Isn't one of the contentions of the Global Warming Theorists that CO2 in the atmosphere TRAPS Heat?
CO2 is a heavier molecule than air and will FALL towards the earth eventually.
Excerpt from Source: = http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
"Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps."
CO2 in larger amounts Killing Trees:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/LongValley/30210600_004_caption.html
The only reason I see that CO2 is increasing excessively is the warming oceans ability to absorb back into itself. Soil seems to accept CO2 in larger amounts - but oceans are much larger.
Warm water emits CO2 - cold water absorbs CO2.
2007-11-24
10:47:25
·
6 answers
·
asked by
Rick
7
in
Environment
➔ Global Warming
If CO2 exists in the upper atmosphere (which I doubt any winds can keep the heavier CO2 higher up very long) then the scientists must have tested for CO2 at various levels in the atmosphere.
Please provide where to find the data for CO2 in the atmosphere!
Or is the whole thing JUST a THEORY?
The whole theory sounds VERY ineffective at TRAPPING HEAT anywhere even close to the efficiency of CLOUDS.
2007-11-24
17:15:09 ·
update #1
Actually this quote is not quite correct =
"The emission process is isotropic, so on average half of the photons are emitted toward the ground and half toward space."
The photons can emit in 6 directions = North, South, East, West, Up or Down ! So only about 1/6th will reflect back towords earth.
Anyone See the Logic?
2007-11-24
17:39:01 ·
update #2
Sorry Saphire! You didn't read what I posted.
Where is the DATA that PROVES CO2 even exists in the higher ATMOSPHERE???
CO2 is HEAVIER than AIR and FALL to earth - winds can not keep up in the higher atmosphere for long periods of time
2007-11-25
01:35:36 ·
update #3
Sorry Trevor - There is no way you can ever demonstrate or PROVE that any CO2 in higher atmosphere (if it exists an any appreciable amounts) can act as a HEAT TRAP!
Believe whatever you want but you CAN'T ANSWER the question.
2007-11-25
04:45:57 ·
update #4
Again very juvenile and Clintonesque of you. Visit the Sun = very juvenile, Clintonesque = accuse others of what you are guilty of.
Apparently you don't even read answers to your own question if you don't what I believe!?!?
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for you to prove that CO2 poses ANY threat to mankind, other than parroting false beliefs. You might need to change your religeon?
2007-11-25
05:45:06 ·
update #5
dis_email_if_fake - what you based your answer on is likely from:
http://www.letus.northwestern.edu/projects/gw/pdf/A03.pdf
Notice on that web page it states =
"Notice also that Venus’ temperature remains fairly constant, while Mercury’s temperature fluctuates by 960°F (533°C) each day!"
That seems like the variation is FAR greater than a static temperature. Also what Alarmists
seem to overlook is a planets interior temperature - Lots of volcanoes on Venus!?
Mercury could be a 'dead rock' where temperature 960°F which looks like it is hotter than venus.
2007-11-27
06:03:51 ·
update #6
CO2 (MW=44) is a bit heavier than nitrogen (MW=28) or oxygen (MW=32), but is nevertheless well-mixed in the atmosphere from top to bottom due to convection (wind) at the bottom and a long mean free path at the top. The earth absorbs visible light from the sun and re-radiates in the infrared. Initially the emitted photons are headed for space.(For more detail, look up the Plank black body distribution for sun and earth.) When CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, the molecule goes into an excited state. (For spectra and absorption cross sections, consult the HITRAN database.) If the excited molecule collides with another molecule, the energy from the excited state can be transferred into kinetic energy (heat) of the colliding molecules. Alternately, the excited state can relax by re-emitting an infrared photon. The emission process is isotropic, so on average half of the photons are emitted toward the ground and half toward space. The process of absorption and emission is repeated many times in the atmosphere, so the energy transport can be thought of as a diffusion process. The hindrance to energy flow into space is the greenhouse effect.
Rinsland, C. P., M. R. Gunson, R. Zander, and M. López-Puertas (1992), Middle and upper atmosphere pressure-temperature profiles and the abundances of CO2 and CO in the upper atmosphere from ATMOS/Spacelab 3 observations, J. Geophys. Res., 97(D18), 20,479–20,495.
http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/
2007-11-24 12:34:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by d/dx+d/dy+d/dz 6
·
6⤊
1⤋
Rick, for once please do some research. I'm not going to waste my time providing an detailed answer - you won't agree with it so you'll automatically dismiss it.
There are thousands of websites that explain atmospheric sampling.
I look forward to your next question claiming that we can't sample the atmosphere because we've not invented balloons, planes or satellites.
You may wish to consider purchasing breathing apparatus, if heavier gases fall to Earth then we're all breathing in radon.
It might be an idea to research the role of oceans and soil in more detail as well. However, be warned that this will refute your unfounded argument.
I've answered, in detail, every point you've raised in my previous answers. I don't propose to do so again, here.
- - - - - - - - -
RE YOUR ADDED COMMENTS
With all due respect, it appears to me that you don't know the first thing about the atmopshere, some of the things you're saying are momumentally stupid. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if heavier gases sink to earth then the atmopshere would be composed of layers of gas with the heaviest (radon) at the bottom and the lightest (hydrogen) at the top. That would have been interesting when the first rocket was launched, could you imagine the effects when the tail-flame reached the layer of oxygen and then the layer of hydrogen (assuming that the hydrogen was still there after the oxygen had blown the planet up).
The point you are attempting to make is beyond the sublime. Find a single website, anything, anywhere by anyone that substantiates your claims. Heck, I'll even accept research from the oil companies, the most right wing conservatives or schoolkids.
I don't need to prove that CO2 can act as a heat trap - you can, I've explained enough times in my previous answers how anyone can do this with a few simple household objects. However, I have to assume that you wouldn't want to do this as it would expose you to demonstrable proof of the greenhouse effect.
Have you searched for atmopsheric sampling techniques - no, didn't think so.
Don't you think that of your arguments had even the slightest bit of credinbility to them that they'd have been used many times over by those scientists that are skeptical of climate change - the people who actually know how greenhouse gas work and the techniques used for atmospheric sampling.
Rick, question global warming and climate change by all means but stop inventing your own facts to fit some bizarre notion of yours.
2007-11-25 04:25:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Hello Bob, The heat that comes toward us from the Sun is in the form of solar radiation – it’s heat that is radiated out from the Sun. Because the Sun is so hot, these waves of energy are very energetic and they have a short wavelength. This heat energy passes down through our atmosphere where some of it is absorbed by the ground (and all the things on it), which are then warmed up. Later in the day when the air cools down, this heat energy is radiated back out from those surfaces, only this time it’s coming from a much cooler source and so it has a longer wavelength. The incoming solar radiation has now been converted into outgoing thermal radiation. The wavelength of the thermal radiation corresponds to the vibrational frequency of the molecules of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because both are harmonised or in synch with one another, the greenhouse gas molecules can absorb the heat energy. Some of this trapped heat is radiated back down to Earth and it’s this mechanism that we call the greenhouse effect. Some is lost into space and some is radiated out only to be absorbed by other greenhouse gas molecules. As levels of greenhouse gases increase, more and more heat energy is being trapped in the atmosphere, this is what we refer to as global warming and the effects of this are referred to as climate change.
2016-05-25 06:05:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The planet Venus contains a dense atmosphere of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Its surface temperature is about 470 degrees Celsius, which is even higher than Mercury's which is nearer to the Sun. So doesn't it make sense that CO2 traps Sun's heat? Or maybe you would be saying that it's the greenhouse gases which traps heat but since CO2 is also a greenhouse gas so yeah, it's still the same.
2007-11-27 01:02:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The mechanism by which carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect." Stated very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. As such, it allows incoming solar radiation from the sun to pass through it and warm the earth's surface. The earth's surface, in turn, emitts a portion of this energy upwards toward space as longer wavelength or thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere's CO2 molecules back toward earth's surface, providing an additional source of heat energy. Without water vapor, CO2, and other radiatively-active trace gases in the air, the planet's average temperature would be about 34°C cooler than it is at present.
2007-11-24 22:07:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by *~Sapphire~* 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
You seem to want to believe whatever you want without even checking out other credible scientific facts. So if I told you that I believed that the Sun went around the Earth, and nothing anybody says will ever change my mind. All I have to say is" Has anyone actually been to the Sun to check it out? NO! So i win!" See how silly you look? Science is REAL! Science gets better every day! It just seems like many of the deniers of Climate Change also believe in Creationism. Do you? If your God did create such a wonderful place,why hesitate to clean it up and save it?
2007-11-25 05:13:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋