Atmospheric carbon dioxide and global surface temperature?

"Do you think we need evidence of a direct correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global surface temperature before taking aggressive action"?

Can someone interpret this for me? What exactly is it asking? I don't know exactly how to go about this two-page paper.

PS. I'm not an expert in this subject.. Please help!

5 Answers

  • 7 years ago
    Best Answer

    CO2 or carbon dioxide {and also other gases such as methane (CH4), ozone (O3), etc} has been deemed responsible for rise in global temperature. This effect/phenomenon is called the Greenhouse Effect and the gases responsible are called the greenhouse gases. The question here is if we need proofs that co2 is genuinely responsible for global warming(due to greenhouse effect) and take 'aggressive action'.'aggressive action' here is the serious initiatives to curb it's emission. 'aggressive' because co2 has its benefits.

    Evidences have already been established that large emissions of it along with other greenhouse gases warms up the global surface temperature and we need to keep co2 at a reasonable level.

    Source(s): I study geography and sciences in high school.hope this atleast imparts a little idea
  • 7 years ago

    Todo gave you an excellent answer. I will only elaborate on the idea of the greenhouse effect.

    During daytime, the sun heats the surface of the earth (about half of the solar energy reaches it). At night, that heat radiates back into space as infrared waves. The balance of which is called, the sun's net radiation.

    It is always positive (more gain than loss) at the equator and always negative at the poles. Where I live, in Norway, it is positive about six months of the summer. It means that, for example a high pressure means warm weather during the summer but the same high pressure in January means intense cold.

    The greenhouse effect is about the amount of heat energy coming in, and that escaping. The thing is, the higher the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, the more energy it carries. But how much goes in and out depends on the nature of the atmosphere. For example, ozone (O3) filters much of the ultra-violet frequencies. Carbon dioxide and water vapor filters much of the infra-red frequencies.

    So, from the heat gained during the day, less escape at night when carbon dioxide increases. But note that the great greenhouse component is not CO2 but simple, water vapor!

    Anyway, I read that the average temperature at sea level has increase by about one degree Celsius in the past 35 years in the northern hemisphere. About half a degree in the southern and no noticeable change between the tropics. That seems to fit the distribution of the earth's population the the burning of fossil fuel, doesn't it?

  • Triton
    Lv 4
    7 years ago

    It would help if we knew what class you were taking. The answer to this question is not agreed upon either in the scientific community, or the geopolitical one. So you're free to BS a bit.

    If your class is a science class, you can emphatically say "No". There must be a strong physical understanding of the causality between CO2 rise and surface temperature rise that includes cloud feedbacks (presently unknown) and other forcings (including aerosol indirect forcings) that are also unknown. A correlation alone does NOT imply causality.

    If your class is a political one, you have to weigh the implications of the correlation more heavily, even though the causality may not be so certain.

  • 3 years ago

    CO2 in the international absorbs 8% of the IR. there isn't any magic or technological information which could strengthen that. The CO2 on the earth absorbs most of the radiation that it may from the floor from the 1st 10 meters this is what greenhouse warming is. surely all something is absorbed interior the 1st few hundred meters. this is easy and you're no longer likely to strengthen it critically. Water, this is various situations extra concentrated on the floor additionally has a plenty wider absorbance band. whilst the air is heated from CO2, the ambience radiates the warmth like the floor and eight % of the unique 8 % gets absorbed lower back. 0.5 of that warmth radiated that's no longer absorbed is misplaced to area and something will strengthen the warming of the floor. extra CO2 does not soak up extra with the aid of fact a hundred% is already absorbed. the area is shortened some the place it absorbs to extinction yet this is mitigated with the help of convection. climate works on comments mechanisms and not the ridiculously simplistic way stated with the help of alarmists with an time table. Venus has approximately a hundred situations as thick of an environment. i've got confidence that broadens the bandwidth yet plenty extra importantly, there are different gases like H2SO4 that soak up seen easy and convert it to warmth. Then CO2 can seize that warmth with the aid of fact the bands are opaque in some inches interior the frequencies they soak up. that's no longer greenhouse warming. this is the ambience straight away soaking up seen easy frequencies. they are additionally closer to the solar so that they get plenty extra warming. the floor is somewhat skinny and modern-day and "geothermal" probably bills for loads of it. there is an insulating factors of all count number. whilst that's a hundred situations thicker, it insulates plenty extra efficient. All warmth does not pass with the help of radiation. It additionally transfers with the help of conduction and convection. there isn't any assessment between Earth and Venus. we've not got Sulfuric acid clouds.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • TQ
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    There is a positive correlation between CO2 and the average global surface temperature; however...correlation is not causation.

    Source(s): Meteorologist.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.