The link is to an article that explains the science behind global warming in terms that even I could understand. I'm not trying to reignite the debate. I'm posting this as a reference for anyone who cares enough to further their understanding of the relationship between the Sun, Earth and atmospheric temperature.

Coeur d'Alene Press: Weather Gems - An 'enlightening' paper on global warming : Weather Gems - An 'enlightening' paper on global warming

As for the title of the thread, I'm at the FJ in Post Falls, ID. I went in to get breakfast and stopped to grab a newspaper on the way. The Spokane paper that I would have bought was sold out so I got the Post Falls paper. The referenced article isn't syndicated and is unique to this paper. If I hadn't been here on this day and bought this paper I probably never would have seen the article. I'm lucky I found it and, if you're intersted in the global warming debate, I think you'll get a lot from it.

 

The earth has been warming since the peak of the last ice age, 30-some odd thousand years ago. End of debate.

 

Venezuela, Syria and Iran are working on the global warming problem.
They are currently designing a nuclear winter program, to cool the Earth.

Nasa has been telling these people how vital and important their math and science has been to the world. :thumbsup:

 

Thanks for the info and link, Swanny. Always looking for a challenge.

I'm glad it included the author's email addy, cuz I got a few questions for him. I ain't no Quantum Physicist... but... I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night! :lol2:

I noticed TWO "typos" (or at least, I HOPE they were.) So much for his "editor" wifey! :lol:

But, more importantly, I noticed at LEAST one major assumption he made that, I believe, ignores OTHER accepted scientific reasoning. I can't wait to discuss them with him. (Actually... there were several.)

I certainly agree that MUCH of our global (or surface) warming is due to the "excitation" of molecules by light photons in EVERYTHING on the Earth's surface... especially in very URBAN areas like New York City. Asphalt and Concrete are two MAJOR offenders! However...

Since the surface of the MOON is mostly sand and dust... by all accounts very "desert like" materials and VERY "reflective" in nature... not unlike our OWN deserts.... and the MOON receives a similar if not equal amount of the Sun's rays... WHY is the atmospheric temperature (let alone the surface temp) of the MOON so much COLDER than that of say... the Sahara, or Nevada? [step out of your truck out there today and TELL me it's not HOT!]

Granted, there is no OXYGEN or NITROGEN on the moon, in the amounts here on Earth, but the author DISCOUNTS these elements as being "lossless" elements (and says they make up 99% of OUR atmosphere!)

So... the DIFFERENCE is how much of the Sun's "energy" (after...OR before... being converted to HEAT) ESCAPES our planet (in a "weakened" state of energy) through the ATMOSPHERE here on Earth? And WHAT molecules in that atmosphere "re-absorb" (or reflect) those PHOTONS of "light?"

He doesn't mention the fact that our atmosphere TRAPS oxygen (created by photosynthesis from our plantlife) that SUSTAINS human life. Or how those oxygen molecules are "excited" by the Sun's energy PHOTONS (creating HEAT.) And the question is... how much MORE heat is caused (or trapped) by the excitation of the sun's photons in a more "dense" molecule of CO2 than one of CO (oxygen)???

Maybe NONE. I don't KNOW! But, it SOUNDS like he is saying that Nitrogen and Oxygen make up MOST of our atmosphere and DON'T trap OR produce HEAT. So the 1% of "other" molecules DO produce (or TRAP) all the heat. And of THESE.... Carbon Dioxide is about half or a third! [If you discount his TYPO in this figure.]

If ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere can totally CONTROL the temperature of our planet, and CO2 is ONLY 1/3rd of those OTHER "elements," then I submit that a small increase in CO2 can have a MAJOR effect on the surface temp of the planet.... and THAT is the basis of the claims about "Global Warming."

The planet is WARMING. NOT at the same rate expected by orbital changes which were responsible for earlier Ice Ages (and the subsequent warming) ... but at an exponential rate since the Industrial Revolution! SOME of this is due to the deforestation and asphaltization of urban areas. But MUCH of it is due to the molecular "alteration" of the PERFECT combination of atmospheric "elements" that the GOD some profess to believe in CREATED for this planet!

Did GOD make a mistake? Do any of YOU know something HE didn't know? You think it's OKAY to alter the molecular make-up of our planet and its atmosphere? The ONLY celestial body that we know of that would support human life... HIS creation??

I'm sorry for the RANT. It's the "collective you" and all of that! I just like breathing CLEAN air! I think if someone is going to RAPE the planet, they should have the GOOD graces not to try to "get off" on a technicality!

Or at LEAST wear a rubber! :hellno::lol:

 

The moon does not have an atmosphere to capture heat. But in sunlight it can be more than 100 degrees C, in darkness less than -150 degrees C. All in all there is not much about the moon that you can use to make inferences about global warming.

 

fingerlakes said:

That was essentially my point.

Actually, I was under the impression it had 1/6th the atmosphere of the Earth, but either way... this virtual "vacuum" would be almost entirely "lossless" (perfectly radiating.) So, if 99% of Earth's atmosphere is equally "lossless," that shows how "reactive" (if that's the right word) the remaining elements are... and how a minor change in the makeup of that 1% would have dramatic effects on our temperatures.

This is true, but only at the most "immediate" surface. Even during the days, a SHADOW of a rock or mountain would be closer to the nighttime temps. There is just nothing to trap the heat.

From the surface of the moon, looking up, the sky is dark even during the days. This indicates that all the heat and light rays (for that matter) are trapped within a very short distance of the surface due to reflectivity of the surface. It's like going camping in the mountains on a very clear night. Standing next to the campfire, it is relatively warm. Stand 20 feet away, and you need a coat.

Maybe, maybe not. It was the first thing that came to mind to show how much the "non-lossless" elements in our atmosphere not only CAUSE the residual warming of our planet, but also how critical the makeup of that 1% is. The oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere may be necessary for human existence, but they do little to maintain a liveable temperature.

That other 1% is partly CO2 and partly water vapor. BOTH are greenhouse gases that trap heat. As the oceans warm, more water vapor is generated. As we pump more CO2 into the air, that percentage increases.

The reason we don't freeze at night (like the moon) is because of that miniscule part of our atmosphere that traps the heat generated by the surface elements that create the heat. A 3% change in the makeup of 1% of our atmosphere is exponentially more significant than a 3% change in the TOTAL atmosphere.

If you have an army of 5 against an army of 95... and each side loses even ONE, which side will be more affected?

The author SAID he was presenting a "dumbed down" explanation, and maybe there is more to it that I'm not seeing. But, the majority of scientists agree with the principles and dangers of Global warming, and I agree with them.

If you're still interested, I found this article very interesting:

Atmospheric Effects on Planetary Surface Temperatures