|
Post by Ratty on Mar 11, 2019 0:46:07 GMT
I have done another back of the envelope calculation concerning this topic for anyone who's interested. Do they think we're stupid?Yes. Yep. You've nailed it, FJ1408.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 11, 2019 0:58:03 GMT
2) The IPCC claims CO2 doubling causes 3.7 W/m^2 of radiance forcing. 3) The IPCC claims that by 2011 anthropogenic forcings amounted to 2.29W wrt 1750 reference period. Do they think we're stupid? They got you believing in "forcings" didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2019 4:49:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 11, 2019 10:38:03 GMT
What has CO2 to do with anything? Science please.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2019 11:18:13 GMT
What has CO2 to do with anything? Science please. Had you read the thread you would have seen that my position is that the adiabatic lapse rates can be calculated just based on the gas laws and that any downwelling infrared will enhance evaporative cooling of the oceans (water surfaces and transpiring plants make up ~85% of the Earth's surface) CO2 in the upper atmosphere is a radiative gas so enhances heat loss to space. The overall effect of CO2 is cooling if anything.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 11, 2019 11:43:50 GMT
CO2 in the upper atmosphere is a radiative gas so enhances heat loss to space. The overall effect of CO2 is cooling if anything. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Science has already answered this question and it is not possible for any gas to enhance or restrict "heat loss to space" as you put it. I realize that might throw a wrench into your world view, but blackbody science is pretty straightforward. Temperature and radiance move in the same direction, not in opposite directions. If the earth's temperature increases then the earth's radiance (i.e. "heat loss to space") increases. If you were to tell me that the earth's radiance has decreased then the earth's temperature has necessarily decreased, not increased. Atmospheric composition is irrelevant. So when you hear someone claim that "greenhouse gases" increase the earth's temperature by reducing the earth's radiance, you can confidently call bullshit. Again, I realize this violation of physics serves as the underpinning for the Global Warming religion, but when the religion claims to be "settled science" you end up with a congregation of the gullible. Also, it is stupid to imagine that any gas can affect radiance which is determined solely by temperature ... in all matter, everywhere, at all times.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2019 13:43:35 GMT
CO2 in the upper atmosphere is a radiative gas so enhances heat loss to space. The overall effect of CO2 is cooling if anything. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Science has already answered this question and it is not possible for any gas to enhance or restrict "heat loss to space" as you put it. I realize that might throw a wrench into your world view, but blackbody science is pretty straightforward. Temperature and radiance move in the same direction, not in opposite directions. If the earth's temperature increases then the earth's radiance (i.e. "heat loss to space") increases. If you were to tell me that the earth's radiance has decreased then the earth's temperature has necessarily decreased, not increased. Atmospheric composition is irrelevant. So when you hear someone claim that "greenhouse gases" increase the earth's temperature by reducing the earth's radiance, you can confidently call bullshit. Again, I realize this violation of physics serves as the underpinning for the Global Warming religion, but when the religion claims to be "settled science" you end up with a congregation of the gullible. Also, it is stupid to imagine that any gas can affect radiance which is determined solely by temperature ... in all matter, everywhere, at all times. CO 2 is a radiative gas in that collisions can make the molecule vibrate instead of increasing its kinetic energy and the vibration can cause the emission of an infra-red photon instead. This is more apparent and unarguable in the outer atmosphere -mesosphere/thermosphere (or climate 'scientists' will only allow it to be discussed as if it is.)
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 11, 2019 14:55:30 GMT
CO 2 is a radiative gas in that collisions can make the molecule vibrate instead of increasing its kinetic energy and the vibration can cause the emission of an infra-red photon instead. This is more apparent and unarguable in the outer atmosphere -mesosphere/thermosphere (or climate 'scientists' will only allow it to be discussed as if it is.)
All matter increases in thermal energy due to collisions. All matter radiates because no matter is at absolute zero and any increase in temperature will result in increased radiance, which means more photons, typically infrared.
I'm guessing that you do not consider all matter to be "radiative gases," yes?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2019 15:42:58 GMT
CO 2 is a radiative gas in that collisions can make the molecule vibrate instead of increasing its kinetic energy and the vibration can cause the emission of an infra-red photon instead. This is more apparent and unarguable in the outer atmosphere -mesosphere/thermosphere (or climate 'scientists' will only allow it to be discussed as if it is.) All matter increases in thermal energy due to collisions. All matter radiates because no matter is at absolute zero and any increase in temperature will result in increased radiance, which means more photons, typically infrared. I'm guessing that you do not consider all matter to be "radiative gases," yes?
I see your science education is lacking a little. Although 'all matter can radiate' when heated, some gases will convert kinetic to radiant energy and vice versa - CO 2 is one of those called the radiative gases.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 11, 2019 15:52:51 GMT
I see your science education is lacking a little. You must have had a reason for writing this. Would you mind pointing out the error in what I wrote? Although 'all matter can radiate' when heated, some gases will convert kinetic to radiant energy and vice versa - CO 2 is one of those called the radiative gases. It appears your science education is lacking. What you wrote above is gibber-babble. You apparently don't understand thermal radiation. You might want to brush up. In any event, you probably believe in a mystical, magical Greenhouse Effect that you cannot define without violating physics.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 11, 2019 17:49:11 GMT
I see your science education is lacking a little. You must have had a reason for writing this. Would you mind pointing out the error in what I wrote? Although 'all matter can radiate' when heated, some gases will convert kinetic to radiant energy and vice versa - CO 2 is one of those called the radiative gases. It appears your science education is lacking. What you wrote above is gibber-babble. You apparently don't understand thermal radiation. You might want to brush up. In any event, you probably believe in a mystical, magical Greenhouse Effect that you cannot define without violating physics. IGNORE the basement-dwelling bot troll and "its precious body fluids" will evaporate. It feeds on conflict.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 11, 2019 18:01:01 GMT
IGNORE the basement-dwelling bot troll and "its precious body fluids" will evaporate. It feeds on conflict. When did the Show Me state start spitting out gullible haters?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 11, 2019 19:38:17 GMT
I have done another back of the envelope calculation concerning this topic for anyone who's interested. 1) The IPCC claims a climate sensitivity of 1.5 - 4.5 degrees. 2) The IPCC claims CO2 doubling causes 3.7 W/m^2 of radiance forcing. 3) The IPCC claims that by 2011 anthropogenic forcings amounted to 2.29W wrt 1750 reference period. 4) Warming between 1850 and 2011 has been about 1.06 degrees if we go by the five year average of the BEST dataset (a very generous dataset for warming enthousiasts), 1.16 degrees if we cherrypick our starting point to account for the most possible warming: berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txtAssumptions: Change in anthropogenic forcings were negligible between 1750 and 1850 and therefore the increase in anthropogenic forcings between 2011 and 1850 is also 2.29W. Anthropogenic forcings was the sole factor for all of the warming. 2.29W is 61.8% of 3.7W. Or in other words, 61.8% of a equivalent effect of CO2 doubling had taken place by 2011. Radiance forcing and temperature response are nonlinear and therefore this constitutes to a 69.4% increase in temperature expected from a doubling. For the IPCC doubling range of 1.5 - 4.5 degrees this then effectively becomes a range of 1.04 - 3.12 degrees. So my question becomes why does the IPCC even entertain the notion that the sensitivity might be as high as 4.5 degrees if actual temperature data shows it to be right at the bottom of their range. Do they think that solar activity has had a cooling effect since 1850? Do they think we're in a volcanically active period and that had a net cooling effect since 1850? Do they think that it is possible that if the atmospheric CO2 values had come to a standstill in 2011 that the temperature would have increased another 2 degrees out of momentum, feedback etc prior to reaching a steady state? Do they think those three combined can explain the 2 degree gap between their most alarming predictions and reality? Do they think we're stupid? Fatjohn, you didn't respond to my last post concerning your calculation of how much direct warming would result from 3.7 watts per meter squared of forcing. If you accept a value of about 1.1C of direct warming for 3.7 Watts per square meter of forcing, I will explain how I think the IPCC comes up with their numbers which I agree are too high. (My explanation is based on the 1.1C number.)
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Mar 11, 2019 22:12:30 GMT
Fatjohn, let me try to explain my point again and hopefully, this is clearer. The 396 w/m^2 number you use in your formula is not a TOA value. Excluding albedo, (the solar radiation that is reflected and not absorbed by the earth), the current TOA value for incoming Solar radiation is around 239 w/m^2, the same as theoutgoing radiation net of albedo. If there was a change at the TOA of 3.7 w/m^2, then the percentage change would be 3.7/239 or 1.55%. What you have done is use an emissivity factor to convert the 396 to an equivalent TOA number. But your formula also applies the same emissivity factor to the 3.7 value even though it is already a TOA number. After doubling of CO2 you say at the TOA Forcing = (396+3.7)*emissivity instead of Forcing = 396*emissivity + 3.7 I realize you have used slightly different emissivity values for the before doubling and after doubling cases , but the difference does not make up for the error because the emissivity you use is applied to the 3.7 TOA number. The percentage forcing increase is actually 3.7/239 or 1.55% versus about 0.94% for the method you use. As a result you calculate a 0.67K temperature increase instead of 1.11K Like you, I have an engineering degree, but after I moved on to Sr VP of Technology and then onto a career in investments I haven’t used those skills much lately. So my rusty thinking can be off. Where am I going wrong? Ah yes found it. Well I agree with you now. The whole basis of my argument was based on my misunderstanding of the 3.7 number. I interpreted this as a forcing at the surface however it seems to be defined as forcing at TOA. So yes you're reasoning of how you should adapt my calculation then seems to be correct and yes the calculation then becomes in line with the wider acknowledged 1.1 degree sensitivity. I do believe that they just deduce the 1.5 and 4.5 figure independently by just propagating a model of the climate system into the future but by all means, explain how you think the IPCC comes to their conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 12, 2019 2:04:07 GMT
I am interested in this as well!
|
|