|
Post by Ratty on Dec 30, 2016 23:17:00 GMT
" My profession of accountancy learned a 100 years ago that being an expert wasn't sufficient to ensure honesty. "
Ain't that the truth!
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 31, 2016 3:26:56 GMT
My old and feeble memory recalls that the first 20ppm of CO2 absorbs half of the "absorbable" solar radiation.
The gas has two main absorption bands, one of which overlaps with water vapour.
The next 20 ppm,absorbs half of what is left. Bearing in mind that the current concentration is about 400ppm, i.e 20 iterations, this means that the next tranche of CO2 is going to make virtually no difference to its effect on the atmosphere.
The spectroscopic term is saturation.
This is why the earth did not go into heat death in the geological past when concentrations were in the vicinity of 4000ppm.
The Ordovician Glaciation should have been impossible.
This is also why I find the current debate on the effect of CO2 incomprehensible. Are there no real scientists left?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 31, 2016 4:27:54 GMT
My old and feeble memory recalls that the first 20ppm of CO2 absorbs half of the "absorbable" solar radiation. The gas has two main absorption bands, one of which overlaps with water vapour. The next 20 ppm,absorbs half of what is left. Bearing in mind that the current concentration is about 400ppm, i.e 20 iterations, this means that the next tranche of CO2 is going to make virtually no difference to its effect on the atmosphere. The spectroscopic term is saturation. This is why the earth did not go into heat death in the geological past when concentrations were in the vicinity of 4000ppm. The Ordovician Glaciation should have been impossible. This is also why I find the current debate on the effect of CO2 incomprehensible. Are there no real scientists left? Very few it seems
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 31, 2016 4:49:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 31, 2016 11:01:36 GMT
The best way I heard it described so even the media studies (Failed) climate 'scientists' can understand, is to imagine painting a window as the first coat goes onto the glass you may still see some light through it. But after a few coats there is no light getting through and adding more coats of paint has no effect. Unfortunately, climate 'scientists' who draw straight line projections on sine waves cannot grasp simple saturation due to a logarithmically reducing effect.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 31, 2016 12:23:53 GMT
My old and feeble memory recalls that the first 20ppm of CO2 absorbs half of the "absorbable" solar radiation. The gas has two main absorption bands, one of which overlaps with water vapour. The next 20 ppm,absorbs half of what is left. Bearing in mind that the current concentration is about 400ppm, i.e 20 iterations, this means that the next tranche of CO2 is going to make virtually no difference to its effect on the atmosphere. The spectroscopic term is saturation. This is why the earth did not go into heat death in the geological past when concentrations were in the vicinity of 4000ppm. The Ordovician Glaciation should have been impossible. This is also why I find the current debate on the effect of CO2 incomprehensible. Are there no real scientists left? At 0.036% of atmospheric gases it's easy to see why there is a catastrophe brewing. Has always been an unquantified part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 31, 2016 12:44:28 GMT
I just hate unquantified catastrophes .... there's no telling what will happen.
WAIT! Lightbulb moment.
If I could think up with a future problem that would scare the population witless, use words/phrases like "could", "maybe", "likely", "possible", "grandchildren", "more research needed", "<insert_innocent_element_name_here> pollution", "runaway <insert_anything_believable_here**>", "beak future", etc ... I could make a name/fortune for myself. Anyone willing to come on board?
** select from: cooling, warming, shrinking, expanding, falling, rising, etc .... you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 31, 2016 12:58:06 GMT
I just hate unquantified catastrophes .... there's no telling what will happen. WAIT! Lightbulb moment. If I could think up with a future problem that would scare the population witless, use words/phrases like "could", "maybe", "likely", "possible", "grandchildren", "more research needed", "< insert_innocent_element_name_here> pollution", "runaway < insert_anything_believable_here**>", "beak future", etc ... I could make a name/fortune for myself. Anyone willing to come on board? ** select from: cooling, warming, shrinking, expanding, falling, rising, etc .... you get the idea. I've always liked 'explosive intestinal flatulence' ... brought on by any number of grant-worthy human-caused environmental issues. The coffee's strong this morning.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 31, 2016 13:29:16 GMT
Don't remind me of the satay chicken ........ burp.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 31, 2016 18:34:34 GMT
Ratty, if this chart was accurate, there would certainly be nothing to worry about with respect to CO2. If you look at the second bar from the left it shows a 0.3C global temperature increase from an additional 20ppm of CO2 or a doubling of CO2 from 20 to 40ppm. If the next 2 bars are added together they confirm that the the temperature increases about 0.3C per doubling from 40 ppm to 80 ppm. The IPCC claims global temperatures increase 1.5 to 4.5C per doubling. If you take the average of 3.5C that's more than 10 times the climate sensitivity this chart shows. Please note that I do not agree with the IPCC numbers. I just show them to point out on the discrepancy. The argument isn't whether additional CO2 has a declining logarithmic effect or whether much of the available earth-sourced radiation is already being absorbed since I think even the most extreme warmists agree with that. The argument is about the climate sensitivity to additional CO2. Any science which conclusively proves the claim of a 0.3C climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 as shown in this chart would settle the argument on CAGW.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 31, 2016 18:41:59 GMT
The trend of climate sensitivity the past 5 years has been down.
From approx 3.0 to 1.5
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 31, 2016 18:59:27 GMT
I think that the problem is that 'climate sensitivity' is dealt with as if it is a constant. However, there are very few dynamic processes that are constants. Most are power laws/logarithmic. I would suggest that 'climate sensitivity' is not a simple value but a complex/intensive variable like temperature (as it is based on temperature) as such simple maths such as averaging two values of an intensive variable are illogical and incorrect. This is hidden in simplistic maths such as creating a global average temperature - which mathematically is possible but is physically meaningless. In the same way that it is possible to generate an average phone number from the London Phone Book to a precision of several places of decimals but it is meaningless as a useful value.
Moreover, many of these calculations are based on instantaneous effects with no convection effects within the atmosphere and are therefore by definition mythical effects.
This is the problem with loose definition of terms and lack of 'TYPE' (in the computer variable sense).
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 31, 2016 20:43:03 GMT
Once you have concluded that adding further CO2 to the atmosphere has no further significant effect, attention needs to turn to that other major greenhouse gas - water vapour.
The atmosphere's ability to hold water vapour increases rapidly with temperature, so spectroscopic saturation must also rapidly occur.
My understanding is that climate models assume that other amplification effects occur.i.e. positive feedback.
However - apart from being one of the most interesting liquids known in its condensed form - water vapour has another strange property in the atmosphere. It produces clouds, which reflect sunlight!! I gather this effect is not modelled much in the climate models - invariance is assumed.
In the days when the Arctic Ocean was tropical, if the feedback effects had not been strongly negative, our planet would have gone into heat death from all that extra water vapour in the atmosphere from higher temperatures worldwide.
We are still here, so that did not happen.
Therefore feedback effects are negative.
QED
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 31, 2016 21:54:15 GMT
Once you have concluded that adding further CO2 to the atmosphere has no further significant effect, attention needs to turn to that other major greenhouse gas - water vapour. The atmosphere's ability to hold water vapour increases rapidly with temperature, so spectroscopic saturation must also rapidly occur. My understanding is that climate models assume that other amplification effects occur.i.e. positive feedback. However - apart from being one of the most interesting liquids known in its condensed form - water vapour has another strange property in the atmosphere. It produces clouds, which reflect sunlight!! I gather this effect is not modelled much in the climate models - invariance is assumed. In the days when the Arctic Ocean was tropical, if the feedback effects had not been strongly negative, our planet would have gone into heat death from all that extra water vapour in the atmosphere from higher temperatures worldwide. We are still here, so that did not happen. Therefore feedback effects are negative. QED Water vapor has another trick it causes convection one by being lighter than O 2 and N 2 molecules so it will naturally convect upward and as it does it changes state releasing some of its heat and eventually precipitating out leaving the heat it transported upward as 'latent heat' behind either as radiation or as warmer O 2 and N 2. The continual preoccupation with radiative loss is strange when within the troposphere it is convection that carries the major part of heat upward to the tropopause. Except that the maths of radiation is easier to work with than the variables involved with lapse rates and cloud formation. So the climate 'scientists' avoid if they can talking of water vapor at all. The other major error with climate modeling is the use of temperature when they are really concerned with heat. The heat content of the atmosphere depends on its enthalpy which is altered significantly by the humidity - the water content of the volume of atmosphere being measured. A volume of atmosphere at 100% humidity and 75F (say a misty Louisiana Bayou after a storm) has twice the heat energy content as a similar volume of air in Arizona with almost zero humidity at 100F. The AGW theory is concerned with trapping heat - so why is heat not measured? Anthropogenic Global Warming --- what does warming mean then? It is a colloquial term like all of climate 'science' what they claim is 'heat is trapped' but then talk of warming. Heat may not 'warm' anything, it may just result in a change of state from ice crystal to liquid water. Infrared radiation does not have a temperature - temperature is the kinetic (or vibrational) energy of molecules. I note even the PhD physicists seem to use terms hot, cold, energy, warming and cooling very loosely. 66% of the Earth's surface is water (probably more) 'downwelling infra red', if it exists, will cool the surface of the water by causing evaporation of the first molecules in the top microns of the surface of the water and assist their escape (evaporation) taking with them the latent heat of evaporation. So the impact of downwelling infra red will be to cool most of the Earth's surface. The water vapor will then convect upward until it condenses into water and releases the infrared higher in the atmosphere it may be carried further and turn to ice releasing even more latent heat - then return to the surface to take up heat as it melts. Water vapor is more than just a 'radiative gas' luckily for us as it is Earth's thermostat. But that doesn't suit the simplistic radiation diagrams from Trenberth which can be used to claim catastrophe from warming so it is never mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 31, 2016 22:17:01 GMT
Nautonnier
Thank you for the explanation, rather more sophisticated than mine!
I think you are agreeing with the comment I made above.
|
|