Everything Science Forum

The troposphere is the lower part of the atmosphere, of about 10-15 kilometres thick. Within the troposphere there are gasses called greenhouse gasses. When sunlight reaches the earth, some of it is converted to heat. Greenhouse gasses absorb some of the heat and trap it near the earth's surface, so that the earth is warmed up. This process, commonly known as the greenhouse effect, has been discovered many years ago and was later confirmed by means of laboratory experiments and atmospheric measurements.Life as we know it exists only because of this natural greenhouse effect, because this process regulates the earth's temperature. When the greenhouse effect would not exist, the whole earth would be covered in ice.The amount of heat trapped in the troposphere determines the temperature on earth. The amount of heat in the troposphere depends on concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses and the amount of time these gasses remain in the atmosphere. The most important greenhouse gasses are carbon dioxide (http://www.lookchem.com/cas-124/124-38-9.html), CFC's (Chlor-Fluoro-Carbons), nitrogen oxides and methane (http://www.lookchem.com/cas-631/6317-18-6.html).Since the industrial revolution in 1850 began, human processes have been causing emissions of greenhouse gasses, such as CFC's and carbon dioxide. This has caused an environmental problem: the amounts of greenhouse gasses grew so extensively, that the earth's climate is changing because the temperatures are rising. This unnatural addition to the greenhouse effect is known as global warming. It is suspected that global warming may cause increases in storm activity, Melting of ice caps on the poles, which will cause flooding of the inhabited continents, and other environmental problems.
Together with hydrogen, carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas. However, hydrogen is not emitted during industrial processes. Humans do not contribute to the hydrogen amount in the air, this is only changing naturally during the hydrological cycle, and as a result it is not a cause of global warming.Increasing carbon dioxide emissions cause about 50-60% of the global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions have risen from 280 ppm in 1850 to 364 ppm in the 1990s.
In the previous paragraph various human activities that contribute to the emission of carbon dioxide gas have been mentioned. Of these activities fossil fuel combustion for energy generation causes about 70-75% of the carbon dioxide emissions, being the main source of carbon dioxide emissions. The remaining 20-25% of the emissions are caused by land clearing and burning and by emission from motor vehicle exhausts.
Most carbon dioxide emissions derive from industrial processes in developed countries, such as in the United States and in Europe. However, carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries are rising. In this century, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to double and they are expected to continue to rise and cause problems after that.
Carbon dioxide (http://www.lookchem.com/cas-124/124-38-9.html) remains in the troposphere about fifty up to two hundred years.
The first person who predicted that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other burning processes would cause global warming was Svante Arrhenius, who published the paper "On the influence of carbonic acid (http://www.lookchem.com/cas-497/497-19-8.html) in the air upon the temperature of the ground" in 1896.In the beginning of the 1930 it was confirmed that atmospheric carbon dioxide was actually increasing. In the late 1950s when highly accurate measurement techniques were developed, even more confirmation was found. By the 1990s, the global warming theory was widely accepted, although not by everyone. Whether global warming is truly caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is still debated.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

A really interesting article!  Tho' got just a bit cross where the matter of various current issues for so many areas and peoples appear to be 'irrelevant' ? : 

The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways bene-ficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It?s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees?and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn?t know it from Al Gore?s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could har-vest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little face-tious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? ?It?s not that there won?t be bad things happening in those countries,? economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. ?But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.? Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely be-cause of projected increases in agricultural production.

  Of course, that's only part of all that is postulated therein, and was well worth reading.  Thanks.

Hmmm...well, that one went down like the proverbial lead balloon...so here's more for you to  :062802sleep_prv.gif: about:  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/)

Well, that aticle is a bit different, now isn't it?  Thanks Sarah.

I think what most people (even those directly involved) confuse about the global warming debate is the subject matter of the actual debate.

The raw data itself indicates that the Earth is warming.  Though there are people (like the one who wrote that article in The Register) who believe it is not, the evidence is simply that it is happening.

The real debate comes in when it is claimed that the warming is caused mainly by human activity.  There are simply so many causes, and even some yet unknown causes, that blaming it solely on human activity is just not good science.  Part of the problem there comes from bad science - people who believe humans are the cause of the warming, and set out to find science that proves it.  Again, that's just bad science.  Real science starts with raw data, and deduces a reasonable and repeatable cause of effect. 

It  is  the  nly  topic  we  know   of,eh,eh