|
Post by duwayne on Nov 24, 2014 22:19:57 GMT
For those of you with some math expertise.... I'd like some help.
Givens for the purpose of this calculation:
1. Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1850 was 270 ppm
2. Current CO2 concentration is 400 ppm
3. The global temperature increase from 1850 to current was 0.80C
4. All of the temperature increase was and will be due to CO2
5. The global temperature increase is proportional to the logarithm of the increase in CO2
Question: What will the global temperature be versus 1850 when the atmospheric CO2 concentration reaches 520 ppm?
My calculation is a warming of 1.41C. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 24, 2014 22:25:45 GMT
For those of you with some math expertise.... I'd like some help. Givens for the purpose of this calculation: 1. Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1850 was 270 ppm 2. Current CO2 concentration is 400 ppm 3. The global temperature increase from 1850 to current was 0.80C 4. All of the temperature increase was and will be due to CO2 5. The global temperature increase is proportional to the logarithm of the increase in CO2 Question: What will the global temperature be versus 1850 when the atmospheric CO2 concentration reaches 520 ppm? My calculation is a warming of 1.41C. Is that correct? Not only do you have to assume that all the temperature increase is due to CO2, you also have to make the assumption that nothing else in the atmosphere changes with the small increase in temperatures. Neither of these assumptions is reasonable. The first depends on water vapor feedback, the second depends on no water vapor feedback.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 24, 2014 23:09:04 GMT
And correlation does not indicate causation, even when r > .8
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 24, 2014 23:36:31 GMT
Duwayne. Yes
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 25, 2014 1:30:41 GMT
I don't understand maths....point 5...does this account for CO2 having proportionally less of an effect as concentration increases? I belive this is the case?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 25, 2014 2:10:10 GMT
I don't understand maths....point 5...does this account for CO2 having proportionally less of an effect as concentration increases? I belive this is the case? Yes, the logarithmic properties of CO2 are why the effect of higher CO2 PPMV have a less and less influence on temperatures. With that stated tho, below approx 50,000 feet, CO2 is not even in play, as H2O vapor blankets the effect out. Some climate scientists should know this, but seem to ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Nov 25, 2014 2:15:48 GMT
There is a terribly thing called saturation, probably only understood by spectroscopists.
CO2 only absorbs in two radaiation bands, from memory one of which overlaps with H2O [ that funny stuff that fish swim in].
Unfortunately, the first 20 ppm absorbs about half the radiation that CO2 is capable of absorbing. The next 20 ppm absorbs another half, and so on.
By the time one reaches 400 ppm, that means that about 99.999% of the radiation that carbon dioxide can ever absorb has already happened.
In a nutshell, that is why all this alarmism over increases in CO2 is absurd. Otherwise the planet would have gone into heat death when the concentration was 4000 ppm.
But don't expect journalists or the green movement to understand it.
It is also why duwayne's calculation is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 25, 2014 3:53:39 GMT
Duwaynes calculation is correct in that he stated nothing else changes.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 25, 2014 22:44:15 GMT
Sigurdur, thanks very much for checking my calculation.
Douglavers, if what you say is true, then the global warming "scare" is over. What can you provide to convince me and others that you are right beyond just declaring that it is so. I have a pretty good understanding of the so-called greenhouse effect so you can make your explanation as technical as you wish.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 26, 2014 0:01:24 GMT
Seems to me that 'they' never did anything but "declare" that there was a global warming problem in the first place. Computer models can produce any scary sci-fi future that you want to dream up and try to support. Beyond computer models, and getting caught trying to fake data, what have they shown?
The burden of proof is still with those who are trying to dictate change to the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Nov 26, 2014 5:24:28 GMT
Duwayne I have an original article in pdf format. Admittedly it is from 2007, but the science has not changed!! For fun, I have added a CO2/Geologic Eras file.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 26, 2014 6:59:45 GMT
Doug, do you have a reference for the entire first document?
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Nov 26, 2014 11:47:52 GMT
Unfortunately not - I just copied the article for my own interest a long time ago - well before this blog was invented. You might research MODTRANS and University of Chicago.
Actually, the second graph is the killer. If CO2 was the primary "greenhouse effect" driver, the Ordovician Glaciation 450m years ago should have been impossible with a concentration of well over 4000 ppm.
Other physical effects must have had an overwhelming effect.
I think there is lots of debate about "saturation" and lots of "proofs" that increasing CO2 will still keep pushing temperatures upwards.
The real tragedy is that tens of billions of dollars has been spent "proving" the effect of CO2 on the climate.
If just a sliver of this had been spent on a broader based research effort, we might have had a half way decent climate theory by now.
Currently, climate science is anything but settled.
I suspect that when science historians look back on the last two decades, they will wonder why a substantial proportion of climate scientists believed that the concentration of a trace essential gas controlled everything.
They will conclude it was absolutely bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 26, 2014 14:05:22 GMT
I suspect that when science historians look back on the last two decades, they will wonder why a substantial proportion of climate scientists believed that the concentration of a trace essential gas controlled everything. They will conclude it was absolutely bizarre. No - they will conclude that Eisenhower was prescient about the effect of government money on research and be saddened by the total lack of ethics in Universities and science generally. While climate is the scientific field being discussed here, it is not alone in the misuse of models disregard of observations and pushing group-think supported by marketing strategies. From dietary fats to archeology you can find precisely the same abject ethical failures and attacks on scientists with different views. The only difference with 'Global Warming' is that the greedy bankers and politicians have found they can use these unethical 'climate scientists' to obtain power and money. The UN is salivating at being able to control the 'first world' economies by strangling their energy supplies. You cannot get that kind of traction with misleading research on Vitamin D. Things are only going to get worse in the run up to the Paris Treaty meeting next year.
|
|
|
Post by juancarnuba on Nov 26, 2014 17:29:34 GMT
Sigurdur, thanks very much for checking my calculation. Douglavers, if what you say is true, then the global warming "scare" is over. What can you provide to convince me and others that you are right beyond just declaring that it is so. I have a pretty good understanding of the so-called greenhouse effect so you can make your explanation as technical as you wish. The Beer-Lambert Gas Law should convince you.
|
|