Has anybody scientifically investigated the effect of electromagnetic transmissions on global warming as it is a form of energy being transmitted into the atmosphere and could change weather patterns?

Answer 1

Answer:

Global warming is caused by electromagnetic transmissions (a.k.a. light) heating up the earth but then being blocked from being reflected back into space as infra red radiation by greenhouse gasses. So, the short answer is yes. Energy coming from our sun is indeed a form of electromagnetic energy. It is not blocked by greenhouse gases as the first responder misstated. The energy causes the greenhouse gas to excite and absorb that energy, preventing it from being sent back into space, as the remaining 99% of the energy from our sun does. Without this very natural part of physics, we would be a very cold and quite dead planet.

Actually, since there is a large amount of infra red light emitted from the Sun, greenhouse gasses also shield the earth from some radiation as well as trapping it. However, since sunlight contains far more visible light than infra red light, the net effect is to trap heat.

Greenhouses gases have been around in high concentrations since the beginning of our planet. Much higher concentrations were present during the early stages of our planet compared to now. Many times during serious cooling periods. Greenhouses gases, in today's environment are fairly well balanced and change far less then throughout most of history, making up about 5% of our atmosphere. During the existence of man, we have noticed a 0.007% change in these green house gas concentrations. Most of this change may well be due to the different methods we use to measure CO2 today verses 100 years ago. Old readings are done through captured ice samples in remote areas and comparing them to new readings inside cities fro helicopters. When we compare Vostok samples from 1850 to current air samples in the same area, we see no CO2 change.

CO2 is a minor player in the GHG issue anyway. Water Vapor makes up 99% of our greenhouse gas. The total variance in water vapor levels far exceeds the possible affect of CO2. Your question though appears to be more interested in if man could change weather using electromagnetic waves or if our current use of radio waves could have bearing on the weather. To do so would require far more energy then mankind could ever develop with current technology. A single bolt of lightening (a small portion of even a single small storm) requires millions of watts of power. Our power, even if we could get the atmoshpere to absorb a large portion of what we develop, is too small even for a small change in weather. It is crazy to believe that our industrial activities contribute the warming of the earth directly. Rather, they produce greenhouse gasses which are expected to heat the earth by very minute amounts (half a degree centigrade over the 20th century). However, as ice ages and rapid stages of warming can attest to, climate can be unstable. Even a small amount of warming caused by man can cause warming to accelerate, something that we have not witnessed yet but is hypothesized to occur based on ice cores and climate modeling. A small amount of melting of glaciers in Canada, for example exposes dirty ice, allowing for more absorption of sunlight, furthermore, there are massive quantities of methane trapped underneath the ocean. Even small amounts of warming could cause all this methane to be released and this combined with dirty glaciers and ever increasing amounts of CO2 could cause truly dramatic global warming and its resulting climate change. If you are intrested in what causes the climate changes we see, check out Milutin Milankovich and his theories Compare them to the current findings from Greenland. Read the IPCC report and determine how little man can really affect our planet. It is sad how few people read science and listen to the politics of global warming. True science doesn't deny GHG being a partially man made event, but sure doesn't support it either. A true science expert leaves the possibility out there, but doesn't (can't) say it is certain or that man is the major player. To do so is not only unscientific, it is untruthful. We do not have proof, nor a consensus. To say that shows a political bend, not a true science viewpoint.