The 'Greenhouse Effect' discovered in 1824 by Joseph Fourier is what keeps the earth from being a frozen ball in space. Without greenhouse gases (GHG's) the temperature of earth would be below freezing and incapable of supporting life as we know it. It is precisely because GHG's other than water are such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that adding a little more can have a large effect on the climate system of earth. Reviewed by Ralph Keeling (http://scripps.ucsd.edu/); written & narrated by John P. Reisman
@dareapa1 W/m^2 is the best way to calculate temperature on planets where we do not live. It is the combination of reflectivity, Total Solar Irradience and radiative forcing influence from greenhouse gases that creates a baseline for estimation. Otherwise, how would you calculate and explain the mechanism that gives Venus a temperature of 460º C? You can't.
uscentrist 2 months ago
and look up the radiative forcing calcs from NASA and how temperature is determined. If you really want a good lesson along with a walk through the physics, I recommend David Archers course from the University of Chicago, Illinois, which is now online at: geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
uscentrist 2 months ago
@dareapa1 Your math is wrong. Current increase for RF is 1.66 on the mean; that does not translate to 1,600 W/m^2 on a per year basis for the surface area of Earth. The correct number is 26,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. Going to 1.8 is an increase of 3ZJ above 1.66 W/m^2 bringing the total increase to 29 ZJ or 29,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. Check your sources of information and verify before making claims.
uscentrist 2 months ago
@dareapa1 Going from 2 to 2.5 is a significant increase. As to important greenhouse gases take a look at the numbers: ossfoundation.us/the-leading-edge/projects/environment/global-warming/greenhouse-gases CO2 accounts for 20% of the greenhouse effect. Your use of the word important is unimportant. Without that tiny fraction of CO2 Earth would be a frozen planet. So yes, a tiny fraction does make a difference.
uscentrist 2 months ago
@dareapa1 and just for reference on what a micron is, a hair is about 100 microns thick, that 2 microns is an accurate comparison to how little Co2 is in the air...
dareapa1 2 months ago
@uscentrist the earth is already receiving about 1.6 kW/M^2, that's 1,600 w/m^2, so an additional 1.8 W/m^2 is a very small increase. Mercury receives 3-7 times as much W/m^3 as Venus, yet the temperature on mercury averages at about 160 C, while the temperature on Venus averages at about 460 C. In other words W/m^2 is not an accurate way to determine temperature.
dareapa1 2 months ago
@uscentrist if that sweater was 2 microns thick in the first place would the increase two about 2 1/2 microns make much of a difference? no. also, Co2 is not the most important greenhouse gas, there is too little to have an effect, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas and is what keeps the earth warm.
dareapa1 2 months ago
Also, the increase is from 280ppm to 390ppm which has increased the total radiative forcing of the Earth climate system, all in, around 1.8 W/m2 (according to recent NASA data). Multiply that number by the total number of meters on the surface of the planet and you will begin to see that it is a very large total increase.
uscentrist 2 months ago
@dareapa1 Just a couple of problems with your misunderstanding. 1. without that tiny fraction of CO2, Earth is a frozen ball in space. 2. If you put on a sweater that is 39% thicker, would you be warmer of cooler that with out the extra thickness? Context is key.
uscentrist 2 months ago
i love how he pointed out the 39% rise in Co2 levels without pointing out it is only a 0.001% rise in Co2 content compared to the rest off the atmosphere, 39% of 0.035% isn't all that much of a total increase...
dareapa1 2 months ago