Remember me
▼ Content

Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.


Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.18-03-2019 15:13
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1085)
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.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

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).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html
18-03-2019 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
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.

...deleted Holy Link from National Geographic Magazine...


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

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
Edited on 18-03-2019 19:10
18-03-2019 19:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
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.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

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).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html


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.
06-12-2019 13:47
B2dx
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
According to modern analysis of co2 and it absorption of ir, Arrhenius was more right than Angstrom who completely denied that co2 absorbed ir at all. Both were limited by the technology of the time, but co2 is a greenhouse gas. If you are a climate change denier then no science will satisfy you. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
06-12-2019 15:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
B2dx wrote:
According to modern analysis of co2 and it absorption of ir, Arrhenius was more right than Angstrom who completely denied that co2 absorbed ir at all. Both were limited by the technology of the time, but co2 is a greenhouse gas. If you are a climate change denier then no science will satisfy you. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

Yet another example of how the Global Warming religion recruits only those stupid and gullible enough to be convinced that their WACKY, fanatical religion is somehow "settled science."

From The MANUAL:

Saturation: noun
In the Global Warming mythology, the mysterious belief that an atom can somehow be "filled to capacity" with photons. At such a point all other photons will apparently find no room at the inn and must look elsewhere to be absorbed. Since this seems to violate Planck's Law and other classical physics, this belief falls within Settled Science.


Greenhouse Gas: noun
According to the Global Warming mythology, greenhouse gas is a magickal substance (a gas) that has the magickal superpower to cause any black body in which it comes into contact to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law by increasing its temperature while decreasing its radiance. This belief falls under Settled Science.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
06-12-2019 18:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
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.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

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).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html


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.

The Sun emits a wide range of frequencies, including IR, visible, and UV light. The Earth does not emit UV light. It's not hot enough. Some UV-B light from the Sun reaches the surface (and causes sunburns).
Wake wrote:
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.
There is no 'saturation'. Conduction and convection are not absorbing light and converting it to thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
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.

Your theory does not happen.


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
06-12-2019 18:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
B2dx wrote:
According to modern analysis of co2 and it absorption of ir, Arrhenius was more right than Angstrom who completely denied that co2 absorbed ir at all. Both were limited by the technology of the time, but co2 is a greenhouse gas. If you are a climate change denier then no science will satisfy you. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/


No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't warm the surface using a colder gas than the surface.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

No gas completely absorbs it all.


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
Edited on 06-12-2019 18:22




Join the debate Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
International Organization Governments Are Using Wrong Strategy & Handling The Corona Virus Outbreak 117-03-2020 03:17
A Post On Quora Explaining What is Wrong With The 97% Consensus Studies208-03-2020 18:17
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
Finally.....the truth....Tell me I'm wrong and if so, why?1808-02-2020 04:44
Hunter Biden Denies Wrong Doing417-10-2019 22:24
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact