|The first few (3 or 4) ppm CO2 absorb 99 percent of whatever IR CO2 absorbs, CO2 is certainly not logarithmic.29-03-2019 13:52|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★☆☆
|Beyond the first few ppm CO2 further increases are negligible and irrelevant. So Arrhenius is wrong. CO2 is not logarithmic. Never was. Never will be.|
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I have explained this before - there is SOME energy in the absorption bands of CO2 but it is 100% gone at about 180-200 ppm. Not "the first few ppm CO2".
That it could be totally absorbed by 0.02% of CO2 in the atmosphere demonstrates just how minor those energy bands are.
I should also mention that because CO2 is so scarce that these photons have to travel some way to hit a CO2 molecule to be absorbed. My estimation is about 100 meters whereas another estimation of another source made it out to be only 10 meters. But I think that he was using 90% of the energy whereas I was using a 100% absorption.
Edited on 29-03-2019 19:19
|Into the Night★★★★★
Wake wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I've explained this before, Wake. So has IBdaMann. There is no magick 'fence' where absorption stops until NO light escapes. Yet you commonly point to orbiting satellites showing that there is some light escaping on those absorption frequencies.
Both of you are stuck on CO2 absorption. Absorption of surface emitted infrared light does NOT warm the Earth. You are both still trying to create energy out of nothing.
The Parrot Killer
Wake wrote:I have explained this before - there is SOME energy in the absorption bands of CO2 but it is 100% gone at about 180-200 ppm. Not "the first few ppm CO2".
Wake, whether or not a CO2 molecule absorbs a particular photon is determined by Planck's law, meaning you factor in the temperature of the CO2 molecule and the wavelength of the photon to determine if the photon has enough energy to be absorbed.
You mention the "absorption band" of CO2. That shifts with the temperature of the CO2 molecule per Wein's law.
The bottom line is that the temperature of the CO2 is what determines what the CO2 absorbs. THEN you can focus on QUANTITY of atmospheric CO2 doing the absorbing ... but one would have to wonder "to what end?"
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
|15 ppm O3 capture 98% of UV so what makes IPCC think 15 ppm CO2 don't capture 98% of those 3 bands of||0||19-04-2019 16:27|
|Rising CO2 on declining nutrition in food is big issue, TED talk hears||0||19-04-2019 15:32|
|Going up against CO2 is going up against GOD.||0||19-04-2019 15:14|
|So let's say the US spends 100 trillion USD to build the factories and put 100 billion tons of CO2 in||0||19-04-2019 14:57|
|What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?||2||18-04-2019 20:57|