nasif
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by nasif on Jun 26, 2009 18:47:50 GMT
Wow, what a FAIL! - did you even look at the graph? It seems you don't know how to interpret the scheme. The bars refer to the concentration of each gas in the atmosphere, as it has been clearly stipulated in the article. I doubt you know what's the emissivity of carbon dioxide is.
|
|
nasif
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by nasif on Jun 26, 2009 18:52:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 26, 2009 19:45:53 GMT
That may be, it's more likely the underlying reasoning that is incorrect. One big clue I think is those bars for N2 and O2. N2 and O2 provide far less warming of the earth's atmosphere than co2, so something is wrong here. lmao seriously? A famous paper from over 100 years ago just happened to be falsified by a particular paper in 2008? What are the odds. Blog science is not science Nothing incorrect there. You can check the data from my article with the data of Hottel, Modest, Pitts and Sissom, Potter, Manrique, etc. Like I said the data may be correct, the error is probably in the interpretation. So why am I so sure it is wrong? Mainly because if it was true that such a simple argument proved doubling co2 had such little direct warming effect then no scientist would think otherwise. My guess for why it is wrong is that it isn't over an entire atmospheric column (in fact the Y-axis saying "1 atm" suggests this) but is only a small column near the surface rendering it irrelevant concerning the true impact of doubling co2 throughout the entire atmosphere.
|
|
nasif
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by nasif on Jun 26, 2009 20:16:51 GMT
Nothing incorrect there. You can check the data from my article with the data of Hottel, Modest, Pitts and Sissom, Potter, Manrique, etc. Like I said the data may be correct, the error is probably in the interpretation. So why am I so sure it is wrong? Mainly because if it was true that such a simple argument proved doubling co2 had such little direct warming effect then no scientist would think otherwise. My guess for why it is wrong is that it isn't over an entire atmospheric column (in fact the Y-axis saying "1 atm" suggests this) but is only a small column near the surface rendering it irrelevant concerning the true impact of doubling co2 throughout the entire atmosphere. Of course it is taking into account the whole column of air. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0034 0.00034 atm; as the column of air increases in altitude the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases and its emissivity goes down with it. Thus, the interpretation is quite correct. I suggest the reading of the experiments of Hottel et al.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 26, 2009 20:35:38 GMT
Like I said the data may be correct, the error is probably in the interpretation. So why am I so sure it is wrong? Mainly because if it was true that such a simple argument proved doubling co2 had such little direct warming effect then no scientist would think otherwise. My guess for why it is wrong is that it isn't over an entire atmospheric column (in fact the Y-axis saying "1 atm" suggests this) but is only a small column near the surface rendering it irrelevant concerning the true impact of doubling co2 throughout the entire atmosphere. Of course it is taking into account the whole column of air. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0034 0.00034 atm; as the column of air increases in altitude the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases and its emissivity goes down with it. Thus, the interpretation is quite correct. I suggest the reading of the experiments of Hottel et al. There is nothing about altitude on that graph. It only mentions the concentration of gases and the emissivity. How do you know these values are not for emissivity of a 1 meter column of air at the surface? Big difference between than and a column of air 1000 meters in height. The larger column will contain more gas molecules and therefore more IR from the surface will be absorbed.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2009 0:43:55 GMT
SoCold: Thus, the interpretation is quite correct. I suggest the reading of the experiments of Hottel et al.
I really do suggest you read the experiments. They are very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by davidsbsd on Jun 27, 2009 4:41:56 GMT
Wow, what a FAIL! - did you even look at the graph? It seems you don't know how to interpret the scheme. The bars refer to the concentration of each gas in the atmosphere, as it has been clearly stipulated in the article. I doubt you know what's the emissivity of carbon dioxide is. That FAIL was directed to socold. I had no problem with the graph.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 27, 2009 11:29:52 GMT
On the other hand, if we introduce the sensitivity given by Arrhenius (falsified by Schwartz et al in 2008), doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won't warm up the Earth by more than 1 K:
ÄT = 5.35 (W/m^2) [LN2] / 4 (ó) (T)^3 = 0.98 K
A couple of things here:
1. Which bit of the above expression is Arrhenuis responsible for. 2. The sensitivity calculation is wrong as I pointed out in the opening post of this thread. You can't simply divide the downward flux by dE/dT. This the error Steve M. makes on Junkscience.
Yes, I post at Climate Audit, and what's the problem?
Nothing wrong with it at all. Science should be more open.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 27, 2009 13:28:34 GMT
Wow, what a FAIL! - did you even look at the graph? It seems you don't know how to interpret the scheme. The bars refer to the concentration of each gas in the atmosphere, as it has been clearly stipulated in the article. I doubt you know what's the emissivity of carbon dioxide is. Nasif, Could you show how you derived CO2 and water vapour emissivity. When I used Google books on your reference I could only get figure 11.26 which considered emissivity at high temperatures. Also, it referred to PcdL in units of atm-ft (? it was a bit out of focus) but for the definition, it referred to table 11.2 (which wasn't available in the Google preview). 1. What is PcdL in Schaums/Hottel's units, for current CO2 concentrations? 2. Is there another table in that book that refers to emissivity at typical atmosphere temperatures?
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jul 6, 2009 15:30:45 GMT
www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdfPage 22: "Comparing the magnitudeof the expected change in the surface temperature we conclude, that the observed increase in the CO2 concentration must not be the primary reason of the global warming."
|
|