|Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.18-03-2019 15:13|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|CO2 effect is saturated at the first 10 ppm, just like O3 effect is saturated at the first 10 ppm. Arrehenius is wrong. Not every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by 5C. You need an parameters. The starting concentration before doubling. This formula only works if CO2 concentration is not saturated at less than 10 ppm.|
The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.
The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).
|Into the Night★★★★★
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There is no saturation level for CO2 absorption or for O3 absorption.
CO2 is not capable of increasing Earth's temperature at all. You still can't create energy out of nothing.
The ozone layer absorbs about half of the UV arriving at Earth, not 98%.
National Geographic Magazine is wrong yet again.
The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-03-2019 19:10
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That is a commonly used terminology that is technically incorrect. That would mean that the CO2 was being saturated with energy. What is really happening is that CO2 can only absorb energy in three narrow bands. In these bands two of them are in the range of the emissions of the sun. It is at the very bottom of the Sun's emissions and there is little energy there. So that energy is totally absorbed by very low levels of CO2. The third band is a result of solar energy heating the Earth which then emits in the low UV-B region and that could be rather high on certain surfaces on a hot day but on the average this is also very low.
So when the term "saturation" is being used they mean that all of the energy in those three absorption bands has been absorbed by these low levels of CO2 of around 200 ppm. Since all of the energy is now gone, there is no additional energy to be absorbed and there is almost no difference in the absorption of heat by CO2 and the other components of the atmosphere by conduction/convection.
None of these processes is simple as people might have you believe so while they are complex the actual theory behind it is rather easy to describe.
|climate change is wrong grammer||9||10-04-2019 21:57|
|This experiment is close, but still wrong||0||18-03-2019 15:09|
|Would Errornius (I mean Arrhenius) admit his calculation error if he were alive today?||3||16-03-2019 18:27|
|In China we believe Anstrom, not Arrhenius.||10||16-03-2019 16:51|
|So if Angstrom already proven Arrhenius wrong, then what's the problem?||3||14-03-2019 02:07|