There is no relationship between CO2 and Temperatures, Correct?

Question

So what do you think causes your "Global Warming" if co2 is not responsible?

Co2 levels have increased for decades at almost a steady and constant rate yet temperatures have decreased by 0.06 degrees a year for the last 10 years. If co2 was responsible for temperatures, then temperatures would be increasing slightly instead of collapsing.

Mars has at least 3,000 times more co2 concentration than the Earth, yet can get temperatures no higher than -120 degrees most of the time.

Do you agree?

Answer 1

While you have proven on numerous occasions you don't have a very good knowledge of science, some facts for you.

Mars has a minimum temp of around -140c in winter and highs of 20c in summer which is a little more than -120 hmmmmm.

I did put this info in the last time he posted this but that question magically disappeared, and that was only a few days ago.

Earths co2 is 0.038%, Mars is 95%, dividing 95% by ~3000 gets you a figure near to 0.038 which is simple math the only problem is this only works if the pressure of Mars and Earths atmospheres are the same and mars is less than 1% of Earths this drops the 3000 time to 30 times and given the extra 50-100 million km Mars is from the Sun it would be cooler anyway.

And (not that you will answer) how do you know that the co2 on Mars isn't making it warmer than it would other wise be?

Answer 2

I think this argument is totally wrong.  

It's wrong because it falsely puts forth a notion of CO2 being the only important factor affecting the climate, and fails to account for the fact that other factors also are involved that can mask the effects of CO2 concentrations -- at least in the short run.

This is what most climate scientists believe happened in the early 1990s, so that after 1998 produced possibly the hottest year on record, temperatures then fell for several years -- because of the CO2 effect being masked by other factors.  

A similar series of events is believed to have occurred between the years 1945 and 1970 in the northern hemisphere, when climate scientists who believed in "global warming" from CO2 emissions were surprised to see world average temperatures waver or even fall for a period of about two decades.

What's the mainstream scientific explanation for the cool spell of the 1945-1970 period, and more recently for the cool years of the 1990s following the very hot year 1998 -- while CO2 concentrations, as the question notes, kept going up?

Along with the concentrations of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, another major factor that affects the climate is the ALBEDO or the reflectiveness of the Earth and its atmosphere to the sun's incoming rays.

When ALBEDO or reflectiveness is high, and more of the sun's incoming energy is never absorbed by the earth, but just bounced back into outer space, the earth and atmosphere absorb less of the sun's radiation overall.  Therefore the climate should be cooler, everything else being equal.

When ALBEDO or reflectiveness decreases, OTOH, the amount of solar energy that gets absorbed by the planet and the oceans, trees, vegetation, etc. is going to increase.  Basically the earth and the life systems covering the earth are darker, and so they soak up more solar energy.  Then they give off the heat as infrared radiation or heat rays, and we get a hotter climate.

How does Albedo play into the question of whether "greenhouse" warming from CO2 is real?

First, heavy industrial pollution can increase the * albedo* or reflectiveness of the upper atmosphere by throwing tiny droplets of sulfur dioxide into the air.  A big volcanic eruption can do much the same thing.

So if there's heavy industrial pollution and a lot of sulfur dioxide emissions from human civilization, or if  we have a huge volcano or a couple of very large volcanoes erupt, we can expect to see more sulfur dioxide droplets and other lighter-colored aerosols in the air.  

And if this happens, we can expect the climate to grow cooler thanks to a "global dimming" caused by greater albedo of the atmosphere.

This is what mainstream climate scientists believe occurred during the 1945-1970 period, when there was very fast industrial growth around the world accompanied by heavy air pollution.  Also, there were several large volcanic eruptions in this period, and as a result global temperatures fell to the point where some worried climate scientists actually predicted that the earth might be heading into another ice age.

Beginning in the early 1970s, though, there was a push for environmental cleanup across the major industrial countries, with the US pretty much in the lead.  The amount of highly reflective air pollution from industry therefore fell, and meanwhile there was less volcanic activity.  

Presto: the atmosphere started to warm up again, as the "greenhouse" effect from CO2 pollution became unmasked.

Similarly in the early 1990s; in 1991, there was a massive eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines, and climate scientist James Hansen predicted that the albedo effect from the volcano would cause global temperatures to fall for the next several years.

Which, in fact, they did.

Today, I don't know if any scientists have suggested that problems with albedo are masking the "greenhouse warming" effect of rising CO2 emissions.  

But it's a fact that Asian countries such as China and India, through their rapid industrial growth and their heavy reliance on coal as an industrial fuel, are causing a remarkable amount of air pollution.  Some of the Chinese pollution is so intense that the pollution plumes from Chinese industry are supposed to be visible from outer space.

Could this new wave of air pollution and sulfur dioxide emissions be one of the factors that's currently blocking the full effects of "greenhouse" warming from CO2 emissions?  

Answer 3

That is not true, because CO2 reinforces the ozone layer, which is responsible for the temperature inscrease.

The more CO2, the thicker the ozone layer, the greater the temperature increase.

Answer 4

yes there is a relation between co2 and temperature coz being a green house gas co2 absorb terrestrial radiations of earth and leads to global warming

Answer 5

That is a very simplistic argument.  CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases in our atmosphere (and it is one of the weaker ones).  Scientists look much more deeply into it than blaming climate change only on CO2.  Some early hypotheses were built around CO2 and temperature, and that was a good starting point.  We have advanced beyond contributing temperature rise solely to CO2.

Answer 6

Antarctica wants you to buy a calculator?  The concentration in our atmosphere is 0,00038.  Mars is greater than 0.95.    That means the concentration is about 2400 times as great (I suspect your 3000 is pretty close).  However fret boy was right that their thin atmosphere would lead to less warming.  There is a relationship to CO2 and temperature IMO, it is just not that significant and it doesn't drive Earth's climate.  The climate is driven by factors that overwhelm any effect that CO2 has.  If your an alarmists, CO2 is the rack you can hang your hat on if you want to blame America.

Answer 7

greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming it has been proven.  CO2 is a big part of global warming which is why we should be going green

Answer 8

I thought better of you.   You seem to have forgotten your basic science classes from grade school.  

-The earth is the same distance from the sun that the moon is, right?   Yet it is warmer than the moon BECAUSE OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!   Not just CO2, but any gas that lets light in, but keeps some heat from escaping.   So the greenhouse effect is real.

- Mars has a little, but not much more, atmosphere than the moon.   There is more air at the top of Everest than on Mars.     Also, Mars its twice as far from the sun as the earth.    The average temperature on Mars at the equator is closer to -30, not -120.

Answer 9

As always, you left out a very important fact.  The atmosphere of Mars is much thinner than Earth's atmosphere.  According to the article below, Mars has "a mean surface level pressure of 600 Pa (0.6 kPa), compared to Earth's 101.3 kPa."  That means Earth's atmosphere is about 168.8 times as dense as Mars' atmosphere.  That, combined with the fact that Mars is millions of miles farther from the Sun, makes any direct comparison almost meaningless.

[edit]

I just read antarticice's answer and looked at the link.  20 degrees C (68 degrees F) is quite warm for a planet that far from the Sun.  I didn't realize Mars got that warm in the summer.  Instead of disproving the greenhouse effect, I think you've helped to prove it.  Even the thin atmosphere of Mars is able to capture and hold a surprising amount of heat.  The temperature of Mars' largest moon, Phobos, doesn't get above -4 C

Answer 10

Theres is a confirmed relationship between increase in greenhouse gas emissions like CO2 and increase in temperatures. Please realise that CO2 increase is not the only thing affecting temperatures. Other factors like the health of our marine environment and the forests also majorly influence how much the mean temps go up by.

  By the way, the way you've reported the 'mars fact' might need to be modified. Mars has a higher composition of CO2 in its atmosphere (95%), but its whole atmosphere is ver very thin compared to earth, hence the presence of CO2 doesn't raise temperatures.

  What we would be hopefully able to do, is to add more greenhouse gases on Mars to make it more 'tropical' like for us humans! :)