|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 7, 2009 6:51:06 GMT
I've been trying to explain it in other ways but I finally figured out the problem and it's a problem with the most basic math of anthropogenic global warming. CO2 doesn't JUST absorb and re-emit energy from other sources. CO2 at a temperature will emit its spectrum at the appropriate levels for that temperature. The lowest temperature in the atmosphere is at the top of the troposphere. The very high temperature gradient (6C/km) leading up to this coldest point is dominated by the affects of water vapor. The coldest temperature in the atmosphere is at about 220 kelvin. The atmosphere is warmer both above and below this point. Even with much higher levels of CO2 we will always see at least an amount of CO2's spectrum leaving the earth proportional to the lowest temperature. Half of its spectrum is already there. The rest of the increases in absorption are not calculated relative to zero...but with relative to the black body curve for its temperature. Here (in red) is the actual (potential) budget for CO2 You will note...half of it is already at those levels. The other half only has about half the potential people seem to think it does because it's not going to go any lower than the black body curve for its temperature. It will either become an emitter for that amount of radiation at saturation or it will be unsaturated and emit some while letting some through. And once again, it's ALREADY warmer on either side of that part of the atmosphere. There's no "moving up" of CO2's supposed radiating zone. If it moves up it will become an even more efficient emitter. If it moves down it will become an even more efficient emitter. If it warms up...it will become a more efficient emitter (and no, back radiation doesn't work when you're talking about something colder). This is also the reason such high levels of water vapor's spectrum can make it out of the atmosphere (see chart). Even though water vapor is at such incredibly high concentrations it's radiation should have a hard time crossing the street... we see loads of its spectrum spewing out into space. This is the FIRST math they do and it's already four times higher than it could possibly be. Everything that follows is off by at least that much.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 7:43:11 GMT
It doesn't just get deeper with more co2, it widens. The change to the emission spectrum to cause 3.39wm-2 forcing is slight:
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 7, 2009 9:17:49 GMT
It doesn't just get deeper with more co2, it widens. The change to the emission spectrum to cause 3.39wm-2 forcing is slight: Great! Now you just have to figure out how the heck are you going to get this pitiful amount of energy back down to the ground? FedEx? UPS? With it hotter above the emission zone CAN'T move up to a colder region (it IS the cold region) and that energy sure as heck isn't going to fight its way across a 70 degree gradient to head back to the ground when it has a free ride to space.
|
|
|
Post by zer0th on Jun 7, 2009 10:16:36 GMT
Does anyone have any data on the concentration of CO2 by altitude?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 13:15:19 GMT
It doesn't just get deeper with more co2, it widens. The change to the emission spectrum to cause 3.39wm-2 forcing is slight: Great! Now you just have to figure out how the heck are you going to get this pitiful amount of energy back down to the ground? FedEx? UPS? With it hotter above the emission zone CAN'T move up to a colder region (it IS the cold region) and that energy sure as heck isn't going to fight its way across a 70 degree gradient to head back to the ground when it has a free ride to space. You seem to be anthropomorphising this energy! But you are thinking about it the wrong way. The change in the spectrum (the widening of the CO2 spectral line) is an illustration of the reduction in the rate of cooling of the atmosphere. Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 13:16:34 GMT
Does anyone have any data on the concentration of CO2 by altitude? I don't have a link, but I believe that it is reasonably well spread throughout the atmosphere. For example, the data from Mauna Loa a few kilometres up lines up with other low-altitude stations.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 7, 2009 13:26:57 GMT
Does anyone have any data on the concentration of CO2 by altitude? Make that an actual amount not a relative PPM
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 7, 2009 13:46:58 GMT
poitsplace: "Great! Now you just have to figure out how the heck are you going to get this pitiful amount of energy back down to the ground? FedEx? UPS? With it hotter above the emission zone CAN'T move up to a colder region (it IS the cold region) and that energy sure as heck isn't going to fight its way across a 70 degree gradient to head back to the ground when it has a free ride to space."
It gets back down to the ground through "the pipeline". But slowly.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 8, 2009 0:40:05 GMT
Great! Now you just have to figure out how the heck are you going to get this pitiful amount of energy back down to the ground? FedEx? UPS? With it hotter above the emission zone CAN'T move up to a colder region (it IS the cold region) and that energy sure as heck isn't going to fight its way across a 70 degree gradient to head back to the ground when it has a free ride to space. You seem to be anthropomorphising this energy! But you are thinking about it the wrong way. The change in the spectrum (the widening of the CO2 spectral line) is an illustration of the reduction in the rate of cooling of the atmosphere. Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument. Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument. Lindzen: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.pptWhat we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already). Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity ‘offend the sensibilities of the of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts,’ and who would want to do that.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2009 12:32:41 GMT
You seem to be anthropomorphising this energy! But you are thinking about it the wrong way. The change in the spectrum (the widening of the CO2 spectral line) is an illustration of the reduction in the rate of cooling of the atmosphere. Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument. Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument. Lindzen: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.pptWhat we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already). Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity ‘offend the sensibilities of the of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts,’ and who would want to do that.
Magellan, Lindzen's presentation doesn't address my point. Perhaps it is because he agrees with Spencer, Christy, Michaels and others who accept that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas whose basic forcing *can* be calculated. Lindzen's arguments have always been about sensitivity of the climate. He's at the optimistic end - but that doesn't mean he's right.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 8, 2009 16:20:57 GMT
Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument. Lindzen: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.pptWhat we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already). Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity ‘offend the sensibilities of the of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts,’ and who would want to do that.
Magellan, Lindzen's presentation doesn't address my point. Perhaps it is because he agrees with Spencer, Christy, Michaels and others who accept that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas whose basic forcing *can* be calculated. Lindzen's arguments have always been about sensitivity of the climate. He's at the optimistic end - but that doesn't mean he's right. Well in an ideal world it could but the world is seldom described as "ideal" by anyone. For a start you actually have to include CO2's emission capabilities which means you need to factor in temperature and pressure through the whole atmosphere. Remember, CO2 is constantly spewing radiation on its own as it bangs around in the atmosphere. This is usually overlooked by AGW proponents. But even calculating for every layer we'd run into a problem...convection. Sheesh, we haven't even done the math for a pure CO2 atmosphere yet and already we've hit something too complex for us to properly calculate by hand. If you want to try to approximate the numbers your best bet would be to calculate for teh coldest bands of the atmosphere...because those are the ones that will limit output the most. Socold was kind enough to work this out for us and he calculates it at 3.39 watts per square meter. Am I to assume you're saying half of it crosses 80% of the atmosphere and a huge temperature gradient and makes it to the ground? Well that leaves you with 1.65 watts per square meter. Congrats...doubling CO2 should only add at most 1.7 watts per square meter. Of course that cold region is sandwiched between warmer regions. Please, tell me what sort of math answers the question of what happens to that energy though? Atmospheric thickness (and CO2 concentration) goes up exponentially as you approach the ground (with a very solid limit, I know). Emission by CO2 go up exponentially as temperature increases. CO2's absorption, however...goes up logarithmically. Also the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere drops as it goes up. Personally I get the feeling that the only thing that's likely to happen is the trivial amounts of energy will slightly raise the temperature of the cold zone to output the remainder of the energy. There's just not much reason for anything else to heat up. That layer has a lower specific heat capacity than the ground. The regions above offer no additional resistance because they're warmer. The regions below are actually the source of the radiation to begin with. Getting back to your assertion that it can be calculated...we haven't even added water vapor yet and it's already too complex. What we can see is that all the math points to it doing very little. CO2 is obviously not getting much of even its own spectru (water likely shifts it over). There's just not much more greenhouse affect to be had...from what little bits we can work out easily.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 8, 2009 16:31:33 GMT
Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument. Lindzen: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.pptWhat we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already). Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity ‘offend the sensibilities of the of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts,’ and who would want to do that.
Magellan, Lindzen's presentation doesn't address my point. Perhaps it is because he agrees with Spencer, Christy, Michaels and others who accept that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas whose basic forcing *can* be calculated. Lindzen's arguments have always been about sensitivity of the climate. He's at the optimistic end - but that doesn't mean he's right. Reality does not agree with IPCC and climate modelers, and that has always been the issue. At what point do you stop posting theory and give some supporting evidence?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2009 16:38:23 GMT
Magellan, Lindzen's presentation doesn't address my point. Perhaps it is because he agrees with Spencer, Christy, Michaels and others who accept that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas whose basic forcing *can* be calculated. Lindzen's arguments have always been about sensitivity of the climate. He's at the optimistic end - but that doesn't mean he's right. Seems to me he makes a strong scientific case that the sensitivities projected by all the modeling have not panned out. If you give any regard to a concept that humankind needs to give a different consideration to the lion eating their sheep versus the boogeyman making noises under the bed at night. . . .one cannot deny scientifically that Lindzen's work has given you a basis to do that.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2009 16:44:33 GMT
Magellan, Lindzen's presentation doesn't address my point. Perhaps it is because he agrees with Spencer, Christy, Michaels and others who accept that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas whose basic forcing *can* be calculated. Lindzen's arguments have always been about sensitivity of the climate. He's at the optimistic end - but that doesn't mean he's right. Well in an ideal world it could but the world is seldom described as "ideal" by anyone. For a start you actually have to include CO2's emission capabilities which means you need to factor in temperature and pressure through the whole atmosphere. Remember, CO2 is constantly spewing radiation on its own as it bangs around in the atmosphere. This is usually overlooked by AGW proponents. That's a bit like alleging that the designer of a car has overlooked the fact that petrol (gas) burns. I don't want to be rude, but this is getting into fantasy land. I remember as a kid first learning about the Van Allen Belt and not quite understanding how this belt of radiation could just sit around the earth waiting to zap any unfortunate astronauts. Are you imagining a band of 3.7 Watts worth of photons whipping around the mid-troposphere unable to go down (because it's repelled by the entropy) and unable to go higher (because of the CO2)? Throughout the whole atmosphere, the mean free path of a photon will shorten as CO2 rises, so there will be a change in energy balance all the way up through the atmosphere. At the top level it manifests itself as a net reduction in the outgoing radiation. "wibble" ("Blackadder goes forth", circa 1990)
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 8, 2009 17:42:06 GMT
I don't want to be rude, but this is getting into fantasy land. I remember as a kid first learning about the Van Allen Belt and not quite understanding how this belt of radiation could just sit around the earth waiting to zap any unfortunate astronauts. Are you imagining a band of 3.7 Watts worth of photons whipping around the mid-troposphere unable to go down (because it's repelled by the entropy) and unable to go higher (because of the CO2)? WHAT?!?!? No, I'm "imagining" 3.7 watts worth of photons with 80% of the atmospheric CO2 below it emitting more strongly than the layer we're talking about and a free trip to space at its back. Where do YOU think the energy's going to go? Put the ol' thinking cap on. It's hotter below...what's the net flow of energy (and at 3X higher rates from below I might add). The atmosphere is almost opaque to CO2's frequencies below but largely transparent above...what direction do you think "absorption and radiation" will favor? In fact, it's ironic that you should phrase your answer to my question the way you did because YOU are the one that's essentially making the claim that the energy's just sitting around with nowhere to go. The ground and lower level CO2 emit much more. The upper atmosphere resists far less. Yes, yes...the mean free path is reduced by a tiny amount. Of course the mean free path UP is always much longer. In fact, at the level we're talking about the mean free path UP is almost to space while the mean free path down is maybe a couple kilometers. You keep acting like it's reasonable to assume that with higher concentrations will somehow negate the fact that it's always going to have an easier time moving up.
|
|