Understanding The Greenhouse Effect

Gizmodo AU

Global warming has been one of the biggest issues facing humanity for the past few years. While Governments are chasing their tales to try and work out the best way to minimise human impact on the earth’s climate, it’s important to understand what’s happening on the planet to cause such concern. As part of our Earth Month coverage, today we’re going to look a little bit closer at The Greenhouse Effect.

As the name suggests, the Earth is like one big greenhouse. The sun’s rays enter our atmosphere, heating up the planet’s surface, as well as giving us suntans and the energy to get up and go to work each day. If the energy from the sun was rejected at the start of the earth’s atmosphere, the planet would be a rather mild average of -18ºC on a daily basis, instead of the 15ºC it is today.

Once the planet’s surface has been nicely warmed up, it starts to radiate some heat of its own, except this time in the form of infrared rays. This heat energy glows up from the earth and mostly gets absorbed into the atmosphere, which gives us the pleasant living conditions we experience today. While most of the energy is absorbed, some does manage to leak out into space, potentially to create space mutants in a distant galaxy (but probably not).

But as it turns out, there’s only one particular molecule in the atmosphere that absorbs the IR radiation from the earth – CO2. Which means that as we start to pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere by burning coal and driving cars and breathing out, there’s more and more of the planet’s IR heat energy being absorbed into by the atmosphere, warming it up.

Here’s a video that explains the process a little more eloquently:

So what can we do to stop it? The obvious answer is to lower our CO2 emissions, but that in itself is easier said than done. Governments around the world are struggling to find solutions that will reduce emissions sufficiently without bankrupting industry, and so they drag their collective feet, waiting for a miracle.

The answer from an individual standpoint is simple and logical – do your best to reduce your own carbon footprint. Buy green electricity and do your best to minimise your usage of it. Where possible, walk or cycle to work. Turn off light switches, plant trees and don’t boil a full kettle for a single cup of tea. If everybody made an effort, the difference would be obvious. It’ll also save you money in the long run.

[Earth Month 11]

Discuss

(23 Comments)
  • [–]

    Davey

    Friday, April 15, 2011 at 3:18 PM

    It’s good to read something that informs readers about the issue. On the other hand the media here in Aus seem to go into overdrive when a crackpot like Monckton arrives for a tour.

  • [–]

    red t-rex

    Friday, April 15, 2011 at 3:50 PM

    Anyone circulate this to the Federal Liberal Party? Oh, that’s right, some of them still don’t know what a computer is.

  • [–]

    matt

    Friday, April 15, 2011 at 4:01 PM

    I like this version better:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taViFH_6_Y

  • [–]

    Joe

    Friday, April 15, 2011 at 4:01 PM

    When did this blog become a left wing / greenie blog preaching the great global warming scare? If this was 1999 would you be preaching the impending threat of the y2k bug? honestly, the delusion is totally insane.

    • [–]

      Theo Batchelor

      Friday, April 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM

      Yeah, fuck science!

      • [–]

        Que

        Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 7:08 AM

        Actually no. Educate yourself on the science and you will find that the case for AGW is greatly overstated. BTW There is not one temperature prediction by the IPCC that has come true (even best case). The models are wrong.
        In science as in life,…. it’s all about the money honey,… follow the research dollars.

      • [–]

        christian m

        Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 7:31 AM

        what!? so people cannot be skeptical about some of the theories put forward by some of the scientists?
        we have to believe without questioning now?

        are we in north korea or china now and cannot be free to express opinions without being attacked by red t-rex or yourself theo?

        why not slander me as a ‘denialist’ too?

        not happy Giz

        • [–]

          Theo Batchelor

          Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 3:12 PM

          If you’re actually going to sit here and deny global warming then it’s not even worth my time arguing with you.

          Australia really is just a nation of tradies..

          • [–]

            christian m

            Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM

            when did anyone deny GW????

            All we have said is that GW is overstated or there are two sides to the argument etc.

            matt you rely on slander for you point of view, so your opinion is wasteful. Childish – must be a Greens supporter haha

            Theo you can have your opinion, but it does not mean it is right.

    • [–]

      Pinstripe819

      Friday, April 15, 2011 at 5:59 PM

      Oh man, if there’s one thing I just can’t stand in my gizmodo it’s SCIENCE.

      ERGH

    • [–]

      Michael Hanak

      Friday, April 15, 2011 at 6:54 PM

      Good one Joe ! How can CO2 as a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere , do such damage logic dictates otherwise, a quick trip to wikipedia could have sorted them out!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

      Oh yeah taxing the crap out of it will fix it …..Not

  • [–]

    Paul

    Friday, April 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM

    Oh great, Lifehacker now believes they are qualified scientists who can report on something they know nothing about, without quoting and sources or presenting any scientific evidence.

    You have to admit, that degrades the quality of your publication a huge amount, and frankly, I’m embarrassed to still be reading this site.

    Report on fact, not what has been fed to you by sensationalist media publications in the past.

    • [–]

      Sam Cook

      Friday, April 15, 2011 at 8:43 PM

      Paul, don’t like it – don’t read it. Simple.

    • [–]

      Apollo

      Friday, April 15, 2011 at 11:12 PM

      Oh great, its someone that pretends to create a logical arguement against the laws of physics and then try to make others believe the same BS by just flapping their gums and expecting logic to come out. Are you a member of the Liberal party trying to explain Wireless Vs Fibre too?

    • [–]

      Greg

      Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 1:04 AM

      Agree! Report all points of view, not just those supported by the evidence! ;-)

  • [–]

    matt

    Friday, April 15, 2011 at 5:42 PM

    climate change deniers are the best!

    honestly… I don’t understand WHY it would be a conspiracy…

    what would be in it for anyone??

    • [–]

      Que

      Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM

      MONEY.

      It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just money money money. I’ve been in research for many years. Scientists research whereever the money is. The publication bias is also strong towards results that feed the money providers. Anyone who has been in research for a period of time will tell you this. Just try writing a grant application!

      IMHO the majority of people who claim ‘why would there be a conspiracy?’ have never worked in research or chased a grant dollar.

  • [–]

    Que

    Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 7:10 AM

    I agree with many of the above comments. I come to Giz/LH to get away from the polemic rubbish in the the mainstream media. Now I have to read this nonsense here too?
    Back to Engadget methinks. (and a little slashdot).

  • [–]

    David

    Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM

    Sorry, have to interject here, what with the smart comment about the Liberal Party blah blah blah…

    I have a BSc majoring in geological science. I spent 4 years studying geology, geochemistry, geomorphology, climate change, palaeoclimatology, remote sensing…you name it. So I feel qualified to speak about this.

    The scientific world is NOT in agreement about two things:

    (1) whether or not there is in fact ‘global warming’ – a huge amount of data actually shows some parts of the planet (e.g. ice caps) have actually gotten cooler in the last 100 years)

    (2) whether or not human-induced climate change exists and if so to what degree.

    A lot of data is being bastardised as the greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change – whatever they’re calling it this week – because that’s where the research funds go.

    Bear in mind that climate data is only reliable for the last 60 years or so. Do you really think they were accurately measuring temperatures in 1900?

    Climate cycles are multitudinous in that there are microcycles within larger cycles within even larger cycles within even larger cycles again. You can be ‘warming’ whilst still ‘cooling’.

    Personally I feel we should at least be doing some risk mitigation in regards to CO2 but there are more pressing issues like sustainability, recycling and water security.

    Oh, don’t forget that a greenhouse isn’t dry, its wet. Droughts happen in cold times not dry times. The last major greenhouse effect (30million years ago, Eocene period) saw Australia pretty much covered in rainforests.

    • [–]

      Que

      Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM

      Yep. I second all of this.

      People not in research find this fanciful or shocking. To those in research this is how it is,…sad really.

      • [–]

        Adrian Cascun-Valencic

        Monday, April 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM

        *puts hand up* third!

        Another BSc here. The language-games are what really gets me riled.

        AFAIK nobody these days denies that climate change exists. Nobody these days would discourage people generally cleaning up their act. What is being disputed is the effect that *humans* have on the climate.

        Also, don’t forget about the great global cooling “crisis” in the ’70s… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_awareness

    • [–]

      Greg

      Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 9:04 AM

      “(1) whether or not there is in fact ‘global warming’ – a huge amount of data actually shows some parts of the planet (e.g. ice caps) have actually gotten cooler in the last 100 years)”

      It is surprising that during all of your studies you didn’t come to understand that the atmosphere & oceans are heat engines.  In practice, this means that heat is moved around the atmosphere and oceans.  Result: some places get warmer (e.g. glacial melting sites); other places get cooler.

  • [–]

    Donnie

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 4:33 AM

    Well, I don’t know about the rest of you but I was freezing my ass off in Florida this winter with all this global warming going on.

Join The Discussion