A new study has confirmed what it was already proved through lab experiments that the greenhouse effect is real and it is happening in the United States. A new study showed that pumping carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere is causing the surface of our plant to warm up. The results of the study were published in the journal Nature.
Scientists at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory in California, led by scientist Dan Feldman have measured carbon dioxide concentrations and have obtained proof that the rising levels of CO2 are leading to the greenhouse effect.
Ever since the early ’60s scientists have noticed that the levels of carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are increasing. Lab tests and various other experiments have shown how these gases absorb some of the infrared radiation that our planet emits into the outer space and when that happens, the planet’s temperature rises. The entire process is similar to the way a greenhouse works and that is why scientists named this process the greenhouse effect.
Now there is finally some hard proof that the greenhouse effect is not only real, but that it is happening in the United States. The research team measured the radiative force of the surface of the Earth. The data was obtained from atmospheric research sites in Barrow, Alaska and Oklahoma.
Then, the infrared radiation that comes down to the surface of the Earth was tracked and it was found that the greenhouses gases absorb the infrared energy and disperse it is all directions. The instruments the scientists use managed to identify the infrared signal of the carbon dioxide, which means that they could tell exactly what infrared radiation was sent back by carbon dioxide.
It was found that between 2000 and 2010, the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide rose and at the same time, the amount infrared energy sent back to the earth’s surface also rose. In layman’s terms, the scientists found that more gas in the Earth’s atmosphere meant more infrared energy that got reflected back at Earth, instead of being sent out into the outer space.
Feldman concluded:
I would hope that even people who raise their eyebrows at this whole field can see there is a really robust observation underlying this.
Image Source: Wikipedia
JoeCasepack says
Global warming.
sandrala says
Only two sites in North America were used as prove this theory??? What happend to the rest of the world?
ak3647 says
The rest of the world doesn’t discount the existence of climate change or challenge the basic principles of science, that’s mostly an American thing.
HavaBrain says
The usual argument. Now go take your bath or no TV..
Madkastler says
So the Greenhouse effect is trapping some of the radiative heat coming from the earth? Sounds reasonable. What about ALL of the radiative heat coming from THE SUN? CO2 would presumably prevent some of that infrared energy from making it to the planets surface in the first place, right? Thus, also having a cooling effect. Has anyone measured how much of the suns infrared energy the CO2 is reflected into space and compared it to the amount of the earths infrared energy is trapped in the atmosphere? That seems important to me because it determine whether CO2 is having a net warming effect or net cooling effect on climate. Can anyone with some insight weight in on my question?
Madkastler says
**weigh-in
20WilliamHolder10 says
CO2 is responsible for about 10% of the greenhouse effect – we are responsible for some very tiny part of that CO2. At least two data sets confirm a downward temperature trend over the last 60 years. Even heavily adjusted non satellite measurements indicate no significant warming since the late 90s. There is no accelerating trend for temps or sea level rise.
As a result and in a desperate bid to maintain this charade, Global Warming has become Climate Change – a natural and ongoing process. CO2 a gas required to sustain life, is now referred to as Carbon a solid and equated with soot. If Hansen had suggested 30 years ago that global warming would bring some imperceptible and largely unverifiable warming of our deep oceans, I suspect this research would have been relegated to the dust bin.
The models don’t work – the hypothesis has failed, but with so much momentum, money, reputations and egos on the line – the charade goes on – each new headline more desperate than the last. I’ll throw my lot in with Freeman Dyson who suggests that climatologists are no Einsteins. https://bit.ly/1qV6V9H
Take a walk on the dark side – wattsupwiththat.com
Madkastler says
Other “American things”… The automobile, airplane, computer, internet. I’m mean, you don’t have to say that phase like it tastes sour. haha.
getreal5 says
Maxwell’s demon.
Madkastler says
Honestly, I can accept that humans have contributed to global warming. That would just be about science. What bothers me about the issue is all of the politics of it. Liberals/Democrats/Environmentalists/ et al… always attach/include anti-capitalist, anti-modernization, Marxist agenda to ALL of their solutions to the problem. For Example, instead of moving to 100% Nuclear Power based energy production (which would ELIMINATE ALL CO2 emission AND dramatically reduce our energy costs) they want strictly regulate EVERY businesses ability to produce goods and services through CAP and TRADE??? (which doesn’t actually get rid of CO2, it just makes us pay for the cost of polluting the planet) I’d like to say their obviously all idiots who can’t solve the problem, but that isn’t the case. The global warming political agenda is actually quite brilliant. They have convinced most Americans that to save the Environment and the Planet from this threat you must do two things: 1. Vote to keep them and other democrats in office so they have a majority in congress to enact the solutions and (2) Attack Republicans, Corporations, and Christians as evil people that can’t be trusted because they won’t go along with all the Democrats new Regulations to “solve” the problem. MEANWHILE, OBAMA HAS BEEN PRESIDENT FOR 6 YEARS AND THE MOST HE HAS DONE TO END GLOBAL WARMING IS VETO THE KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE. —For God Sake people! He isn’t even trying to stop them from DRILLING for the Keystone Oil AND he isn’t stopping Americans from buying the keystone oil. Nope.. What he is so heroically against is building a long metal tube for the oil to travel in!!! Wow, Obama is a real life captain planet for stopping that pipeline. There is just one last tiny detail I should mention. Because he won’t build the pipeline to transport the oil safely,over land and across the continent, NOW the oil will have to be transported via ocean tanker along thousands of miles of pristine coastline to reach the refiners that we rely on to keep gas prices down at the pump. Your President Everyone.
-That’s all the rant I got. I’m out. Do us all a favor and support a 3rd party
me says
Moving to 100% nuclear (which I would support) would be an example of an anti-capitalist agenda. It would be forcing the market to provide a particular product even if there were cheaper options. The pro-capitalist method to deal with CO2 would be to introduce a price on CO2 equal to the cost of removing it. This would allow the market to decide what the most efficient way is. Cap and Trade is the method that Bush (the father) supported when we got rid of acid rain. Heard of acid rain recently? No. Why? because it’s no longer a problem. Why? Cap and Trade.
PanchoVilla5000 says
HILARIOUS, 4th coldest february ever, 80% of great lakes frozen lake erie frozen (2nd time frozen in 3 yrs not seen in decades) , NY ferry operator “most ice ever seen in 25 yrs of ferry service”, Carolinas dealing with an old fashion New England snowy winter, 12 people FROZE to death in MEXICO!
me says
Yes, if you choose as your starting point 1998, a year that was at the time considered a huge anomaly being so incredibly hot, then you can conclude no significant warming.
We responsible for a very large part of the CO2.
It doesn’t matter how much of the greenhouse effect CO2 is responsible for, because we shouldn’t be measuring relative to the temperature on the surface of the moon. There is obviously a large greenhouse effect otherwise we would freeze to death. What matters is how much the CO2 causes our temperatures to vary from the optimal temperature. CO2 is directly or indirectly responsible for all of the increase in temperatures from what is healthy for us.
The models work.
Prelag says
What a bunch of propaganda BS… It’s scientists being paid to reach a predefined conclusion.
me says
No. painting your house black won’t cool it off.
Here is what happens:
Energy from sun reaches outer part of atmosphere. Some of it is absorbed by atmosphere. Some reaches surface of Earth. Some is reflected by Earth’s surface. Some is absorbed and becomes heat. This causes Earth to glow very slightly (in infrared). That glow is energy escaping the Earth. It goes into atmosphere. Some is absorbed by atmosphere. Some gets through.
All that the CO2 does to the sun’s energy is absorb it a little bit before it hits the earth. It still becomes heat in the Earth-atmosphere system. So putting a black wrapper around something that is black isn’t going to cool it.
Pete says
The only green house gases in the US are liberals.
insi10 says
You must live on a very, very small planet, or choose to use just a tiny part of your brain. More of the U.S. is experiencing a very WARM winter than a cold one, and the temperatures across the world this winter are far above average. Those are facts. It is also a fact that you regard your neighborhood as the world. Get out more. Learn something.
. . says
I call BS to this supposed study. Trees eat carbon dioxide, and spit out oxygen. Therefore thus argument is invalid, let alone the myth of global warming
insi10 says
And your source is…? Oh, those guys being paid by the Koch brothers to tell you very complicated lies. Or are you one of them?
. . says
No they don’t. There’s no evidence whatsoever to support GW
Lefty2 says
You can thank ExxonMobil for their well funded confusion campaign.
Lefty2 says
You must mean the global warming deniers paid by ExxonMobil which has a financial interest in global warming denial.
Scott Davis says
Global warming is bull sh*t… but thanks for the propaganda for narcissist regressive liberals.
Scott Davis says
You can’t deny something that doesn’t exist, bub.
cardcounter says
Your explanation is inadequate. Explain how CO2 absorbs radiation but doesn’t reflect it. If you explanation makes sense I will understand it. Are you saying CO2 does absolutely nothing to prevent radiation from reaching the lower levels of the atmoshpere?
steve schmidt says
we need to immediately stop using fossil fuels, and watch country after country return to abject poverty, and see billions of people starve to death, and billions more unemployed. We need to kill the global economy, and 6 billion people return to living like animals off the land. we need to shove our head up our ass, and become retarded liberals. doom, gloom, despair.
cardcounter says
I see no correlation between painting a house black and the possible impact of CO2.
Lefty2 says
Even more American things: The KKK, GWB, private-for profit prisons, highest incarceration rate on the planet (for profit), legal bribery of government officials by fake charities, highest divorce rate in the world, ExxonMobil funded global warming denial campaign, etc. etc. etc. . . .
MrSane0 says
Speaking of science. 50% of “normal” is above Average.
Lefty2 says
The Amazon forest, the largest source of atmospheric O2, is being cut, burned and converted into the largest source of atmospheric CO2.
Lefty2 says
Then why does ExxonMobil spend 10’s of millions of dollars denying it, bub!
Dave Wakefield says
A plank in the 2016 GOP platform will recommend that everyone wear a broad brimmed aluminum foil hat. They will call it the Walker. A Walker will reflect those evil rays back into space. A Walker can do anything, LMFAO!
RichardOwens says
Acid rain IS still a problem in every lake downwind from a coal burning power plant.
Rick Hiller says
Not true. Your assumptions are biased and faulty. Firstly, Nuclear power has it’s own set of disastrous effects — take Fukishima, which is still leaking radiation into the Pacific at the same rate, as it may be for thousands of years, thereby potentially killing all ocean life, for example; and the fact that there is still no solution to storage of the waste, even barring any accidents which are inevitable. Second, the Obama administration has done a great deal to address Climate Change, certainly more than any previous administration, such as subsidizing development of alternative energies ( 98% of which programs have been successful — even the Solindra plant is now in use ); and by strengthening EPA rules on CO2 emissions, and increasing fuel efficiency, as well as by fighting the KXL Pipeline, which would make possible the burning of the dirtiest, most destructive Tar Sands Oil, which are mostly owned by Koch industries — the same men who have been primarily responsible for orchestrating the Climate Science Denial which has slowed our crucial response time, thereby putting the planet and all of us inhabitants in grave danger. Each of these Obama policies met with staunch opposition from the entire conservative, quasi -“Christian”,GOP, and staunch science denial from conservatives. Denial of the clear empirical science is ignorant and dangerous. I suggest you conservative Christians decide to be ethical and moral by no longer siding with the Koch Brothers regarding the dire need to address Climate Change, and NOW.
Lefty2 says
“Freeman Dyson is a mathematical physicist at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. His mathematical abilities are impressive, but he knows very little about climate or climate science. Dyson is member of the Jasons, a group of scientists, mostly physicists, who advise the Pentagon. In the 1970s the Jasons did some computer modeling of climate, although nobody in the group had any background in climate science. Powell remarks, “If Dyson’s last brush with climate models was in the 1970’s, no wonder he scoffs at the models and derides those who use them” (69). Dyson advocates developing a “supertree” that can gobble carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it underground or convert it to useful liquid fuels. Selective breeding of plants goes back to Luther Burbank over a century ago, but there is no evidence that such a supertree is anything but a figment of Dyson’s imagination.”
https://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda/
Lefty2 says
More likely being paid by ExxonMobil.
maddog909 says
Exactly………just another study designed to try and prove a point as opposed to a discovery. Sure, we’re seeing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and yes the simple act of breathing by seven plus billion people contributes to it as well as cow farts and the combustion process but one also has to consider the huge amounts of carbon dioxide released by volcanism and other natural contributors like the oceans of the world. Carbon dioxide levels have risen and fallen in the past long before humans and cows existed. Anyone can create a computer model to prove their theories. It doesn’t mean the model represents reality.
Lefty2 says
Perhaps you should do some investigation on what a greenhouse is and how it works.
Lefty2 says
Do a quick Google search on the greenhouse effect. Or, just sit in a car with the windows up in the sun in August.
Rick Hiller says
Science proves you to be absolutely incorrect. I suggest you drop the hubris, pull your head out, and learn the truth that Climate Change is at a tipping point which the IPCC, with the support of every peer reviewed scientific community, is now saying is likely becoming “UNSTOPPABLE, AND IRREVERSIBLE”…this means extinction of all life on this planet. Don’t be fooled by the ignorant conservative denial any longer.
LosingYourRights says
Are there any carbon emissions released while “Cloud Seeding”?
LosingYourRights says
Cloud Seeding!
Vizrahen says
No, we need to find alternative sources of power while slowly weening ourselves off fossil fuels. So that we can keep our luxurious lifestyle without severely impacting the fate of our species. Anyone with intelligence knows that a complete shutdown of oil would destroy lives, but continuing to use it as we are will do the same thing over a longer period of time to the coming generations. I could care less about harming any animals, but I do care about the well-being of humanity in the future.
Vizrahen says
How can a substance absorb and reflect, those are two opposite reactions. Can you explain to me how a mirror reflects, but doesn’t absorb?
carolisme says
There is no such thing as a quick Google search…The information that even comes close to the truth is hidden so far in the back pages of any search these days to cover for the massive scam being perpetuated on the public in the name of the coming of the planned new world order. Read some real stuff and not the trash google is putting on it’s front pages.
Ape Drape says
Still waiting for my huge check from Exxon….
ocmyst says
Humans are much too stupid to use Nuclear Power; Proof — let’s build a nuclear power plant right on the ocean near a subduction zone capable of producing massive earthquakes. That is so telling
oldman66 says
Cience is hard, so I dont beleeve it. Evin tho this experment is direct evedence that globall warming is true.
Vote Republikin.
PanchoVilla5000 says
what the global warming crowd’s consensus was in the 1970’s (they should have stuck to their guns) https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+coming+ice+age&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=DD989669F8268B671BC1DD989669F8268B671BC1
Richard Bunce says
What is the “optimal temperature”? No matter your stance on AGW science and most importantly the viability of the predictions of future climate based on unvalidated models there is not now or ever has been an “optimal temperature” for all people on Earth.
AlreadyInUse says
But a Bush is often a more comfortable fit…
Chris Crawford says
The deniers are out in force, I see. You folks are fighting a tidal wave of evidence, and you are losing. It’s simple: every relevant scientific institution on the planet has endorsed AGW theory. Of course, you have an answer to that: it’s all a huge conspiracy.
Better reinforce your tin foil hats. You never know what those tricky scientists will come up with next.
Jim_Satterfield says
Except your point is meaningless because they DO account for these things. You just don’t want to admit it.
Jim_Satterfield says
And once again a denier proves how little they understand about the science.
c will says
Then explain why we are having the coldest record on winter!
And what is with the war on plants? Carbon dioxide is their life source…
I’m probably co2
Ray says
The diagram shows that the solar radiation is 343 watts per sq.meter and outgoing solar radiation is 103 watts per sq. meter plus the outgoing infrared radiation of 240 watts per sq. meter. So. the incoming radiation of 343 watts per sq. meter equals the outgoing radiation of 343 watts per sq. meter (103+240). So the diagram is demonstrates there is no retained energy within the atmosphere?
Guest says
Without co2 we become Mars.
Jim_Satterfield says
Did you know that mentioning Marxism as a critique of your opponent shows a Political IQ in the low double digits? And when combined with the rest of the utter BS in your rant it pushes it down to the single digits.
c will says
And where is your source?
Prelag says
Let’s all rewind to 6th grade science class. We learned the
scientific method which consists of the following steps: Ask a Question,
Do Background Research, Construct a Hypothesis, Test Your Hypothesis by
Doing an Experiment, Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Let’s focus on: Testing a Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment. In a science
experiment there needs to be a control. A control is: “a group or case
matched to an experimental group and treated in the same way as that group, but which is not exposed to the experimental treatment.”
So, in order to observe the impact of variables on Earth we would need a
second, control Earth in which the variables were not applied. Make
sense?
Global warming “scientists” did it backwards: Draw a Conclusion, Manufacture a Hypothesis, Generate Research, Invoke Emotion, etc. Our planet has survived much more abuse than the human race could ever create long before we were ever here.
Jim_Satterfield says
Wow. Another denier showing how very little they know. And you’ll undoubtedly never, ever, try to remedy that ignorance.
c will says
You speak for the rest of th world?
Music Producer says
It doesn’t inspire confidence when there are 2 obvious typos in the first 2 sentences!
Dogov says
CO2 forcing increase is ten percent of the forcing trend from all sources. That is at the low end of previous forcing predictions of 9%-36%. This does not play well for AGW proponents. Climate S Central hasn’t issued a report on this yet. Very difficult to spin this one in favor of AGW.
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Prelag says
Maybe they are spending 10’s of millions of dollars in an attempt to combat the falsehood.
Knuckles Mutatis says
Says a clueless right-wing boob. There are currently more than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies from 80 Countries, and there is not one scientific institution or academy in all of North America, the EU, or Japan that denies the reality of human-induced climate change.
Meanwhile, your source for “facts”? – a few right-wing entertainers and Exxon Mobile.
Jim_Satterfield says
To keep it very simple the energy state of a CO2 molecule changes when struck by a photon, which is the primary medium by which the sun sends energy that the earth intercepts. The molecule will want to revert to its natural energy state and will emit the amount of energy needed to do so. This is not simply re-emitting the photon. It can’t do that. The frequency of the energy released does not simply bounce back into space, some portion of it is retained in the earth’s ecosystem.
Dr_Mo says
Actually, the earth receives radiation from the sun across the whole EM spectrum, with only a very small portion of it in the IR band. ~70% of this incident radiation is absorbed by the surface of the planet (~30% is reflected back to space). The absorption of this radiation by rocks/water/trees/ etc. on the surface of the earth excites the molecules in those things, which causes them to vibrate more rapidly, bumping in to one another more, generating heat. Heat energy is IR, this IR is then radiated back out to space by the surface of the planet. Effectively, the energy hitting the earth across the entire spectrum is converted to IR in a very narrow band of the spectrum (you can prove this to yourself with a spectrophotometer on a nice sunny day). It just so happens that the vibrational frequencies of the bonds in CO2, H2O and other greenhouse gasses are resonant with that part of the IR spectrum, and thus those gases absorb the IR energy being emitted by the surface of the earth, and re-radiate it both OUT to space and IN to the surface of the earth. That is the “greenhouse effect,” and we’ve measured this effect under controlled conditions countless times. It’s really very simple.
me says
I would guess that the best climate for our civilization is the one in which our crops were developed and our civilization flourished. Moving to a climate significantly different from that comes with no guarantees that we will be able to get fish out of the ocean or grow crops in our fields.
me says
“Explain how CO2 absorbs radiation but doesn’t reflect it.”
Simple – reflecting light is the *opposite* of absorbing light. It doesn’t get any more basic than that.
As for your question – no, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if CO2 prevents some radiation from the earth’s surface it is because it has already absorbed that radiation. Thus the energy of that photon is now in the atmosphere as thermal energy. So sure, it doesn’t hit the earth’s surface – because it has already done the damage of warming the atmosphere.
me says
That’s because you don’t understand the physics… which is why in your other post you’re demanding that I explain how CO2 can absorb radiation without reflecting it. Go out in the sun under a white blanket (reflects) and compare that to going out under a black blanket (absorbs).
You’re taking the observation that CO2 absorbs energy and concluding that it should have the same impact as if it reflected energy. Not my fault you don’t understand the correlation.
Richard Bunce says
Which civilization would that be? Civilizations in the middle east collapsed from climate change. Civilizations in the northern Europe collapsed from climate change. You can argue the damage that increased CO2 does to the climate and environment but not that the climate we had in 1950 was optimal for all interests on earth.
me says
By “our civilization” I meant “our civilization”. As in the one we live in.
Let me see if I understand: you agree climate change in the past has caused civilizations to collapse. It seems though that you’re implying that maybe climate change would be okay for someone somewhere so we shouldn’t be too fussed about it.
Is that really what you’re saying?
Richard Bunce says
Just as extreme/long term climate change in the past has caused civilizations to collapse so too has climate change in the past caused civilizations to flourish. It seems to me you are implying that you be OK with a hundreds of meters of glacier ice covering Detroit once again. You of course are assuming that the unvalidated climate model predictions for climate driven climate/weather effects are going to be correct when they have proven to be any thing but in just a short period of time.
me says
“It seems to me you are implying that you be OK with a hundreds of meters of glacier ice covering Detroit once again”….
Yes, you are right. That is clearly what I meant when I said the “best climate for our civilization is the one in which our crops were developed and our civilization flourished”. Obviously I was talking about glaciers covering Detroit.
Richard Bunce says
That’s what I thought too…