I find the level of climate change denial on this forum disturbing.
I recall a quote, I don't remember whose - "97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies".
OT: Burnout, and the abstract/distant nature of the problem. A lot of people don't understand it [enough], others would prefer 10p today over £10 next week, some have simply heard the media misquote the science one time too many.
Can someone explain to me how the Greenhouse theory, which states that the stronger sun rays can get in but the weaker reflected waves off the Earth get kept in as they cannot escape to the thicker amount of carbon dioxide, is false.
Carbon dioxide is heavier and more dense, and sinks to the ground. It's partly why smog exists, and tends to cling to valley-based cities. It simply doesn't form a greenhouse-like dome. It's what frustrates me about global warming theorists: you have to ignore chemistry and physics to accept their peer review, and how the hell did that happen? Also, fun fact, sea life has so much impact on the carbon-oxygen cycle that we could clearcut all of Europe and the global standard content would change little in comparison. In fact, temperatures change before instances of carbon drops or spikes. But the UN and NASA fire people who claim such things.
But doesn't the sun rays still go though the carbon dioxide even if it is on the ground and still get trapped as the reflected rays cant escape? Also, I thought the reason the greenhouse effect was called that way not because it forms a dome, but it acts similar to a greenhouse, which is letting sun rays in and keeping the reflected rays in. I'm not looking to start a debate, I'm just curious about it.
To answer the initial question, if I recall correctly:
1. Sun emits UV light (along with other ranges, eg visible) in all directions, including toward earth.
2. UV light travels through atmosphere, is absorbed by earth.
3. Earth doesn't want the energy, re-emits it as IR.
4. "Greenhouse gases" (GHGs) absorb in the IR region (but, crucially, not in the UV, so they allow the photon to pass unhindered on its way in but can intercept it on its way back to space).
5. GHGs don't want the energy either, re-emit it (still as IR) in a random direction, including back toward earth (or to other GHG molecules).
In effect, the "random direction" part of point 5 is the crux of it - basically, the earth system hangs onto the energy for that bit longer, as that photon can be absorbed and re-emitted many, many times before it eventually escapes to space again. While the energy is held, the earth system is slightly warmer. Greater concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere means IR radiation is absorbed more efficiently (greater chance of intercepting IR photons from earth, from each other, etc), thus keeping the energy in the earth system for longer (ie, warming it). Furthermore, CO2 (or other GHGs for that matter) doesn't need to form a structured "dome" - as long as it's between earth and space it can intercept photons. Nor could such a structured dome form, as there is a certain degree of mixing (eg turbulence from wind), especially in the troposphere.
EDIT: Just saw the "...is false" part of the initial post. D'oh. Leaving explanation up though, [optimism] Who knows, it might educate someone [/optimism]. But yah, 1) Read greenhouse effect above; b) CO2, CH4, etc are GHGs; c) Human activities increase levels of bespoke GHGs. Not much wiggle-room in those three, therefore increase in global average temperature shouldn't be a big damn surprise to anyone (not that mean temperature is the only aspect of climate change).