Which is more potent on Global Warming, CO2 or CH4? Why do we relate Global Warming to CO2?

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

@Mahalakshmi DV

Thank you for your answer

1 Recommendation

Bachir Achour

Université de Biskra

Dear Nabeel,

The greenhouse gases responsible for global warming are not limited to carbon dioxide (CO2): scientists are also concerned about the large increase in methane in the atmosphere. Billions of tonnes of methane from organic decomposition are trapped in the Arctic subsoil, called permafrost. With global warming causing ice to melt, scientists are worried about the consequences of releasing this methane in the Arctic ice. Carbon dioxide, or CO2 and methane (CH4) are both greenhouse gases. The first remains in the atmosphere for nearly 200 years while the latter remains there only a dozen years. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming: it has an impact on the greenhouse effect about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2). Its global warming potential (GWP) is therefore 25, and it increases with time: it is estimated at 62 within 20 years. Methane emissions are increasing over time, particularly because of the reserves of methane trapped in the Arctic subsoil, called permafrost. Increasing temperatures accelerate the melting of ice, and scientists are concerned about the consequences of releasing this methane from the Arctic ice. CO2 emissions remain the most harmful to the climate due to their very high level, but other gases also act on the greenhouse effect: water vapor (H2O), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)... and methane (CH4) in particular. As methane progresses, climate change accelerates. But scientists do not want to draw conclusions for now, since the phenomenon of methane is too recent to draw any "trend". At an equal quantity, methane is therefore more potent in greenhouse effect than CO2. But methane emissions are not as high as carbon dioxide emissions. To know which gas has the most impact on climate, scientists reason in "CO2 equivalent"; the effect of each gas is expressed as a function of the CO2 effect (which is 1 by definition).

Carbon dioxide has much more influence on climate than methane, from the point of view of current emissions.

With my best regards

Prof. Bachir ACHOUR

5 Recommendations

Pedro L. Contreras E.

University of the Andes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw

Filipe Wiltgen

Faculdade de Tecnologia de São Paulo

Len Leonid Mizrah

Independent Researcher

Ljubomir Jacić

Technical College Požarevac

Bachir Achour

Université de Biskra

Dear Nabeel,

Carbon dioxide has much more influence on climate than methane, from the point of view of current emissions.

With my best regards

Prof. Bachir ACHOUR

5 Recommendations

Birhanu Iticha

The University of Adelaide

One mole of methane is 10 times more powerful than one mole of CO2 in accelerating global warming. But the concentration of methane in the atmosphere lower than that of CO2. Currently, the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is CO2 because its increasing concentration from time to time. It is released from industries, vehicles, deforestation practices, etc

3 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear Birhano Iticha. Your answer is more than enough. Best regards.

1 Recommendation

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Dear Nabeel,

Prof. Achour has rightly mentioned "Carbon dioxide has much more influence on climate than methane ...."

Methane has a GWP (global warming potential) of 21, which means it's 21 times more effective at preventing infrared radiation from escaping the planet. But, its amount in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, that is why the overall greenhouse effect of methane is much lower, only about half or less that of carbon dioxide.

Besides, the atmospheric lifetime of methane is about 12 years, whereas it varies between 50 and 200 years for carbon dioxide.

Regards

4 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear Asit Kumar Batabyal and Bachir Achour for your valuable comments. Best regards.

Suchit Rai

Indian Council of Agricultural Research

In nutshell Co2 is more responsible for global warming since its concentration is quite higher than other green house gases. I do agree with above answers

3 Recommendations

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Suchit Rai,

Yes Suchit, it's the conclusion in one sentence. Thanks

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Many thanks dear Asit Kumar Batabyal and dear Sachit Rai for your professional comments. Best regards.

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear Kenneth M Towe, another professional answer from the professionals. Best regards.

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear Ales Kralj for the perfectly organized (scientific) answer. Best regards.

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Comments of Dr.Kenneth and Dr.Ales - Valuable information. Thanks

1 Recommendation

Ali hadi Ghawi

University of Al-Qadisiyah

hello

Global warming is the main cause of CO2 that causes greenhouse phenomena

REGARDS

3 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear Ali hadi Ghawi.Best regards.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1988-2017

Technical University of Denmark

Kenneths claim that "Methane has been declining" as well as "Global temperatures have "paused"" disagree with data. It is denialism dogma that shouldn't be allowed on RG just as no journal would publish such nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#/media/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

3 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear Henrik Rasmus Andersen, my question was clear and I am responsible for it. If you have a clear answer then you are welcome, otherwise it is not normal to interrupt the conversation with a side route away from the the main question, so please let the audience hear your comment about the main question above. Best regards.

2 Recommendations

Technical University of Denmark

I should have mentioned that I completely agree with most of the answers that CO₂ is the GHG responsible for most of the man made increase in the greenhouse effect. Methane contributes with less warming potential but as it also increase in concentration due to human activities it should not be disregarded from the planning of reduction emissions.

Another important GHG is N₂O which is also produced as a by-product from human activities.

4 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear Henrik Rasmus Anderson. Best regards.

Isam Issa Omran

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

I agree and recommend the answer of Dr. Birhano Iticha

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear Dr. Isam Issa Omran. Good luck

Quantum mehanics exposes that neither CO2 nor CH4 has a significant effect on climate. The EMR absorption they do at ground level is thermalized (energy is shared with surrounding molecules warming the near-ground atmosphere). Further radiation from the warmed gas (energy distribution according to Maxwell-Bosmann distribution of molecule energy) is rerouted up via water vapor (WV is the only significant ghg). At higher altitudes (3+km), thermalization brings CO2 back in to play.

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear Dan Pangburn, your comment is completely unfamiliar. Do you have an article?

Load: http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

DIY

Set: wavenumber 0-1500, species H2O, CO2, Scale to atmospheric abundance, Standard atmosphere, 0 altitude, min intensity 0.0001 to block meaningless noise, Linear, Sticks.

Note that CO2 influence is barely discernable at 667/cm.

See the decline of WV with altitude at http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/earth-radiator.html

1 Recommendation

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

The comment of Mr. Dan Pangburn gives a new concept about climate. This advocates that water vapor is the significant GHG and has major effects on climate not CO2 or CH4.

The given link (http://homeclimateanalysis. ..................) points to an investigation on the above concept.

What climate researchers say on this?

Regards

2 Recommendations

Alastair Bain McDonald

Independent Researcher

Asit,

Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas in the tropics, but not in polar regions where its concentration is much lower.

Moreover, the concentration of water vapour depends on temperature, and it is the greenhouse gas CO2 which keeps the planet warm enough for water vapour to exist. See the paper Lacis et al., 2010 here: "

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

3 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear Dan Pangburn, you presented a site on your claim and not an article published in a peer reviewed journal. Nevertheless let the Climate researchers (Specialists) tell us about your claim and I my self with any scientific finding. Best regards.

Alastair Bain McDonald

Independent Researcher

There are three reasons why CO2 is more important than CH4.

First, the concentration of CO2 is around 400 ppm (pars per million). The concentration of CH4 is only around 1800 ppb (parts per billion), very much less than CO2.

Second, CO2 absorbs radiation in the 15um band which is near the peak of the outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) from the Earth. Methane absorbs radiation in the 1.66 um band where there is much less OLR radiation to be absorbed.

Third, CH4 molecules are destroyed after about 10 years and converted into CO2, whereas CO2 molecules have as a much longer lifetime and are removed from the atmosphere by being dissolved in the oceans and calcified there. But as atmospheric and oceanic concentration increases the ocean biota are less able to calcify CO2, see ocean acidification. Thus the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere increases as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere. On the other hand, CO2 has only increased by about a third since industrialisation. Whereas CH4 has doubled, http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_of%20methane_concentration_in_atmosphere_arquivos/image004.gif and is still rising despite what Dr Towe says. See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/images/F1.large.jpg

2 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear McDonald and dear M Towe, both of you provided valuable information about CO2, especially ( CO2 being "calcified" )although you disagree about the concept. But both of you accept the question concept that CO2 is more dominant than CH4. I highly appreciate your valuable information. Best regards

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

I totally agree with Nabeel - we got valuable information from Dr.Kenneth and Dr. Alastair on the generation of CO2 and CH4 and their influence on the climate etc. Excellent - educative for us.

Best regards to Dr.Kenneth and Dr. Alastair

1 Recommendation

https://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateroles/

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Please colleagues refer to the links below, if you have any comment:-

https://www.saveearth.info/global-warming/

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Excellent dear

Kenneth M Towe

, I have nothing to say but to agree with your comment. Regards

Carbon dioxide has much more influence on climate than methane.Like carbon dioxide , methane contribute toate global warming, but CO2 is increase and there are a lot of project related to capture and carbon storage and this could be a sourse of decreasing of total amount of carbon, from my point of view.

4 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Thanks a lot dear

Cristina Mihaela Balaceanu

, I appreciate your point of view. Regards

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Dear Nabeel,

The links (you provided) are informative/educative - 'Climate roles of H2O, CH4 and Co' and 'the raw facts on global warming'. Thanks

1 Recommendation

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Madam Cristina - "......a lot of project related to capture and carbon storage and this could be a source of decreasing of total amount of carbon ..." ---- Are these projects successful? Regards

1 Recommendation

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Dr. Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz - Given link "The Discovery of Global Warming" - A lengthy article. We will read it, then comments. Is it a compilation from Spencer Weart & American Institute of Physics? Thanks and regards

1 Recommendation

Failing to consider thermalization has resulted in "epic fail" of prediction of average global temperature by climate scientists. Discover why non condensing IR active gases have no significant effect on climate and what does (98+% match to measured 1895-2015) at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Excellent dear Asit Kumar Batabyal for your active participation and scientific sense,thanks a lot dear Mutasem_Bani-Fwaz for your article which is more historical review than scientific processing( which will always fail towards this difficult phenomena), thanks a lot dear Dan Pangburn for your participation. Regards

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear Kenneth M Towe, another professional answer that is clear like the SUN. Best regards.

http://www.firs.institutoventuri.org.br/en/news-en/88-influence-of-solid-waste-on-climate-change.html

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Influence of solid wastes on the emissions of CH4 and CO2 in developing countries. Please refer to the following link:-

I am ready to hear your comments.

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Dear Nabeel,

The link - News of 8th International Forum on Solid Waste (12-14 June, 2017, Brazil) on 'Influence of solid waste on climate change'.

Solid wastes are sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), not only by its relation to production and consumption, but also because of methane (CH4) when disposed in dumps or even in landfills. Discussions held on waste management activities to reduce GHG emissions. Good information - Problem invites R & D for cost effective technologies and implementation. Our institute is working on waste management and developed 'Municipal Solid Waste Management Pilot Plant for zero waste life".

Regards

2 Recommendations

Hassan Alshamsi

University of Al-Qadisiyah

Most of the climate scientists became so much more certain that the temperature is going up due to increasing of concentrations of CO₂, and other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide . I totally agree with the answers that reported the main man-made greenhouse gas is CO2. Most of the answers are professional , specially that are reported by Dr.Kenneth ,Dr. Henrik,Dr. Ales, and Dr. Bachir.Except of Alistair, almost, all professors are ignored effect of water vapor(WV) which may be it is the most powerful greenhouse gas. .The WV produced by burning gas and oils may be become a major green house gas that warms the earth .

2 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear Asit Kumar Batabyal, I hope that this pilot plant will offer optimum solutions for Solid Waste Management to reduce their detrimental effects to the environment especially the reduction of Green House Gases (GHGS)., it is an encouraging news. Regards

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Dr. Nabeel,

One good news - The Governor of West Bengal State has inaugurated the plant today. This is a waste to wealth technology. From Municipal Solid Waste, we are producing gases towards generation of electricity. Thanks

1 Recommendation

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Dr. Hassan Alshamsi - You are correct. The water vapor(WV) is considered as CHG and has also contribution to warming.

But CO2 is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does (from the paper titled "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" by Lacis et al, Science, 2010). For reading see the link provided by Dr. Alastair Bain McDonald .

Thanks and regards

2 Recommendations

https://hubpages.com/education/How-to-save-our-mother-earth-from-global-warming

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear Dr. Asit Kumar Batabyal

Thanks a lot for your valuable and significant contributions besides that of Dr. Kenneth M.Towe. Dear audience, please refer to the link and let me know if there is a solution by the man, I think that our SCHOOLS and UNIVERSITIES are responsible for teaching how to contribute to REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING:-

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

I agree with this statement of Dr. Kenneth ".........Humans cannot adjust the natural variations. They can't even predict what will happen to them" - We have to understand this. Regards

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

I can never argue with you dear Kenneth M Towe and dear Asit Kumar Batabyal, but let me say one sentence ( LET US STOP DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT), offcourse let the nature take its part. Best regards.

2 Recommendations

Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

Dr. Nabeel - "LET US STOP DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT" - This is always true for all. We all are working in that direction - analysis of problem, human role, knowledge generation & education, preventive and control measures. Regards

1 Recommendation

Re Kenneth M Towe to me 2 months ago.

Three things to consider:

1) The effective time constant for the planet average global temperature change responding to forcing change is about 5 years. Yr to yr variations in forcing are essentially 'noise' in the trend.

2) The US is less than 2% of the planet surface.

3) Correlation is with SSN, not area.

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

Dear Nabeel,

We are facing a period of enormous political influence in science as we never had in human's history. Also economical, of course.

I include below the calculation of 230 Gton of CO2 added to the atmosphere originated from fossil fuel burning since industrial times begun. Please, check the calculation.

Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html

📷 Graphics 📷 Digital Data (ASCII, Fixed Format) 📷 Digital Data (ASCII, Comma-delimited)

Trends

Since 1751 just over 400 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have occurred since the late 1980s.

CITE AS: Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2017. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017

Global Carbon Emissions

Natural Sinks

For the decade from 2005 to 2014, about 44% of CO2 emissions accumulated in the atmosphere, 26% in the ocean, and 30% on land.

Cumulative Emisions

From 1870 to 2014, cumulative carbon emissions totaled about 545 GtC. Emissions were partitioned among the atmosphere (approx. 230 GtC or 42%), ocean (approx. 155 GtC or 28%) and the land (approx. 160 GtC or 29%).

NASA

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

Bulk parameters

Mass (1024 kg) 5.9723

Volume (1010 km3) 108.321

Equatorial radius (km) 6,378.137

Polar radius (km) 6,356.752

Volumetric mean radius (km) 6,371.008

Volume calculation of one ton CO2

International Carbon Bank & Exchange

http://www.icbe.com/carbondatabase/co2volumecalculation.asp

One ton = 1000kg One cubic meter = 1000liters One mole CO2 = 44.0g (CO2 = 12.0g + 32.0g = 44.0g) One ton contains 22730 moles of CO2 (1,000,000g / 44.0g/mole) One mole is 24.47L (Boyle's law at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure) Volume of one ton CO2 = 22730moles × 24.47L/mole = 556200L = 556.2m³

Calculating....

Adding 10 km adding to the Earth’s Volumetric mean radius (‘mean volume’) and then reducing the result from the Earth’s volume. What is left is the atmospheric volume.

First we calculate the volume of the Earth sphere +10 km of and afterwards subtract from the Earth’s mean volume.

The volume enclosed by a sphere is given by the formula

Volume = 4/3 π r3

Where r is the radius of the sphere. In the figure above, drag the orange dot to change the radius of the sphere and note how the formula is used to calculate the volume. Since the 4/3 and π are constants, this simplifies to approximately 4.19 r3

Earth's volume: 4.19 x (6.371,008)3 = 1.083.523.847.477,51 km3

10 km: 4.19 x (6.381,008)3 1.088.633.990.711,63 km3

Result: 4.19 x (6.381,008- 6.371,008)3 = 5.110.143.234,12 km³ of air

One ton of CO2 occupies 556.2m³ of volume in normal T and P conditions. Varying the conditions the calculation would be a lower concentration:

230 Gton????

C + 02 = C02

12 g 44g

230 Gton X = (44/12) x 230 Gton

1 ton - 556,2 m3 (= 0,5562 10-6 km3)

400 x 109 ton X = 4 x 1011 x 0,5562 10-6 km3 = 2,2248 105 km³ de CO2

Conc em 10 km de ar:

2,2248 105 km³ / 5.110.143.234,12 km³ of air = 4,35 x 10-5 x 106 =

43,5 ppmv

This is the maximum concentration that all burned fossil fuel would produce. They say it is 450 ppmv.

As you can see by yourself, data defended by those who claim the global warming do not fit with calculation. Therefore, I believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon and I also believe that it is the natural increase of Temperature that promotes an atmospheric rise in the CO2 concentration (Sun activity? Vocanos (almost 4,000 active)??? Other???

It is not possible yet to no one to say the cause Global warming and that's why I think this claim is a fraud.

2 Recommendations

Technical University of Denmark

Jorge's calculation is wrong. The atmosphere extend to at least 80 km, the pressure in the atmosphere is lower than 1 atm. at any altitube above ground level and the average temperature is lower than 25 °C.

If the correct assumptions and method of calculation is used the increase in concentration fits the observed increase from about 285 ppmv to 400 ppmv.

3 Recommendations

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

Dear Jorge, in my opinion it is not as simple as your calculations with the assumed buondary conditions you have put, Global Warming is, with my respect to your scientific efforts. Also I greatly respect the scientific efforts of Dr. Henric Rasmus.

2 Recommendations

People, this calculation is not at all right. It is just a way to simplify to help to get the maximum concentration of CO2 added to the atmosphere. The maximum possible by the burn of all fossil fuel burned since 20 years ago.

And maximum would be 43.5 if all of it was diluted in a 10 km of atmosphere.

I do not talk about global warming reasons, IR, Reflection, etc. What I am showing to you is simply that the CO2 increase in the atmosphe, extra 170 ppmv (450 _actual - 280_{industrial times}) has a maximum possible contribution of 43.5 ppmv (100% of 100%) from anthropic reasons (considering all possible sources of losses, it doesn't account for more the 10%).

What I am trying to tell you is that this CO2 in the atmosphere comes from nature, not from fuel fossil burning.

But this is not a reason not to stop polluting the planet.

1 Recommendation

Technical University of Denmark

The problem is that the simplification (all atmosphere 1.0 atm) doesn't lead to to the maximum concentration. If you select 0.5 atm to use in your method of calculation the concentration would be double. It is incorrect then you say "The maximum possible"!

You could calculate this just as easily without oversimplification using standard methods from atmospheric chemistry and the same data. With that you get quite close to the observed CO2-concentration increase.

2 Recommendations

Samrat Sikdar

Mississippi State University

Mithane is more potent in global warming.

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

@Samrat Sikdar

You are right. But global warming is correlated with CO2.

In spite of the well-known warning that correlation does not prove causation, many have been fooled by the temporary and rather crude correlation of CO2 increase with reported temperature increase. They also ignore available scientific tools and desperately cling to failed dogma.

Hitran, using Quantum Mechanics, calculates, besides many other things, the relative absorb/emit intensity of water vapor molecules vs CO2 molecules. The calculator is here: http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php Comparison at zero altitude is shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECWhyyDUYAA1P89?format=jpg&name=medium . Comparison by the ratio of the summation of intensities (line lengths) for each wavenumber for each molecule species is 8.7/0.07 = 124. On average at ground level, according to the low populations used by Hitran, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by about 8,000/330 ≈ 24 to one. After accounting for molecule count, each WV molecule is still 124/24 ≈ 5 times more effective at warming (absorb/emit of thermal radiation) than a CO2 molecule.

The relative effectiveness of the increases of WV and CO2 over 30 years is calculated as follows:

CO2 increase in 3 decades, 1988 to 2018 = 407 - 348 = 59 parts per million by volume (ppmv)

Average global water vapor increase trend from NASA/RSS TPW data, is 0.04272/28.9 * 100 * 10 = 1.47 % per decade.

Average global WV ≈ 10,000 ppmv. WV increase in 3 decades = .0147 * 10,000 * 3 = 441 ppmv

Therefore, WV increase has been about 441/59 * 5 = 37+ times more effective at increasing ground level temperature than CO2 increase 1988-2018. (Most of the world has been falsely indoctrinated.)

Well above the tropopause, about 10 km (33,000 feet), radiation emitted from molecules there to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you ignore the increase in water vapor (big mistake), near the surface, WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase in absorbers at ground level since 1900 is then about 10,410/10,295 ≈ 1%. WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 °C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv; up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km, 0.012 atm), and accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure, is (410 + 32)/(295 + 32) * 0.012 ≈ 1.6%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming (except at the poles) and might even cause cooling. The result being that Climate Sensitivity is not significantly different from zero. The exception at the poles is because it’s cold there at ground level so WV is already low.

Humanity has contributed to warming but it’s from added water vapor not added CO2 http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Harry ten Brink

Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands

Seen from space terrestrial radiation is effectively emitted from about 5 km not from the stratosphere where the ABSOLUTE CONCENTRATIONS are low

your use of a mixing ratio is not the proper one

2 Recommendations

Mahalakshmi Dv

National Remote Sensing Centre

CO2 abundance is more than CH4, However, CH4 has 25 times more global warming potential than CO2. The life span of CH4 (12 years) is very less than the CO2 (> 100 years).

1 Recommendation

Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University

@Mahalakshmi DV

Thank you for your answer

Is the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii records for C02 representative of Global CO2 for the Earth Atmosphere? Are they the proof of GLOBAL WARMING ?

1 Recommendation

In my opinion, to measure global CO2 it is logical that measuring sites around the whole circumference of earth will be representative of global CO2 . This in turn will give erroneous results about GLOBAL WARMING.

14 answers

Asked 26 October 2018

Nabeel Hameed Al-Saati

Dear Colleagues

Give me your own opinion........Thank you

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory

How can the Paris climate agreement be maintained?

Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement threatens its future. Now, whispers of Brazil's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is heard. Seems Brazil's withdrawal influenced by the withdrawal of the USA. Under this situation, will other countries also withdraw from the agreement?

65 replies

Asked 7 January 2019

Amin Sadeqi

In your opinion, how will the withdrawal of these countries affect the future of this agreement?

Do you think Climate is really Changed or it is Temporal Variability in Climate caused by Temporal Variability in Solar Activities?

Dear Researchers: I am wondering why we say the Climate is Changed. I think it doesn't make sense, because in science, the word "Change" is used to describe a situation when a phenomenon changes from One State to Another State without returning to its Initial State, correct?

12 answers

Asked 5 October 2023

Khodabakhsh Zabihi Afratakhti

But, Climate components, e.g., temperature and precipitation, have been going through Temporal Variability over the scale of days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and ..., due to Temporal Variability in Solar Activities, correct (please, exclude the yearly seasonal variability due to the rotation of Earth's axis)?

If we think about the two periods in our Geological History such as the Ice Age and the Warming Era, it can prove that climate had been historically varying over Temporal Scales, correct? And, those Variabilities had nothing to do with human and human activities when at the Ice Age and the Warming Era, no human existed on the Earth, correct?

So, who was in charge of those variabilities if humans were not existing on Earth?

Sun and Temporal Variability in Solar Activities?

And, the last but most important question, when air temperature varies/fluctuates over two consecutive days, do you think the amount of greenhouse gases, especially the criminal one, CO2, can be that much increased/decreased Over A Day to cause the variations in air temperature?

Or, the Variations in Air Temperature for the most part is because of the Variations in Solar Activities with subsequent Variations in Solar Heat Release?

And the 2nd last question, can the horrifying words "Climate Change" with further implications made out of it to blame Humans as the main driver of "Climate Change" significantly influence our minds and hearts to Easily Accept the Depopulation of our Planet Earth by ...?

And the 3rd last question, can a substantial decrease in the CO2 level of our Earth's Atmosphere have some sort of side effects (negative impacts) on our Earth's Environment in coming years? And, do we know what would be the optimum amount of CO2 level in our Earth's Atmosphere? And, can we take enough well-representative samples from the Atmosphere to figure out a very good estimate of CO2 level as the Atmosphere is vastly distributed in multidimensions with no clear boundaries and with very dynamic behaviors over spatial and temporal scales?

Updates on April 20, 2024: First, many thanks to all contributors to this discussion for sharing their thoughts and ideas. I want to expand the scope of this discussion after reading all the answers provided by the contributors to this discussion, as follows:

Please, also consider that asking these questions doesn't mean I am against environmental pollutants; instead, I advocate for having clean environments and thus saving lives, for example, by manufacturing electric cars or generating electricity following the green (more environmentally friendly) approach using wind turbines or solar panels.

However, we may not be able to avoid the consumption of fossil fuels in our lives as most of the appliances used in houses, cars, factories, industries, etc, are plastic-based and made from fossil fuels.

So, if it is impossible to avoid the consumption of fossil fuels in our lives and given that the produced CO2 from burning fossil fuels is a food source for plant growth and flourishing on the Earth, what other things, beyond the green approach of generating electricity, could be done to protect the environment and reduce the pollutants?

We know that environmental damage & pollution are highly related to poverty. Could the consumption of fossil fuels, by filtering out the pollutants (not the CO2, as it is not a pollutant to air since plants are consuming it during daily photosynthesis and producing it during nocturnal respiration) in the refineries and factories, boost the economy of producer and consumer countries of fossil fuels and thus reduce poverty around the world?

If so, may the world leaders and rulers care more about patriotism & nationalism than wrongly defined globalism and thus help to elect a person in each country to improve their economy and eventually reduce poverty?

May following this approach help to minimize environmental destruction and pollution and further consequences such as water and migration crises around the world?

Synthetic Biology and climate change

The global warming issues devastating the Earth's natural glory. To stop this green house gases various methods and techniques are being used. Among them will synthetic Biology help to fight against climate change?

7 replies

Asked 11 September 2019

Aasawari Tak

Why according to the forecasts of climatologists, the global warming process in the next few decades can significantly accelerate?

In addition to CO2, methane is also one of the main greenhouse gases, and in a few dozen years, when the eternal scarifier on the Siberian tundra and other places of the Arctic Circle methane can become an even more significant greenhouse gas.

61 replies

Asked 10 June 2019

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Besides, the analyzes of cyclical activity of the Sun conducted by cosmologists show that in a few decades the activity of sunspots and more harmful to life and more intense energetically will reach the Earth's wavelengths of visible and invisible spectrum.

The increase in temperature will cause desertification of green areas, drying of biomass and an increase in the scale and amount of emerging fires and volcanic eruptions. these processes will intensify and accelerate the global warming process that is currently under way faster and faster.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

In the context of the above issues, I am asking you the following question:

Why according to the forecasts of climatologists, the global warming process in the next few decades can significantly accelerate?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Can we stop global climate change? Does human scientific power reach the world's climate change? How do researchers respond?

Can we stop global climate change? Does human scientific power reach the world's climate change? How do researchers respond?

3 replies

Asked 7 February 2024

Abbas Kashani

As you know, humans are very intelligent and can predict the future climate of the world with hydrology, climatology and paleontology. But don't countries, especially industrialized countries, that produce the most harmful gases in the earth's atmosphere and think about the future of the earth's atmosphere? Do they listen to the research of climatologists? What would have to happen to force them to listen to climate scientists?

Miloud Chakit added a reply

Climate change is an important and complex global challenge, and scientific theories about it are based on extensive research and evidence. The future path of the world depends on various factors including human actions, political decisions and international cooperation.

Efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change continue. While complete reversal may be challenging, important steps can be taken to slow progression and lessen its effects. This requires global cooperation, sustainable practices and the development and implementation of clean energy technologies.

Human scientific abilities play an important role, but dealing with climate change also requires social, economic and political changes. The goal is to limit global warming and its associated impacts, and collective action at the local, national, and international levels is essential for a more sustainable future.

Reply to this discussion.

Osama Bahnas added a reply

It is impossible to stop global climate change. The human scientific power can not reach the world's climate change.

Borys Kapochkin added a reply

Mathematical models of increasing planetary temperature as a function of the argument - anthropogenic influence - are erroneous.

Alastair Bain McDonald added a reply

We could stop climate change but we won't! We have the scientific knowldge but not the political will. One could blame Russia and China from refusing to cooperate but half the population of the USA (Republicans) deny climate change is a problem and prefer their profligate life styles.

John Hatzopoulos added a reply

John Hatzopoulos

PhD, MSCE, UW USA, Diploma NTUA GreeceManaging Director at University of the Aegean

Greece

All climate change has been loaded on the CO2 responsible for the greenhouse effect. Therefore, there must be scientific experiments from several independent scientific institutes worldwide to find out what the greenhouse impact is on various CO2 concentrations. Then, there must be a conference from a reliable, professional organization with the participation of all independent scientific institutions to establish standards on CO2 concentrations and propose political actions accordingly.

The second action that can be done is to plant as many trees and plants as possible to breathe the CO2 and free the oxygen. Stop any deforestation and plant trees immediately in any bunt areas.

But the basic question is, by which method can the Earth's temperature be brought to 100 years ago (as much as the global warming)?

Over the past 100 years, the Earth has abnormally warmed to about 0.74 degrees Celsius, which has worried scientists. As for the reasons for this phenomenon, a series of theories are based on the impact of greenhouse gases on this process, while others consider processes such as volcanic and geothermal activities as well as solar activity as a result of this phenomenon. The citation of these scientists, for their own words, is the occurrence of cold and hot periods during the time that passes through the earth.

9 answers

Asked 11 December 2017

Karim Aliakbari

Many believe that by stopping and controlling the some factors, global warming is prevented. But the basic question is, by which method can the Earth's temperature be brought to 100 years ago (as much as the global warming)?

Can we minimize the Enveronmental Changes (or Global Warming) by changing the way of life? What measure should we take?