| CO2 Absorption Band Energy Depleted?14-09-2017 06:32 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
According to Wake, CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere, because there must be "energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't."
Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.
A search on the Internet reveals what you are talking about.
Gary Novak an Independent Scientist wrote:
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means
there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans
double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption
reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature.
Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
According to that, ALL the energy that CO2 can absorb is depleted by the time the radiation is 10M off the surface. If that is true, then it should be easy to verify. That article didn't say what laboratory did the measurements, or anything else regarding why I should take his word for those measurements.
So Wake, I understand the concept, but I would like more supporting evidence that all the energy that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in 10M. Do you know when those tests were performed, and it it was ever confirmed by another party?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 14-09-2017 06:34 |
| 14-09-2017 12:22 |
still learning★★☆☆☆
(244) |
The "saturation" argument again.
No real point in repeating the refutation. See https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm |
| 14-09-2017 13:45 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
still learning wrote:
The "saturation" argument again.
No real point in repeating the refutation. See https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Yes, the argument that the CO2 effect is saturated was initially made by Angstrom, but it was successfully refuted by Arrhenius in his 1901 paper "Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure" ("Heat absorption by carbonic acid"). For those who can read German, the relevant part of the paper starts at the second paragraph in the link below:
 |
| 14-09-2017 20:23 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
According to Wake, CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere, because there must be "energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't."
Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.
A search on the Internet reveals what you are talking about.
Gary Novak an Independent Scientist wrote:
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means
there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans
double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption
reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature.
Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
According to that, ALL the energy that CO2 can absorb is depleted by the time the radiation is 10M off the surface. If that is true, then it should be easy to verify. That article didn't say what laboratory did the measurements, or anything else regarding why I should take his word for those measurements.
So Wake, I understand the concept, but I would like more supporting evidence that all the energy that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in 10M. Do you know when those tests were performed, and it it was ever confirmed by another party?
Wake is wrong here. CO2 does absorb light all the time. The effect slightly warms the gas. It is not capable of warming the surface again, however.
It is easy to verify saturation. Simply look for that frequency of light at a point higher than your predicted distance. It is falsified. We see that color light (reduced, but still there) in space from satellites.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-09-2017 05:21 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
The "saturation" argument again.
No real point in repeating the refutation. See https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Yes, the argument that the CO2 effect is saturated was initially made by Angstrom, but it was successfully refuted by Arrhenius in his 1901 paper "Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure" ("Heat absorption by carbonic acid"). For those who can read German, the relevant part of the paper starts at the second paragraph in the link below:
[snipped useless picture
So Wake, looks like you would have found something in English?
No problem though, because the link that still learning posted explains it pretty well.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
What it says there makes sense, though it did take me a while to get my head around it. Whoever wrote that sides with Wake, in a way, in that absorption is saturated at 10 meters above the surface. According to their explanation for what is going on, the air higher up absorbs radiation from the air below, and heat is transferred up until the air gets so thin that all the radiation escapes unmolested.
So it's not like CO2 is done at 10 meters. It keeps working beyond that, it just starts working with air radiation from below.
Thank you Wake, and still learning, for helping me understand this.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 15-09-2017 05:22 |
|
| 15-09-2017 20:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
The "saturation" argument again.
No real point in repeating the refutation. See https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Yes, the argument that the CO2 effect is saturated was initially made by Angstrom, but it was successfully refuted by Arrhenius in his 1901 paper "Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure" ("Heat absorption by carbonic acid"). For those who can read German, the relevant part of the paper starts at the second paragraph in the link below:
[snipped useless picture
So Wake, looks like you would have found something in English?
No problem though, because the link that still learning posted explains it pretty well.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
What it says there makes sense, though it did take me a while to get my head around it. Whoever wrote that sides with Wake, in a way, in that absorption is saturated at 10 meters above the surface. According to their explanation for what is going on, the air higher up absorbs radiation from the air below, and heat is transferred up until the air gets so thin that all the radiation escapes unmolested.
So it's not like CO2 is done at 10 meters. It keeps working beyond that, it just starts working with air radiation from below.
Thank you Wake, and still learning, for helping me understand this.
Radiation escapes 'unmolested' anyway. The effect of CO2 absorption is slightly warmer CO2. That is part of Earth's radiance as well.
You still seem to be under the impression that CO2 is somehow capable of warming the Earth.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-09-2017 01:54 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
According to Wake, CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere, because there must be "energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't."
Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.
A search on the Internet reveals what you are talking about.
Gary Novak an Independent Scientist wrote:
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means
there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans
double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption
reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature.
Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
According to that, ALL the energy that CO2 can absorb is depleted by the time the radiation is 10M off the surface. If that is true, then it should be easy to verify. That article didn't say what laboratory did the measurements, or anything else regarding why I should take his word for those measurements.
So Wake, I understand the concept, but I would like more supporting evidence that all the energy that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in 10M. Do you know when those tests were performed, and it it was ever confirmed by another party?
greenman - It isn't really clear to me what is meant by "main peak". CO2 has four peaks of absorption. The trouble is that three of them are directly in the middle of the absorption bands of H2O. So that only leaves a single peak in which energy can be actually absorbed by CO2. And in this band saturation was met when the levels of CO2 were between 180 and 210 ppm or so.
But let us assume that this was the "main peak" being discussed. It is EXTREMELY important to realize that 10 meters still represents saturation. After all the troposphere is 12,000 meters thick.
This means that CO2 no longer can absorb any further radiation after only 10 meters.
So as I said, the only difference at that point between CO2 and any other atmospheric gas is the very slight differences in specific heat content. So CO2 can have no effect whatsoever because all heat transfer is via conduction or each molecule slamming into it's neighbor and transferring heat energy in that manner.
I have been trying to make it clear that the ONLY way for heat to leave the Earth is via radiation. But this can only be achieved in the upper stratosphere because the atmospheric molecules must be so thin that they can then gather enough energy to radiate.
This cannot be done in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) because the density doesn't allow enough energy to be gained by any molecule to ever reach its radiation point.
https://tinyurl.com/yacjguk4
This graphical representation shows that the amount of energy in that wavelength simply NEVER existed. The "warming effect" is also stretched completely out of scale. The difference between 220 ppm and 1000 ppm is nothing at all.
If you try to look this up on the Internet it is hidden under layers of "You're wrong you're wrong you're wrong" composed by people who are not scientists.
Most of the discussion sites for climate change do not even allow "deniers" to post. That should be a very shining light for you. Fear of the truth is rising in our civilization - the same thing that destroyed Rome and then French and English empires. Hatred and fear of status quo. Some things wrong with the status quo? Certainly but that cannot be cured overnight. It can only be grown out of. |
| 20-09-2017 07:09 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
According to Wake, CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere, because there must be "energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't."
Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.
A search on the Internet reveals what you are talking about.
Gary Novak an Independent Scientist wrote:
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means
there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans
double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption
reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature.
Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
According to that, ALL the energy that CO2 can absorb is depleted by the time the radiation is 10M off the surface. If that is true, then it should be easy to verify. That article didn't say what laboratory did the measurements, or anything else regarding why I should take his word for those measurements.
So Wake, I understand the concept, but I would like more supporting evidence that all the energy that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in 10M. Do you know when those tests were performed, and it it was ever confirmed by another party?
greenman - It isn't really clear to me what is meant by "main peak". CO2 has four peaks of absorption. The trouble is that three of them are directly in the middle of the absorption bands of H2O. So that only leaves a single peak in which energy can be actually absorbed by CO2. And in this band saturation was met when the levels of CO2 were between 180 and 210 ppm or so.
But let us assume that this was the "main peak" being discussed. It is EXTREMELY important to realize that 10 meters still represents saturation. After all the troposphere is 12,000 meters thick.
This means that CO2 no longer can absorb any further radiation after only 10 meters.
So as I said, the only difference at that point between CO2 and any other atmospheric gas is the very slight differences in specific heat content. So CO2 can have no effect whatsoever because all heat transfer is via conduction or each molecule slamming into it's neighbor and transferring heat energy in that manner.
I have been trying to make it clear that the ONLY way for heat to leave the Earth is via radiation.
This part is true.
Wake wrote:
But this can only be achieved in the upper stratosphere
This part is false. Radiance is throughout the entire atmosphere AND the surface (which radiates the most).
Wake wrote:
because the atmospheric molecules must be so thin that they can then gather enough energy to radiate.
There is no threshold to begin radiation. Everything above absolute zero radiates...all the time...continuously. Now you are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law completely.
Wake wrote:
This cannot be done in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) because the density doesn't allow enough energy to be gained by any molecule to ever reach its radiation point.
There is no threshold to begin radiation. Does it have a temperature above absolute zero? Then it radiates!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-09-2017 07:09 |
| 20-09-2017 21:45 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
The "saturation" argument again.
No real point in repeating the refutation. See https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Yes, the argument that the CO2 effect is saturated was initially made by Angstrom, but it was successfully refuted by Arrhenius in his 1901 paper "Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure" ("Heat absorption by carbonic acid"). For those who can read German, the relevant part of the paper starts at the second paragraph in the link below:
[snipped useless picture
So Wake, looks like you would have found something in English?
No problem though, because the link that still learning posted explains it pretty well.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
What it says there makes sense, though it did take me a while to get my head around it. Whoever wrote that sides with Wake, in a way, in that absorption is saturated at 10 meters above the surface. According to their explanation for what is going on, the air higher up absorbs radiation from the air below, and heat is transferred up until the air gets so thin that all the radiation escapes unmolested.
So it's not like CO2 is done at 10 meters. It keeps working beyond that, it just starts working with air radiation from below.
Thank you Wake, and still learning, for helping me understand this.
Here is another graphic that shows what is going on:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/
Remember that I've been arguing that after about 220 ppm there is no further effects from CO2. Well if you add ALL of the lines from higher than 220 line there is less effect than there is at 180 ppm.
"still learning" presents the stupid comments from "Skeptical Science" who aren't in the least skeptical. I don't know if you were here when I said that the most important thing a scientist must have is a skeptical attitude towards all science. That he must be more than willing to prove anything - even the most treasured theories - wrong. This is why to this very date the Theory of Relativity is tested for its accuracy every day somewhere in the world.
This week in Science News: Climate Change is killing off the Ardvaark. Huh? Well, no it isn't killing off Ardvaarks. Ants and termites are dying off. What has this to do with climate change? Certainly nothing in a paper like this. Have Ardvaarks multiplied to the point where they are destroying their own food sources? Is there a disease among the insects? This ISN'T science but it is published as such.
And the "science" of climate change is the most egregious of all. Pure amateur dishwashers are telling us all about it. In this group I have investigated several of those posting to find that they are little more than not very good technicians. That doesn't mean that they can't learn - but what we are seeing is that from a position of almost absolute ignorance they are telling us we are wrong and that man will die in a hail of fire of his own making.
What does that sound like to you? Do you actually believe that man who covers perhaps 2% of the Earth is going to drastically effect the WEATHER? That mother nature is so stupid that she doesn't have built-in regulating effects? |
| 21-09-2017 15:53 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
Edited on 21-09-2017 15:56 |
| 21-09-2017 17:06 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable. |
| 21-09-2017 17:16 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:.... has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
Of course, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" never mentions the many positive feedbacks to other man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs.... or to phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor (which is controlled by GHGs).... or its many positive feedbacks. |
| 21-09-2017 17:23 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. Everyone already knows that. But no, it is not unmeasureable. As I said, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated to be about 3 (+/- 1.5) C. This means that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 540 ppm would ultimately result in a global temperature rise of 3 (+/- 1.5) C. |
| 21-09-2017 17:43 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. Everyone already knows that. But no, it is not unmeasureable. As I said, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated to be about 3 (+/- 1.5) C. This means that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 540 ppm would ultimately result in a global temperature rise of 3 (+/- 1.5) C.
Then why hasn't increasing from 280 to 420 had any such effect? |
| 21-09-2017 18:04 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. Everyone already knows that. But no, it is not unmeasureable. As I said, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated to be about 3 (+/- 1.5) C. This means that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 540 ppm would ultimately result in a global temperature rise of 3 (+/- 1.5) C.
Then why hasn't increasing from 280 to 420 had any such effect?
It has. The global temperature has already increased by about a degree C, and that's before it's had time to reach equilibrium. |
|
| 21-09-2017 18:16 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. Everyone already knows that. But no, it is not unmeasureable. As I said, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated to be about 3 (+/- 1.5) C. This means that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 540 ppm would ultimately result in a global temperature rise of 3 (+/- 1.5) C.
Then why hasn't increasing from 280 to 420 had any such effect?
It has. The global temperature has already increased by about a degree C, and that's before it's had time to reach equilibrium.
Sorry - the prediction was 5 C. |
| 21-09-2017 18:22 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. Everyone already knows that. But no, it is not unmeasureable. As I said, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated to be about 3 (+/- 1.5) C. This means that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 540 ppm would ultimately result in a global temperature rise of 3 (+/- 1.5) C.
Then why hasn't increasing from 280 to 420 had any such effect?
It has. The global temperature has already increased by about a degree C, and that's before it's had time to reach equilibrium.
Sorry - the prediction was 5 C.
What are you talking about? What prediction? |
| 21-09-2017 18:31 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. Everyone already knows that. But no, it is not unmeasureable. As I said, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated to be about 3 (+/- 1.5) C. This means that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 540 ppm would ultimately result in a global temperature rise of 3 (+/- 1.5) C.
Then why hasn't increasing from 280 to 420 had any such effect?
It has. The global temperature has already increased by about a degree C, and that's before it's had time to reach equilibrium.
Sorry - the prediction was 5 C.
What are you talking about? What prediction?
Well now, you are really getting funnier by the minute. Of COURSE there's never been any predictions by the True Believers. |
| 21-09-2017 18:39 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate scientists are perfectly aware that the effect of the addition of CO2 diminishes logarithmically. This does not mean that the effect is saturated!
That, of course, is why CO2 climate sensitivity is defined as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 rather than the effect of increasing it by some particular amount. CO2 climate sensitivity is currently estimated to be about 3C (+/- 1.5 C).
AGW says: It's not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that's already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it's unmeasureable.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. Everyone already knows that. But no, it is not unmeasureable. As I said, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated to be about 3 (+/- 1.5) C. This means that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 540 ppm would ultimately result in a global temperature rise of 3 (+/- 1.5) C.
Then why hasn't increasing from 280 to 420 had any such effect?
It has. The global temperature has already increased by about a degree C, and that's before it's had time to reach equilibrium.
Sorry - the prediction was 5 C.
What are you talking about? What prediction?
Well now, you are really getting funnier by the minute. Of COURSE there's never been any predictions by the True Believers.
Nobody has predicted that increasing CO2 from 280 to 420 ppm would cause the global temperature to immediately rise by 5 C! You're talking crap again, aren't you? |
| 21-09-2017 19:11 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote: Nobody has predicted that increasing CO2 from 280 to 420 ppm would cause the global temperature to immediately rise by 5 C! You're talking crap again, aren't you?
""Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C."
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009."
It must be awful to be so full of crap. The IPCC predicted a temperature rise so high that entire nations would cease to exist. They predicted that there would be no more snow and then the following year (2009) some of the deepest levels of snow on record fell on Great Britain.
The IPCC predicted the total disappearance of polar ice caps by 2011. Instead they have expanded. Of course you can take litebrain's word that the polar ice caps are shrinking at an alarming rate or you can take the embarrassed government's word that the ice caps have been growing since 2011.
James Holdren - Obama's climate science Czar told us that the Earth would have a billion deaths from global warming by now.
Another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the "greenhouse effect" would be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots." By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska "would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." The situation would get so bad that "Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands."
You sir are one of the dumbest people on this planet. |
| 21-09-2017 19:43 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Nobody has predicted that increasing CO2 from 280 to 420 ppm would cause the global temperature to immediately rise by 5 C! You're talking crap again, aren't you?
""Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C."
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009."
Hmm, I see the ability to engage in rational debate continues to elude you. Given that the prediction you quote is local to the Alps rather than global and gives no time frame or CO2 concentration, my point still stands. You are, as usual, talking crap.
P.S. The rest of your post is more utter bullshit. For example, the IPCC most certainly did not predict the total disappearance of polar ice caps by 2011!
Edited on 21-09-2017 19:45 |
| 21-09-2017 20:30 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Nobody has predicted that increasing CO2 from 280 to 420 ppm would cause the global temperature to immediately rise by 5 C! You're talking crap again, aren't you?
""Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C."
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009."
Hmm, I see the ability to engage in rational debate continues to elude you. Given that the prediction you quote is local to the Alps rather than global and gives no time frame or CO2 concentration, my point still stands. You are, as usual, talking crap.
P.S. The rest of your post is more utter bullshit. For example, the IPCC most certainly did not predict the total disappearance of polar ice caps by 2011!
Drew Shindell, an atmospheric scientist from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University, NY, found that the large warming that has occurred during Northern Hemisphere winters over the last 30 years — up to nine degrees Fahrenheit, a full 10 times warmer than the global average 0.9 degree Fahrenheit warming
The IPCC has predicted an entire loss of ice at both poles by 2040.
NASA: "The Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost report proceeds to warn: "The Arctic Ocean could be largely free of sea ice in summer as early as the late 2030s, only two decades from now."
One of these days reality is going to dawn on you. Or probably not. |
| 21-09-2017 22:50 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
The "saturation" argument again.
No real point in repeating the refutation. See https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Yes, the argument that the CO2 effect is saturated was initially made by Angstrom, but it was successfully refuted by Arrhenius in his 1901 paper "Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure" ("Heat absorption by carbonic acid"). For those who can read German, the relevant part of the paper starts at the second paragraph in the link below:
Arrhenius proved nothing. From his paper: "In order to get an idea of how strongly the radiation of the earth is absorbed by quantities of water-vapor or carbonic acid in the proportions in which these gases are present in our atmosphere, one should, strictly speaking, arrange experiments on the absorption of heat from a body - But such experiments have not been made - as they would require very expensive apparatus that is not at my disposal."
He then goes on to theorize on experiments run by others such as Lanley's paper on the temperature of the moon.
So ALL he did was theorize and we've seen the worth of theories with the IPCC's 60 different models that were all completely wrong.
So I suggest you not tell us about who proved what and when. |
| 22-09-2017 11:12 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
The IPCC predicted the total disappearance of polar ice caps by 2011.
Wake wrote:
The IPCC has predicted an entire loss of ice at both poles by 2040.
You could at least try to be consistent with your bullshit!
In reality, of course, the IPCC has predicted nothing of the sort. At most, the IPCC expects sufficient polar ice to melt to raise the sea level by a few feet by 2100. If all the ice were to melt, the sea level would rise by over 200 feet!
Given your propensity to base your arguments, such as they are, on random figures pulled out of your ass, it is clear that you have no interest whatsoever in rational debate. I shall leave you to rant at the voices in your head. |
| 22-09-2017 16:51 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The IPCC predicted the total disappearance of polar ice caps by 2011.
Wake wrote:
The IPCC has predicted an entire loss of ice at both poles by 2040.
You could at least try to be consistent with your bullshit!
In reality, of course, the IPCC has predicted nothing of the sort. At most, the IPCC expects sufficient polar ice to melt to raise the sea level by a few feet by 2100. If all the ice were to melt, the sea level would rise by over 200 feet!
Given your propensity to base your arguments, such as they are, on random figures pulled out of your ass, it is clear that you have no interest whatsoever in rational debate. I shall leave you to rant at the voices in your head.
Considering your inability to look anything up and discover that the IPCC made both of those assertions a couple of years apart it isn't any surprise that you wish to blame anyone but your heros. |
| 22-09-2017 19:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The IPCC predicted the total disappearance of polar ice caps by 2011.
Wake wrote:
The IPCC has predicted an entire loss of ice at both poles by 2040.
You could at least try to be consistent with your bullshit!
In reality, of course, the IPCC has predicted nothing of the sort. At most, the IPCC expects sufficient polar ice to melt to raise the sea level by a few feet by 2100. If all the ice were to melt, the sea level would rise by over 200 feet!
Given your propensity to base your arguments, such as they are, on random figures pulled out of your ass, it is clear that you have no interest whatsoever in rational debate. I shall leave you to rant at the voices in your head.
So you are going to complain about his random numbers being pulled out his ass and use your random numbers pulled out of your ass.
Gotit.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |