Does carbon dioxide affect the Earth's temperature?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I think we all know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can capture the sun's rays.

But how important is it in the Earth's atmosphere? Is it the main or a major controller of temperature? How do we know this?

[HansDuet]

Water vapor is the main controller.

[Elfdude]

Carbon dioxide's contribution to the green house effect is only 1-3% estimated I believe most of the rest is water vapor. The issue is that at least a third of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from industrialization. Still no one is really proposing to reduce CO2 levels but rather to stabilize them.

[Valiant Champion]

Could be wrong but I think methane is an even bigger contributer.

[Elfdude]

Methane is about 10 times more powerful than CO2 or about 100x more powerful than Water Vapor but it's concentration is much less because it's an unstable chemical broken down by sunlight. One big fear is that if the oceans warm up enough for the methane hydrate dissolved in the ocean (frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean) boils the methane released into the atmosphere could create a chain reaction releasing gigatonnes of methane into the atmosphere in a relatively short amount of time. Even with it's half life so short it would take a long time to recover assuming our planet wasn't turned into a venus like planet.

[Del Valle]

Methane is about 10 times more powerful than CO2 or about 100x more powerful than Water Vapor but it's concentration is much less because it's an unstable chemical broken down by sunlight. One big fear is that if the oceans warm up enough for the methane hydrate dissolved in the ocean (frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean) boils the methane released into the atmosphere could create a chain reaction releasing gigatonnes of methane into the atmosphere in a relatively short amount of time. Even with it's half life so short it would take a long time to recover assuming our planet wasn't turned into a venus like planet.

Ah yes, that is one of my biggest fears and other reason why efforts should be made to stabilize the temperature of the planet.

[GuineaPig]

Of course it does.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Of course it does.

explanation? evidence?

there are loads of greenhouse gases that have no effect on the earth's temperature. Sulfur hexafluoride for example, has no effect.

[cpdwane]

there are loads of greenhouse gases that have no effect on the earth's temperature. Sulfur hexafluoride for example, has no effect.

Then by definition, they are not Greenhouse gases.

Edit: Ignore my post, I was wrong in my above assertion

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Then by definition, they are not Greenhouse gases.

Edit: Ignore my post, I was wrong in my above assertion

well actually I am wrong in saying they have no effect.

what I should have said was they have neglible effect, in that they increase temperature by a miniscule fraction that is so small it doesn't matter and is undectable. It's hard underestimate the effect they have, although it is wrong to say they have no effect.

[Elfdude]

well actually I am wrong in saying they have no effect.

what I should have said was they have neglible effect, in that they increase temperature by a miniscule fraction that is so small it doesn't matter and is undectable. It's hard underestimate the effect they have, although it is wrong to say they have no effect.

The miniscule amount that the temperature has increased is in line with carbon dioxide increases. Which is between .6 and .9 degrees C more. A potentially game changing Methane hydrate boil off is considered possible if not plausible at in 2 degrees C more. Still, it's taken us 200 years to increase CO2 by 1/3 by volume, doesn't seem plausible that we're as close to the edge as we've been told. At the same time however there's supposedly a lag time between instability of the changing atmosphere and resulting increases in temperature so meh.

Also CO2 is a very significant greenhouse gas and one of the more significant ones after water vapor. We know this from studying the properties of CO2 and how it reacts to light. CO2 absorbs large amounts of infrared spectrum light. It does this much better than water but since it's at a lower concentration it doesn't matter as much. On the flip side, since it is at a lower concentration it's much easier to alter potentially creating large effects. Further it's much denser than the surrounding air and tends to build up in the lower atmosphere which is where gases absorb energy, if it were in the upper atmosphere it might be debatable whether it was absorbing or helping to cool.

If we can already prove that the clouds formed by high flying airplanes cause global cooling and we accept that what we are doing with airplane contrails is of much smaller significance than CO2 it's quite obvious our CO2 contribution should have some effect.

[Martin N]

If we had clean renewable energy, which wont happen while there is profit in coal/oil, there would be no need to polute the earth with carbon dioxide.

Just think, energy sources that have been stated as impractical such as solar energy that has such abundance that one hour of light contains more energy than the entire world consumes in a year, if we could just harness this then we would never have to use coal oil or gas, also in 2007 the US DOE admitted that if wind was harvested in just 3 of the 50 states, then we could power the entire country. Then there is geothermal energy, the earth currently has been found to have 13,000 ZJ, the current total of all energy used by the whole of the planet per year is 0.6 ZJ, thats thousands of years of energy for free without damaging the earth to harness it, for free.

Its a disgrace, if there was profit in these energy systems then we would be using them right now, but because its practically unlimited and free for everyone then none of these will ever be harnassed. And then there is tidal and wave power, and many other sources of renewable energy, WE COULD POWER THE EARTH FOREVER, WITHOUT DAMAGING THE ENVIRONMENT AT NO CHARGE TO US, NO GAS BILLS, NO ANYTHING.

We dont have to use anything that would destroy the environment...our prosperity is being damaged for profit.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

If we had clean renewable energy, which wont happen while there is profit in coal/oil, there would be no need to polute the earth with carbon dioxide.

Just think, energy sources that have been stated as impractical such as solar energy that has such abundance that one hour of light contains more energy than the entire world consumes in a year, if we could just harness this then we would never have to use coal oil or gas, also in 2007 the US DOE admitted that if wind was harvested in just 3 of the 50 states, then we could power the entire country. Then there is geothermal energy, the earth currently has been found to have 13,000 ZJ, the current total of all energy used by the whole of the planet per year is 0.6 ZJ, thats thousands of years of energy for free without damaging the earth to harness it, for free.

Its a disgrace, if there was profit in these energy systems then we would be using them right now, but because its practically unlimited and free for everyone then none of these will ever be harnassed. And then there is tidal and wave power, and many other sources of renewable energy, WE COULD POWER THE EARTH FOREVER, WITHOUT DAMAGING THE ENVIRONMENT AT NO CHARGE TO US, NO GAS BILLS, NO ANYTHING.

We dont have to use anything that would destroy the environment...our prosperity is being damaged for profit.

solar power is amazingly expensive and inefficient. It's three times more expensive than nuclear.

The future is fusion.

[Colonel Cleg McLeg]

solar power is amazingly expensive and inefficient. It's three times more expensive than nuclear.

Expensive, yes, but its slowly becoming more affordable, and new methods of harnessing solar power make it a far more attractive source of energy for the future. Take the PS10 and PS20 towers outside Seville, in Spain, for instance. The power generated there still comes at a cost far higher than conventional sources, but that cost is likely to fall and it shows that using solar power as a large-scale source of electricity is viable. If we really want to break our reliance on foreign oil in Europe, it seems to me that renewables are the way to go. Countries like the UK, Ireland and Denmark have huge potential for offshore wind, Iceland is the perfect place for generating geothermal power en masse, and a few solar collecting plants in the Sahara wouldn't go amiss, either. Despite the cost, I'd love to see some sort of European national grid established at some point in the future, so we can take advantage of all this, because all this potential is just going to waste at the moment.

The future is fusion.

That remains to be seen. Personally, I would prefer to invest our time in tried and tested alternatives to fossil fuels, rather than exclusively focussing our efforts on fusion, which could still be a long time off.

and no greedy gasman to pay!

We'll always be paying somebody no matter what they're touting.

[Aetius]

Some neat stuff, I am interested in Palentology while Geology is my degree so it always makes me cringe inside when people show temperature change over the last 1000 years...lol

Two graphs of temperature over the earth's existence (with life of course, Hadean doesn't count)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One graph of CO2 levels over the earth's existence, and one more commonly seen going back only 400 thousand years.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I do not deny climate change, however I am skeptical on to the scale of the CO2 effect on global temperature. On a geological scale, CO2 and temperature only correlate weakly, it seems as if there is more going on than is so simply suggested these days.

One of many example I have noticed is the Permian Period Note the atmospheric content on the right. CO2 ppm was almost 3x higher (900 ppm)than today (380 ppm) , while temperature was "merely" 2 °C above modern level. If anything this is evidence for global warming however estimates of climate change boards seem to be far too drastic stateing that at only 650 ppm = "Level predicted for 2050 based on current carbon emissions. Considered extremely dangerous. 5.7C or higher temperature rise possible. Possible sea level of 75m." Also weird is the fact that sea levels decreased in the Permian period rather than rise.

Wat.

At the end of the Permian we see the largest extinction in history, most likely due to global warming, 83% species gone. It seems that the speed of change is relevant, if you nearly triple your CO2 levels in 200k years or less, the oceans will warm and the Methane hydrates will release and you will suffer global extinction events.

[DaVinci]

solar power is amazingly expensive and inefficient. It's three times more expensive than nuclear.

The future is fusion.

Nuclear power is presence not future - only the nuclear industry likes to renew it now to make still more money.

The sun sends unlimited energy, and sends you not a bill.

The art is "only", to make solar-energy production/consumption cost-efficient - that is the future.

Every single cent which is put into nuclear energy (ie. by the state, tax money) is waisted, because not available to put it into the solar (and other "renewable") energy technology.

Renewable energies besides energy-saving is the future. Nuclear energy will clearly destroy this planet sooner or later.

Sorry, you are obviously one of the many people who are brainwashed by the nuclear industry advertisement.

Back to topic:

Answer: Yes, it does.

I recommend to google after: Stefan-Boltzmann Law (for people with physics knowledge), which explains it, and as science-background

and then everything that seriously relates to greenhouse gases in regard of CO2, and its role/effect in the atmosphere (while elfdude already explains it partly above quite good in short words).
Take care of pseudo-science websites though, which try to negate the role of CO2 in the atmosphere (ignore them, they are trash).

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Nuclear energy will clearly destroy this planet sooner or later.

why would it destroy the planet? Fusion is completely safe; the reaction is a miniature sun!

[DaVinci]

why would it destroy the planet? Fusion is completely safe; the reaction is a miniature sun!

Alright, you mean a DT-reactor, deutium-tritium, which sounds like an interesting concept, and which is investigated quite long in a very few trial-reactors. But you also know (i guess), that this development is far from a feasable competitor for the industrial reality to normal used (and dangerous) nuclear reactors ... while "renewable" energy tech is already quite well shaped, and it could be developed far more today, if the nuclear industry hadn't got all the subventions (our taxes) they got in the past and still get day by day.

[Martin N]

Exactly, expensive, does everything have to involve making some form of profit or saving money ? Something like the armed forces are beyond the cost for what it would take to make something like renewable energy work, but does it matter what the cost is when compared to the potential outcome ? And inneficient ? Its potentially unlimited, we easily have the technology today to accomplish it, and unless the sun suddenly explodes its not gonna suddenly vanish, unlike fossil fuels, and without the need to damage the environment.

The only reason renewable energy is inefficient is because there isnt a valuable profit in it, and in a world based soleley on profit no matter the cost to the environment or to human life, a free, clean renewable energy source just isnt going to happen is it ?

And correct me if im wrong, i dont really know about fusion power, but you dont you need some form of catalyst to produce the energy ? But just imagine wind, tidal, solar, and geothermal power all running as one powering the world, not once needing anything to produce energy, no waste, no damage to the environment, and no greedy gasman to pay!