% of the atmospheres. Co2 and will increase in the future
What was the C02 reading during the Cambrian Period?
I’ve read 4000 ppm give or take. This was a period of explosion of life forms, further photosynthesis, but ending with a great extinction. However, the Hadean & Archaen should be higher.
Every proponent of Anthropomorphic CO2 claims the effects will be catastrophic when there are also many benefits to a warmer climate. A warmer climate is a greener planet. Dozens of forecasts have been made in the last 50 years about a warming climate and virtually none of them have come true. Yes, I believe the climate is changing, but how arrogant are we as the human race to believe we can stop it. All efforts should be directed at adaptation, not trying to stop or alter climate change. Our ancestors survived multiple Ice Ages, we can adapt and survive a warmer planet. In actuality, we are far closer to too little co2 than we are to too much co2.
Interesting yet nonsensical, on one hand you say c02 molecules absorb heat but then you say they reflect heat, and you say oxygen and nitrogen do not.
This is incorrect, you only need to think about condensing and expanding nitrogen or oxygen to know the molecules also dump and absorb heat radiation.
I’d be more confident in the theory that the earth is moving in space and its orbit around the sun is affecting weather.
CO2 follows warming, not leads it. E.G. firing cement in the kiln. Take a bottle of champagne & refrigerate for a few hours. Now keep a separate one outside the frig & let it warm up. Now open each. Notice the immediate dissipation of co2 bubbles from the warm bottle. The key on earth given the population size is maintaining consistent sinks. It may be that the burning of rainforest in the tropics has been too much to reduce the capture component. Thats why plants are the easiest thing to do. Just as the Himalayas have an impact in steering the jet stream it can be thought that large loss of forest is too much. One gem in the carbon capture industry is taking some of this carbon & converting it to things like biomass, biochar, biofuel & telling farmers to replenisth their fields with this. This is better than using excess nitrogen & phosphorus. Yes those 2 elements put crops on steroids. But the end result is eutrophication down the waterway. The carbon mass is simply returning the carbon to one of its natural & normal sites.
EDITED
Hi. I have several observations but will limit my comment to a few. 1) yes, it is somewhat clear that CO2 absorbes IR light from the surface of the earth after a wavelength change in UV light from the sun when it strikes the surface; and is also true that there’s a small window of absorption, because CO2 does not absorb all the IR light spectrum of wavelength/frequency. 2) there’s a debate still going on about how much energy (in watts) a single molecule of CO2 can absorb, and it has been criticized that the high end values used to make models of predictions are not very realistic, and that “CO2-caused warming disappears at the more moderate, more realistic values”. 3) I disagree with the description in which “CO2 molecules vibrations absorb IR energy”. The IR spectrum in carbon-containing molecules is explained in organic chemistry as a method to detect presence of certain functional groups such as delocalized pi-electrons, amino/amine/hydroxide/carbonyl groups etc. The IR energy makes the bonds “wiggle” or vibrate more in modes of stretching/bending/wagging motion. It is the IR absorption what makes them vibrate, not the vibration responsible for absorbing IR as I understood from the explanation. In other words, the IR causes the increase in wiggling motions. So much of the absorbed IR energy is to make it vibrate. This is an issue of vibrational energy levels of quantum science. I don’t think it’s clear in this article. One question is how much of that IR energy is transmitted or converted into thermal energy to allow heat transfer to the 78% Nitrogen molecules and 21% oxygen molecules, the 99% of the atmospheric gases. Is that clear in the literature? Another question is, is there any calculation of the heat capacity (Cp) of the atmosphere, defining how much heat it can accumulate before showing a change by 1 degree-C/F? This is a measure for all matter and it determines how much heat a material can accumulate before you can feel it hot. It varies widely, especially among metals; so, does the atmosphere have a measure like that to determine if the observed apparent warning is statistically significant? Many are questioning the lack of thermodynamics and clear heat-transference data and formulas to prove CO2 is driving climate change. Let me remind that science is not about common sense, because science hides levels of knowledge that are uncommon sense, where things that appear to be connected, in reality are not connected. There’s a difference between a correlation and a correspondence, in which the former requires mere observation/hypothetical, whereas the latter requires empirical data to prove a direct cause and effect. Thanks. Dr. Vigo, PhD, chemist, environmental scientist, jvigo@epcc.edu
Could you post the studies about this? How does the height of the gas in the atmosphere effect the effectiveness of the heat retention?
“The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.”
Also, is the CO2 evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, relatively? If it is evenly distributed, would the lower molecules of CO2 adsorb less?
Yea sure… another ‘smart’ professor who talks bullshit
From NASA… “Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change”
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
From ACS (American Chemical Society): “It’s water vapor, not CO2”
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
Uhh, maybe you should actually read those before you cite them. From ACS: “However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature…. If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same.”
I would suggest that research at this site.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/?dataTypeId=7
I think the data from Iceland ice cores shows that CO2 is a lagging indicator; meaning CO2 rises following the temp increase.
The data seems pretty clear in the past records and now be preemptive of the temp increase?
This is correct. Try the champagne bottle experiment-cold & hot.
This is absolute nonsense on the scale of a (political) scientist’s assessment of physical law and the weather. Face it, we are coming out of an ice age! There are only two significant sources of ice left on the planet that are moderating global temperatures, Antarctica and Greenland. They are melting rapidly and nobody is going to change that — there will eventually be conifer forests on the North Slope and deserts in subtropical regions. The Sahara will continue to grow into Southern Europe. Point 04% is insignificant compared to water vapor and cloud reflection. Rather than political posturing, we should be preparing by clearing wildfire debris fuel and massively improving water systems.
Since heat rises how does the supposed heat emitted by co2 get to the earth
It reradiates from the ground thru the air parcel.
No one has mentioned volcanic eruptions beneath the oceans.
This itself releases gases and warms the oceans which as they warm release c02. The warm oceans then also warm the atmosphere. Warm atmosphere does not warm the oceans. simple bathtub tests can prove this.
“Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius.” Not because of the rise in CO2, for which a doubling will raise the temperature by 1C, but because of an “amplification” caused by an increase in water vapour. They haven’t any idea how much cloud cover will increase because of the extra water vapour so ignore it. Clouds currently reflect circa 30% of incoming radiation from the Sun.
The details are much more complicated than that. Having more clouds could potentially trap more heat, making warming worse: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/09/01/project-clouds-climate-modeling/
The CO2 scale is logarithmic so the temp can only go up 1.5 or so. I don’t see where you get an amplification in water vapor via CO2. Areas of continents affected by water vapor are going to be marine coastal climates (polar/tropical), islands, areas around large lakes. Across the 30 degree parallels are the location of our desert regions which are not prone to moisture. They will remain the hot dry regions bright & sunny that they are. I don’t see where extra water vapor would be obtained; it’s already there based on the current configuration of land masses & ocean basins. Not until major tectonic action kicks in & reconfigures the earth.
So is it true that if we had no atmospheric co2, which currently makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere; the maths models say the earths average temperature would be zero Celsius??
We would not be able to model such a hypothetical. It would be difficult for our planet’s evolution not to have CO2. Volcanism, the primordial source of CO2, is part of the fabric of terrestrial planets given that this is a vented product from any volcanic eruption. Then came the age of the first bacteria which photosynthesized sunlight & dumped off the oxygen which was toxic to it. During the Palezoic we had the first foundations laid of oil & coal seams. I have not seen any equations on this inquiry.
Perhaps you have already done it, but please explain the mechanism by which CO2 causes Ocean Warming.
Does liquid water absorb LWIR at the frequency CO2 emits?
Doubtful. That is, C02 has been increasing substantially since the industrial age, but it is still a trace gas. The amount of climate change is too great to be caused by the trace amounts of CO2. Additionally, Earth has been through five significant ice age and warming cycles before the industrial age and any related CO2 emissions. The last 200 years are minor time when compared to 4.5 Billion years, the age of the earth.
You are correct it is still a trace gas & that is because the repositories absorb it & this issue is apparently not discussed in intro science classes. The texts may be written just to get people to be alarmed & buy an EV when they grow up. I can confirm the 5 Ice Ages plus several warm cycles well before the IR. Geologists have broken down the lifespan of the planet into several cycles ranging from large to somewhat large to medium to small. Geologically speaking a 200 year time span is considered just a blip on the chronological scale–sort of a like a nanosecond. Additionally, when intro science speaks to the Ice Age they only refer to the Pleistocene but not any of the early ones.
For an an actual IPCC accredited climate scientist who can explain the the mistakes of both deniers and alarmists, go to drroyspencer.com. He has actual temperature plots, and a number of articles for the layman about sampling, climate modeling and other related topics.
I do communicate with Roy because he is a centrist & a straight arrow. He uses data, not hypothetical plots. He also works with John Christy who is also very sound in the science. John participated in the IPCC. To make note, the debate is often misframed as an us v them thing. People who don’t believe in climate alarmism are not necessarily deniers. Climate changes & it goes in cycles. What scientists disagree about include these 4 things: anthropogenic vs universal contribution, specific processes as they relate to the gas laws, thermodynamics, the electro-magnetic spectrum, energy accessibility/efficacy/storage capacity, proxies vs actual data, & the contributions from the other subgenres of earth science. I personally consider myself to be well-versed in the 4 genres of earth science. I have followed many podcasts & a whole of literature. I do not buy into media blirbs or what Leo D. says. I go by the literature as presented in my vast library of textbooks. On complex physics, I resort to scientists that are deep in this field & there’s around 20 or so.
“Of the remaining 1 percent, the main molecules that can absorb infrared radiation are CO2 and water vapor, because their atoms are able to vibrate in just the right way to absorb the energy that the Earth gives off. ”
How convenient? They found the substance they love to hate, but plants love to love, and blame it for global warming — a term already quite defunct.
But how is it that CO2 being 53% denser than air, is able to hover in the atmosphere indefinitely?
Also this section did not answer the origination question, why CO2 being only 0.04 % of air composition, can act as a cap to trap heat. Not making any sense.
I am even more unconvinced now after reading this article. Patronizing and disrespectful to the intelligence of the man on the street.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/09/23/carbon-dioxide-distribution-atmosphere/
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
Why don’t you include the percentage of atmospheric CO2 which is natural ?
If excess CO2 is causing global warming, How did a 3 1/2 miles thick ice sheet melt before the Industrial Revolution?
On line you can see a chart, source : Scource ’02 ( temperature ) ,Berwer ‘ 01 ( co2 ) this chart goes back in time 600 million years. If you go back 4,500,000 years you will see we are IN an ice age, BUT the co2 is 4,500 PPM ! HOW can the co2 be that HIGH IN AN ICE AGE ? THAT tells me co2 does NOT drive the earth temperature but something else does and we don’t know what yet.
Mr. Martin ( degree in oceanography from Texas A and M, electronic engineer and ham radio operator for 68 years. North pole once and South pole twice on ice core drilling team )
It is not true that water vapour in the atmosphere cannot be controlled. Fundamental physics tells us that changes to temperature and exposed surfaced area will affect rate of evaporation.
Right, and we can control the temperature of the planet by controlling our carbon emissions. I don’t think there’s an effective way to control the surface area of all the water on Earth without killing the things that live in it and depend on it.
Atmospheric vapour can be influenced by other factors other than temperature. When there is significant changes to a terrain, it will also alter the atmospheric vapour in that terrain. Large scale changes to the way water is used and exposed will also alter the atmospheric condition of a terrain. We do not need to look far. Industrialisation has clearly alter large part of Earth’s terrain through clearing of vegetation for agriculture and turning them into cities.
It is over simplification to suggest that heat control the water vapour in the atmosphere. It is one of the factor but NOT the only factor. It can be adversely affected by changes to terrain, human activities, changes to atmospheric temperature gradient, etc. Even attempts to green large region of desert to vegetation will influence local atmospheric vapour condition and ultimately impact global climate.
There is a lot of the energy in the troposhere that cannot be observed by just studying the surface temperature. This is because a lot of energy is in the form of latent heat. Latent heat of vaporisation is huge (2260 J/g) if you compare it with the amount of energy needed to raise 1 degree C of water(4.18 J/K g). The same energy for vaporisation is enough to raise the water temperature to over 540 degree C assuming that it would not boil!
We can’t control Earth’s temperature because we lack sufficient comprehension of the way our climate interacts. We can only attempt to alter the climate and try to mitigate the change. I think it is crucial for climate scientists to deepen their understanding on Earth’s water cycle. It is not enough to just look at the global surface temperature.
Scientists literally know all this and more, and they still say that to reduce water vapor in the air, we have to reduce other greenhouse gases. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
In other words, the answer is that it is water vapour that is the most important in heating the atmosphere and not CO2. Of course, it is argued that the main driver of increasing water vapour is CO2. I don’t know what the historical evidence for this is. But we should know that human CO2 emissions make up less than 4% of the CO2 total. We are meant to believe that 4% is driving the climate and 96% is not. Make that make sense.
We have already explained why you’re wrong about both of those things, multiple times. Here’s another example: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
I don’t see testing data to support this theory. I think someone should carry out a small scale of simulation test before the globe acting effort that Change human life largely. As a scientist, I have not put any hypothesis into real life before it is proven by experiment data.
I have just one question, why is the level of oxygen in the atmosphere higher than that of carbon dioxide….. Oxygen is 21% while CO² is 0.03%
CO2 is heavier than the air when at equal heat and pressure it therefore falls and is absorbed by the trees and other plants along with the soil and oceans. That it is high up in the atmosphere and acting as a greenhouse gas is not scientific.
How do people think trees etc get hold of the CO2 if this gas that makes up around 0.04% of the atmosphere?
How are the oceans soaking it up and s on?
Actually, plenty of CO2 finds its way into the upper atmosphere. This post explains how: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/09/23/carbon-dioxide-distribution-atmosphere/
If the IPCC states that CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic is just .035% of that amount, then is it accurate that the total human caused CO2 is just .0014% (14 parts per ten million) of the atmosphere? Can climate change, specifically global warming, be the result of such a miniscule portion of the entire atmosphere? Cannot other larger factors be at play other than CO2?
Ultimately, percentage points don’t really matter. The fact is that humans put 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That’s not “minuscule.”
CO2 increases temperature temperature increases CO2 this is classic positive feedback loop . Obviously there is negative feedback in the system. I presume plants grow faster when there is more CO2 so system is stabile for billions of years. CO2 used to be much higher and system didn’t spiral out of control. Can someone comment on this, it is impossible to find a climate scientist with an opinion on this issue with CO2 caused climate change.
Ok. CO2 is a cap. Please show a study on infrared transmission through a gas column representative of earths atmosphere where heat transmission is drastically decreased by an increase in 100 ppm of CO 2
CO2 absorbs IR at these w/l 1388 cm, 667 cm, 2349 cm. This is the cm unit. There is also 4300 & 15 microns (another unit of measurement). Note that these measures are discontinuous across the spectrum. The molecules at sea level or where most activities take place are widely displaced & quickly get picked up by the ocean or trees. The distinctions occur along the height of the atmospheric column where of course air pressure changes & also cloud types changes. Some clouds are opaque to IR, some reflect, some are translucent. Then again the higher the elevation, the less actual elemental molecules exist & they get spaced farther apart. That indeed will affect whether any particular CO2 molecule because of its vibrational capacity will disperse or absorb. A basic principle of molecular motion is that higher temps mean the molecules & atoms have lots of energy & are bouncing around w/ good speed. In a cold parcel, the molecules are like honeybees on a cold day-can’t seem to move too much. It should be noted that the air at height cannot warm itself. It receives the solar wind. The atmosphere is the thing in the way of the solar wind to the earth. The Co2 molecules that lie in the aforementioned strips of IR is what captures the photons.
The truth is that we really don’t know just how much impact water vapor has on global temperatures. Nor do we know the extent, if any, that manmade CO2 emissions contribute to any warming. What we DO know is that any fluctuations over the course of the last 140 years(the”record”) are truly insignificant given these vast fluctuations in the amount of naturally occurring water vapor. The 140 years of recorded data, in comparison to the age of the planet, is not dissimilar to the difference between the thickness of a single sheet of paper and almost 3 miles. Or, about 8 inches compared to almost 3,000 miles. How many ice ages have we had before?
Scientists say that water vapor has a low residence time so does not matter that much as it’s converted back & forth in the hyrological science. However, we all know what humidity is like & that’s not going away (if you heard the expression-it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity). None of us were around for a long enough lifespan BCE to observe climate & this applies to the future. Humans simply don’t live long enough. We have had 5 Ice Ages-the Huronian, the Saharan, the Cryogenic, the Koo, & most recently the Pleistocene Age. The Milankovitch Cycles would induce another. Likewise the Hadean & Carboniferous were warm ages. The average incline in temp at 1.6 is nothing to write home about. Milankovitch would have an effect sooner than the expected plate tectonics in some 50-100 million years when the North American Plate bumps into Asia.
It is actually the opossite, an increase in water vapor caused by the increased sun activity warming our vast oceans, follows an increase of CO2 because heat and humidity accelerates the decomposition of decay matter thanks to bacteria action.
https://youtu.be/bMenLxORN6M This is a link on some new technology people might not be aware of. It begs the question-why don’t you see all your reps chasing it. Nobody likes viewing all this garbage. Where is the advocacy to develop these boats & either assign it to an epa or private contractor. Not trendy enough. No campaign donations.
What people may not be aware of in circular reasoning on the co2. People have been led to believe that it’s manmade co2 that situates itself about the planet & thus drives warming. So it begs the question: well during the course of every day, vegetation during nighttime exhales co2. Then we a tad of volcanic degassing, we have the oceans. A co2 molecule is a co2 molecule. How does one’s logic demonstrate that the manmade co2 is a problem but what comes out of our exhalation is some how benign. So I reiterate my earlier point, this whole controversey has nothing to do with designing a strategy to cool the earth. The crux of the matter is to design carbon markets by which some entity thought to be out of line with powers that be can be punished by fines which can then be redistributed to poorer nations & the guys at the UN can celebrate their Nobel Peace Prize. BTW I always try to explore issues & the info out there per some Nobel physicists is that co2 follows warming, not precedes. In terms of new technology I have nothing against solar or wind or biofuel but I want the grid to be decided by the market not politicians who could not pass a 3rd grade science test. Putting up a bunch of solar farms is not going to take down the planet’s temp. It’s just about getting these people in the market. But the question remains: how will people in high latitudes keep warm in the winter & will everybody have enough income to buy an electric car which will add stress to the grid because there will be constant recharging.
The CO2 that we exhale is part of the carbon cycle. It ultimately came from eating food that grew when a plant took CO2 out of the air, so overall there is no net change in CO2. What DOES create a net change is when we take tons and tons carbon out of the ground — in the form of oil, gas, or coal — and burn it, dumping billion of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that wouldn’t have been there before. It throws the cycle out of whack for a long time.
So you have told by a certain sector of people. But 2 points: should we have remained in the days of the Stone Age w/o furnaces to keep warm in winter & should have avoided all electrical gadgets of any kind that have improved quality of life? So it makes no difference if we have megatons or gigatons, because it still only occupies 0.038% of the atmospheric composition. Why does it remain here? Because the majority of molecules are scooped up by the sinks of this unique planet. When one speaks in gigatons, it sounds enormously alarming; but when speaks in percentage composition, co2 does not hit the alarm. In fact some of it is necessary for life to go on. The point I’m making is there is no key for alarmism. Alarmism should have facilitated that those who really believe in the planet going kaput in 12 years to drop their cars & use of any type of vehicle save a bicycle, remove all oil & natural gas furnaces from any building, & eliminate the use of our electrically connected gadgetry such as a cell phone, a computer, a blender, a stove, a vacuum cleaner, a telephone land line.
Ok, you keep swallowing the lies from the fossil fuel companies.
Regarding the percent of carbon in the atmosphere: It only takes a few drops of cyanide to poison somebody. The cyanide will probably make up 0.038% or less of your body weight when you swallow it, but it can still be deadly.
Sarah-I don’t work for such companies. I’m a retired educator with 2 masters degrees (earth science/math). You are talking about 2 distinct molecules. Hey w/o co2 we would have no food. People are thinking that there just gazillions of co2 molecules around them, they are so spaced out b/c they are quickly taken up because we have these repositories. You have to do more research on some of the harder stuff & especially around the manipulation of the graphs. in addition, let me make it emphatically clear, climate does change. The Earth as a 4.5 billion history of the climate changing. But the heart of climate change points to the overall conductor which is our Sun,, the unbalanced positions of landmasses & ocean basins which in turn set up our wind belts & air pressure belts & ocean currents. Not to mention the many biomes we have on the planet & the geological structures which in turn lends itself to microclimates. You have to be able to read the motives of “people who are alarmists vs people who just have an opinion”. They do not want us in cars it’s that simple.
You may not work for such companies, but the lies you are perhaps unintentionally sharing have been proven to be paid for by fossil fuel companies.
Nobody is saying that we need to get rid of every molecule of the CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to return it to normal levels.
Nobody is saying that fossil fuels haven’t helped build the world we live in. We’re saying that it’s time to move on to newer and better technologies that don’t pollute the atmosphere.
“You have to do more research.” The Earth Institute has had hundreds of scientists researching climate change for decades. You read that entire body of work and then we can continue this discussion. Until then, byeeee
Ever stop to think people themselves dont want cars and not just due to the pollution but also the vast resources and labour , of others typically, required to have one?
Ever stop to think that hundreds of millions of people have better plans for those resources and certainly the labour aka their work?
It is after all their own lives isn’t it?
Or have some maintained slavery and servitude, ownership of people, in opposition to the Universal Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms?
The past 60 years tell ls that tale. Pretty accurately at that.
The market? Automakers were bailed out (2008). And not due to lame “jobs and the economy” arguments but by threats of chaos.
Prediction did not pan out. The incline over the century was 1.6 degrees. I would just not label this as alarming. It is also rather pointless to derive a planetary average. Climate is really only pertinent to one’s immediate geographic region. In any given year, some places may be warm, some cold, some very rainy or snowy. The media has faciliated attention toward a degree of warmth. When I was growing up in the 70s, they were worried about an ice age. The bottom line is Mother Nature decides the climate, not mankind. The ulterior motive is to set up carbon markets where various entities can be taxed (punished) for using x amount of carbon that can be redistributed to some other poor region. Instead of trying to engineer a real economy, the powers that be always resort to manipulation of something that punishes humans. By the way one co2 molecule would not know the difference if it bumped into one that came out of a volcano or out of the mouth of a human or out of the back end of a car. Co2 absorbs IR in 4 specific wavelengths, not the whole spectrum of light. People may be under the impression based on the selective language of the scientists who have an agenda, that the Sun emits only in 1 part of the spectrum. It does not. These same scientists neglect to mention the 3 major repositories of co2 absorption which are the oceans (any water body), any vegetation (from tree to plankton), & limestone. It is the last factor that prevents the Earth from obtaining the runaway greenhouse effect of Venus.
This is not answering the question scientifficly., but politically. Please explain with relevant physicd why waterwapor is not the main driver. Saying that «we cannot control it» makes absolutely no sense,
The burning of fossil fuels allows for more life on the planet’s surface.
If co2 trapped heat dry ice wouldn’t be possible and the muffler on ur car wouldn’t get hot. Water vapor conducts heat even better, go outside on a frosty morning soaking wet. Takes alot of energy to turn water into vapor.
I don’t believe that CO2 “traps” energy any more than glass on a green house doesn’t trap heat except for the time in the glass as it were. I believe that CO2 acts more of a reflector not trapper. Though under pressure as in the extreme high pressure of a diesel engine the CO2 forms “sparks” of CO2, thats how hot it gets.when you burn high carbon fuel like diesel or heavier even.