Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry

Posted on 27 November 2018 by Guest Author

This is one of ClimateAdam's latest videos

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 21:

  1. I hugely respect Climate Adam, and realise hes trying to make science fun, but this video is a trainwreck and just so childish and distracting. A few wiggles of CO2 molecules on a diagram would have been more informative, and taken a fraction of the time.  Give them smiley faces, if you want to make it fun.

    How do we get from measuring the level of energy absorption by the molecule to calculating a change in global temperature? It would be interesting to see the basic maths and physics but kept at a level the average person in the street can relate to.

    3 0
  2. I totally agree with nigelj here. I cannot picture kids being overwhelmed by this presentation. Frankly speaking, it's quite boring and not easy to grasp that way.

    0 0
  3. Much better link =>

    1 0
  4. If atmospheric heating is directly proportional to C02 consentration, how did the Earth go through at least three "Snow Ball Earth" periods when the atmosphere was essentially 100% C02?  Also, why is it so cold on Mars when the atmosphere may be thin, but it is 93% C02.  

    0 1
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "how did the Earth go through at least three "Snow Ball Earth" periods when the atmosphere was essentially 100% C02"

    That's nonsense.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide has never been more than even 50% of the total:

    Atmospheric composition over geologic time

    "why is it so cold on Mars when the atmosphere may be thin, but it is 93% C02"

    Less solar insolation received at the surface due to the greater distance from the Sun.  

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts or simply make things up, as you do. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  5. Ken @4,

    A very quick reply, (but perhaps not as quick as the Moderator Response).

    (1) The GHG effect from CO2 is not "directly proportional" to the level of CO2. It is a lot more complicated than that. For small changes in the terrestrial atmosphere (200ppm to 1,200ppm) the relatinship is logarthmic. However your general assertion that more CO2 would result in more warming would be correct in most circumstances.

    (2) The Snowball Earth episodes were a long time ago so their circumstance are not very well nailed down. The favourite cause of Snowball Earth is that it begins with lowering levels of CO2 allowing global temperature to drop and this cooling is amplified by an increase in albedo - the extensive snow/ice fields increasing the amount of sunlight being reflected into space and so not warming the planet. Once a Snowball Earth has formed, it requires a very large increase in GHG (ie CO2) to warm up the planet enough to melt the snow/ice and release it from the Snowball. Note that through this time, the sun was much weaker. By the end of the Snowball Earth eposides, it would still have been 6% weaker than today, roughly equal to losing a third of today's GHG effect.

    (3) The Martian atmosphere is almost all CO2 and, although there is little gas in the Martian atmosphere, it still has more CO2 than Earth. Indeed Mars (95% x 6mb) has well over ten times the CO2 of Earth (0.06%[mass] x 1,000mb) in its atmosphere. The problem for a GHG effect on Mars is not the level of CO2 but the lack of any other GHGs to fill in the gaps of the electro-magnetic spectrum not being insulated by the CO2. On Earth, the CO2 warms the planet enough to boost H2O levels which then provides this extra insulation. [The Mars GHG is a bit like going out on a snowy day wearing just a hat and gloves. They don't keep you very warm. Even thick furry hat & gloves will not improve the situation.] And additionally, Mars has on 43% of the sunlight that Earth enjoys. A cold Mars with its CO2-laden atmosphere and a warm Earth with just a small portion of CO2 in a nitrogen atmosphere is what the theory expects and exactly what we see.

    2 0
  6. I am an old enough geezer & what catches young folks' attention is somehat outside my zone of understanding. So I think it might suit the generation it is aimed at, and kudos to Climate Adam for trying. I enjoyed it and watched to the end.

    0 0
  7. Ken, so just how much effort did you put into trying to answer your own question? Frankly looks like grasping at a straw because perhaps you cant imagine a solution to climate change that is compatiable with your political philosophy? Or if you are simply trolling, perhaps its time to find another site for your amusement.

    1 0
  8. MA Rodger at 02:58 AM on 29 November, 2018

    I appreciate your bringing up the log relationship for CO2 and GHG effictiveness.  That was going to be my next question, because no one seems to want to address it.  I believe what you meant by not "directly proportional" was "not linear", because it is directly proportional, but in a ln (natural log) curve, and that means it is a smooth, continuous function.  CO2 GHG effectiveness is a ln function of CO2 consentration.  This means that the slope of that ln curve is the effectiveness.  The problem is that the slope of the ln curve (or the first partial derivative) is equal to 1/(CO2 consentration).  For example, at 200 ppm the slope is 1/200  and at 400 ppm the slope is 1/400.  Eventually the ln curve approaches horizontal, which means the GHG effectiveness is reduced by 50% when the CO2 consentration doubles.  Any engineering of scientific system that follows the ln curve has the same result, the more you have of the independent variable (x-axis) the less effective the dependent variable is.  

    The best physical example of this is laying a chain on the ground, holding one end and running toward the other end.  You move the chain quickly at first, but pretty soon you can hardly move the chain and your speed, or effectiveness, goes to zero.

    I realize the interactions in the atmosphere are complex, but that complexity does not negate the properties of the natural log function.  Methane and other gases do not follow the ln curve, but CO2 and water vapor do follow it.

    If more CO2 means more temperature at some ratio, someone must have developed the first partial derivative of Temp with respect to CO2, otherwise how can we make estimates of containing Temp by reducing CO2 by a certain amount over a certain number of years.

    Just to clear the air here, I am very serious about wanting to know how the atmosphere really works.  I am a retired AF pilot, I have a BS and MS in aerospace and aeronautical engineering, a MS in software engineering/computer science.  I have worked in these fields and taught university courses for over 40 years.  I am a serious amateur astronmer and astro photographer, and design custom astronomy equipment.  

    I am sorry if scientific questions and comments upset people.  I was hoping to find people who want to find real answers and leave people and politics out of the scientific discussions.

    I am traveling right now, but will answer the other comments and show some data I have next week.

    Thank you for your time.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory rhetoric snipped.  Please read this venue's Comments Policy and stick to the science and all will be fine.  Thanks!

  9. So we can assume you are now satisfied on the questions of snowball earth and why Mars isnt hot? Given your stated background, it would seem that you could have easily consulted a text book.

    The amount of radiation acting on the earths surface is what is proportional to CO2. Double the CO2 concentration to double the forcing. The effect of change from 200ppm to 400ppm is same as change from 400ppm to 800ppm. The effect on surface radiation can be directly measured.

    The surface temperature that results from such a change in radiation is not so straightforward because of feedbacks. You cant change the earths temperature up or down without also affecting the amount of water in the atmosphere and the albedo. Hence the relationship of CO2 to temperature is much more complex.

    0 0
  10. Ken @8, I think I can see where you are going with this. Before you waste your time posting a whole lot of data, read the following:

    0 0
  11. Ken @8,

    Although it is not relevant to the substance of this interchange, you evidently have a different understanding of the term "directly proportional" than I do. And it seems my understanding is shared with Wikipedia.

    As for the log relationship resulting in there being a diminishing relationship between rising CO2 levels and extra direct climate forcing, there is also another non-linear relationship - the greater the forcing imposed on climate, the greater the harm to humanity from a unit rise in that forcing. Mankind really does not want to arrive at a point where CO2 emissions have a negligible direct effect on climate forcing. If we do arrive we will find that 'negligible' increases in CO2 forcing will nontheless bring with it non-negligable impacts, either in resulting feedbacks or in dramatic climatical effects.

    You say that "someone must have developed the first partial derivative of Temp with respect to CO2" but do not express this overtly as a question or why the inception of this work would be relevant to policy decisions today.

    0 0
  12. Ken,

    I am astonished that someone who claims to be interested in the science behind AGW is so ignorant of the basic data.  All gases follow the log relationship.  Please provide a citation to support your wild claim that methane and other gases do not. 

    You are about 100 years behind in your understanding of the science.  Claiming you want a scientific discussion while criticizing those who know the science is insulting.  Follow your own advice instead of making political, insulting statements.    You appear to have informed yourself with a brief review of nonsense (non-science) sites on the internet. 

    Your wild claims contradict your claims that you want a non-poloitical discussion.  You are the only one who is making wild, incorrect claims.

    People here are willing to help you obtain an understanding of the science and will provide you references to the science.  If you want to make false assertions and insult those who reply to you they will quickly lose interest. Try to up your game.

    0 0
  13. Pretty sure this is on topic. I’m struggling with the details of the physics. BTW, I thought the video was good but it didn’t go far enough. My question is whether the absorption of infrared radiation (IR) by greenhouse gas molecules directly warms the air. I have seen an explanation regarding the hot atmosphere giving off IR. But, since 1859, we know that the majority of the atmosphere doesn’t absorb IR.So I'm assuming it can't emit IR. The atmosphere isn't a black body (maybe a gray body).

    GHGs absorb IR because they have at least three atoms and two bonds allowing more than one quantum vibrational state. A GHG molecule is boosted to a higher state only by a photon with the right energy. The energy must match the energy gap between two allowed quantum states of the molecule.

    Similarly, it seems the molecule could only emit a photon of the same energy and return to its base state. Some of the emitted photons will be reabsorbed by the Earth causing further warming.

    But gas molecules are also in kinetic motion---whizzing about. The faster the molecules move---the more kinetic energy they have---the warmer the air is. Can the higher quantum state of an excited GHG molecule be transferred to another molecule through a collision? I know that the kinetic energy isn’t quantized so it seems that in order for that to happen the excited molecule would have to emit a lower energy photon, to return to its base state, as part of the energy transferring collision---the transferred kinetic energy plus the energy of the photon would have to equal the energy gap between the two allowed quantum states---kind of the reverse of collisional broadening of the absorption bands.

    I hope I’ve made my question clear and I’d really like to know the answer.

    0 0
  14. dkeiereber @13,
    Gas molecules do increasingly whiz about with increasing temperature. If the gas contains polyatomic molecules (like CO2) it will have a higher Specific Heat Capacity as there will also be energy being absorbed into extra rotation and vibration as temperature increases. The vibrational energy can be transferred to other molecules/atoms as kinetic, rotational or vibrational energy but can also result in the emission of a photon. So the answer to your question "Can the higher quantum state of an excited GHG molecule be transferred to another molecule through a collision?" is 'Yes.'
    And the opposite can occur; a collision or a photon of the correct wavelength can set a polyatomic molecule vibrating in a particular mode.
    Quantum rules apply to vibration (and rotation) so the photon is always of the same wavelength, abet the rotational energy and kinetic energy do create small variations (broadening) in wavelength for emitted/absorbed photons.
    Relative to the energy transferred between molecules/atoms in a gas, the emitting/absorption of photons are a rare events and most absorbed photons will become added to the energy in the gas rather than being immediately emitted as another photon.

    0 0
  15. @14, MA Rodger

    Can you provide references for your response?

    0 0
  16. dkeierleber @15,

    Can I provide references? Not easily.

    On line, perhaps Siegel & Howell (1971) may be of use to you. Alternatively, you may wish to narrow your enquiry within what is a piece of physics that doesn't get described within published literature in the manner that is understandable to the general reader. Or more correctly, I have never found anything on-line more complete than the likes of this overly-simplistic UCAR page.

    0 0
  17. dkeierleber @15, I came across this when reading up on the greenhouse effect some time back, appears to be written by a chemistry teacher.

    "Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate - this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen  (as they bump together) and causes a general heating of the atmosphere. Analogy: Think of a partially stretched "toy slinky" - if you bump the slinky, the energy of the bump is absorbed by the vibrations in the slinky."

    0 0
  18. I’m dense and not quite there yet. From Pierrehumbert Principles of Planetary Climate (p 221), “Since energy is conserved, the absorption or emission of a photon must be accompanied by a change in the internal energy state of the molecule. It is a consequence of quantum mechanics that the internal energy of a molecule can only take on values drawn from a finite set of possible energy states, the distribution of which is determined by the structure of the molecule.”

    So molecules can only take on specific vibrational states, constrained by quantum mechanics. A molecule with 2 atoms has only 1 allowed vibrational state (3 x 2 – 5). GHG molecules have more allowed energy (vibrational) states (3 x the # of atoms -5 for linear molecules, -6 for nonlinear ones). But the energy states are still confined to whole multiples of the quanta that excites them. Just like a photon energy must match the energy gap between electron shells in order to be absorbed and boost the electron to a higher shell. The photon could not boost 2 electrons half way to the next shell. Quanta can’t be divided.

    It is this quantum constraint that makes the GH work. If GHGs were excited by any LWR the atmosphere would go crazy. GHG molecules can only absorb energy in narrow bands---they are little receptors tuned to specific frequencies. So loosing part of their constrained vibrational energy via collisional transfer would leave them in a non-allowed quantum state.

    Also from Pierrehumbert (p 227) collisional broadening of the absorption bands occurs because the kinetic energy of the collision is not quantized. So a molecule can borrow some of that energy to be boosted to the next allowed vibrational state by photons whose frequency (and thus energy) would ordinarily be outside their absorption band.

    That is the missing part of MA Rodgers response on why Mars is so cold. The lack of water vapor is a big factor but so is the thin atmosphere---too thin to allow for collisional broadening. On Venus, collisional broadening extends high into the atmosphere. This is explained on the American Chemical Society’s post on Multi-Layer Model.

    Digressing for a bit, in a sufficiently thick atmosphere, non GHG molecules can absorb photons during a collision. Nitrogen in Titan’s cold dense atmosphere, eg. That’s a different process called Continuum Absorption and also happens on Venus.

    So, again, I can see the vibrational energy state of molecules being affected by a collision only if the process involved the emission of a lower energy photon to return the molecule to a lower vibrational state. Of course the problem may be my failure to understand the process and learning difficulties associated with my aging brain. Also, Pierrehumbert likely explains the process in the next 2 chapters but I struggle a bit with a graduate level climate science book. I was hoping for a short cut to understanding this

    0 0
  19. PS I will read the 1971 NASA publication today to see how they explain it.

    0 0
  20. dkierleber,

    You have asked good questions that are on topic.  I think you have a small misunderstanding that will soon be corrected.  Keep up the discussion till you feel you are informed.  It helps other readers to hear your questions. Everyone looks harder at their understanding.

    I think you are just a little off.  As I understand the physics, it is easy for carbon dioxide molecules to lose the extra vibrational energy they get from IR photons through collisions with other molecules.  Due to the long time before a new photon is released, there are usually thousands or millions of collisions before a photon is emitted.  It is not necessary for a photon to be emitted at the same time as the collision.  The extra vibrational energy ends up as kinetic energy and heats up the atmosphere.

    Because other molecules of CO2 can be put in the excited state by collisions there is always a population of molecules that can emit photons.  Even though most of the molecules do not emit the energy as photons, enough do to keep the system in equilibrium.  At higher temperatures more molecules are in the excited state and more photons are emitted.

    I think line broadening is only a small contribution to the greenhouse effect.  The primary issue is that when CO2 is at low concentrations emitted photons escape to outer space.  At high concentrations of CO2 the photons are absorbed by other CO2 molecules before they can escape. 

    On Mars the CO2 is in a low concentration (measured as grams per liter) even at the surface so the energy escapes to space.  On Earth the escape altitude was about 10.00 kilometers in 1850.  Since then the CO2 concentration has increased about 130 ppm.  That increase caused the escape altitude to increase to about 10.16 km (only about 160 meters).  The lapse rate (the rate of decrease of temperature due to increasing altitude) is about 6C per kilometer.  That means it is about 1C cooler at the new escape altitude.  Less energy is emitted when it is cooler.  In order to preserve conservation of energy, it has to heat up at the new escape altitude so that the same amount of energy is emitted.  This increase then propagates down to the surface. 

    At 10km altitude there is little water vapor in the atmosphere since it is so cold.  CO2 is the main greenhouse gas at that altitude.  Since CO2 is the main gas at the escape altitude it exerts the most control over warming.

    I have digressed a lot from your questions about vibrational energy.  Does this information help?  Unfortunately, I do not know of a good reference. For what it is worth, I teach introductory College Chemistry.  We touch on energy exchange.  I did not take quantum chemistry.  I learned the most about the greenhouse effect reading Skeptical Science for the past 10 years.

    1 0
  21. michael sweet @20,

    To add a bit more to your comment.

    On the number of collisions etc - The collisions of a molecule in air are measured in microseconds while the the relaxation from vibration of CO2 is in tenths of seconds. So the ratio is in the millions.

    On the pressure broadening - It won't reduce the atmospheric warming as the IR photons are absorbed over a broader spectrum but with less probability at any specific wavelength. But it does leave more gaps, a larger protion of the spectrum which can leak energy to space (if there is no other GHG operating at those broadened wavelengths). And @5, my comment about the "the lack of any other GHGs to fill in the gaps of the electro-magnetic spectrum" didn't consider the relatively minor effect of pressure broadening but was addressing the large parts of the specrum which would have no insulating GHG operating on Mars as there is only CO2 as a GHG in the martian atmosphere.

    On the temperature of Mars - Mars does actually have a greater thickness of CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, over ten times more. But on its own CO2 would not even compensate for the effects of the diurnal and zonal temperature variations which reduce the average temperature below the simplistic S-B average value.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us