|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 21, 2009 13:20:16 GMT
It isn't a strong conclusion, but it is enough to be reasonably confident that there remains a role for gases other than water vapour throughout much of the atmosphere. Yep. . . . there is always and forever room for another old woman to worry about anything. Yes Steve, every gas, however rare, has a role, however small. . . .you can go to the bank on that!!! |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 21, 2009 15:27:21 GMT
Yes I have read the paper. The comments about visibility relate to amounts of pollution. Yes I am learning that the spectrum of water vapour is exceedingly complex, and dependent on the level of humidity as it is on pressure and temperature. So the observational evidence is merely put to show that there seems to be a window in the spectrum that can be observed from regions above 950mBar (which is not that high) and that the details of this window have been tested against the radiation transfer equations to at least some degree. It isn't a strong conclusion, but it is enough to be reasonably confident that there remains a role for gases other than water vapour throughout much of the atmosphere. I am asking if you have this paper online so i can read it. We can then find out what they were measuring from a balloon about 1200 feet in the air. I suspect they are measuring the earths surface but i am not sure. I would rather read the paper than be drip fed information via yourself. Ta. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 21, 2009 15:34:13 GMT
The paper is accessible online if you pay for it. Sorry! PM me an email address and I could email you a copy.
|
|
utahpaw
New Member
The only thing that keeps us from learning is what we already know.
Posts: 15 
|
Post by utahpaw on Oct 22, 2009 23:42:38 GMT
Obviously, a tethered balloon at 950mbar on an autumn day can also see the window at 6-13microns
I thought it appropriate to acknowledge steve looking at a Window at 6-13 microns at the very time that Microsoft is coming out with Windows 7. Maybe corporations are not totally evil...
magellen has been thorough in citing every calculation of CO2 residence in the last 52 years. That is fine, but it is more instructive to do it one's self, and then compare with "the" authorities.
I roughed out that the atmosphere masses out at about 5.3E+15 MT (slightly over 2.5M sq km, STP atmosphere), which makes the CO2 at an average of 380 PPM (lots of assumptions, I know), making total current atmospheric CO2 roughly 2.0E+12 MT.
Since Wiki indicates that all sources combined inject 2.0E+11 MT CO2 into the atmosphere, average residence time (in equilibrium) would necessarily be about 10 years...in the range of all the estimates of the authorities cited by magellen...in the range of socold's 5.
If we are near equilibrium (and a couple PPM a year is near), then the "half-life: of an excursion (from the moment of relaxation to "normal"), would be 3.4 years (if 5 is the average residence time) and 6.8 years (if 10 is the average residence time). (It would take that long again to drop to a quarter, that long again to an eighth, etc.)
So, It is easy to declare that it would take 1000 years to return to "normal" (whatever that is)...and it is wrong. If the non-equilibrium driving force were removed instantaneously and the ocean temperatures did not change (etc), then after 1000 years, the atmosphere would be within E-16 (for 6.8 year half-life) or E-32 (for 3.4 year half-life). Close, but no banana...and totally disingenuous on the part of the declarer.
Finally, what does Windows 7 (or 6-13) have to do with all this, even on October 22nd?
|
|
