Carbon dioxide causes 80% of global warming

[istodolez]

CO2 has a capacity, which is now saturated.

Incorrect.

It is not yet saturated and, besides, they key is that more CO2 will increase the elevation at which incoming radiation is re-emitted back out of the atmosphere.

Back in the early 1900's Angstrom attempted to dismiss Arrhenius' hypothesis on global warming by determining that a small amount of CO2 in a sealed container was enough to completely absorb incident IR. But later on Hulburt found that in the different layers of the atmosphere different mechanisms controlled. In the lower troposphere convective equilibrium held sway while above this radiative equilibrium held sway. Apparently this limits the impact that absorption has in the lower troposphere since heat is spread around and moved upward by convection. The energy balance of our atmosphere is controlled by convective movement in the upper atmosphere. (YOu can read more by Hulburt on this topic HERE)

There are also subtleties around the shape of the absorption peak within the spectrum by CO2. So CO2 absorbs at about 15um absorption band. But that heat energy isn't "gone", it is being transferred around in the air, and upward by convection in the upper atmosphere. At higher levels of the atmosphere the energy is limited in its re-emission back into space because the gas concentration up there is less. It is less efficient at re-emitting the energy, so the level at which the energy re-emits gets higher and higher and higher with increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

There's even more detail to be found around the absorption co-efficient for IR by CO2 and the various other bands that are not saturated.

It's far, far, far more complex than simple declarations about how the effect is saturated. You are about 120 years too late to the party.

 

[longview]

Incorrect.

It is not yet saturated and, besides, they key is that more CO2 will increase the elevation at which incoming radiation is re-emitted back out of the atmosphere.

Back in the early 1900's Angstrom attempted to dismiss Arrhenius' hypothesis on global warming by determining that a small amount of CO2 in a sealed container was enough to completely absorb incident IR. But later on Hulburt found that in the different layers of the atmosphere different mechanisms controlled. In the lower troposphere convective equilibrium held sway while above this radiative equilibrium held sway. Apparently this limits the impact that absorption has in the lower troposphere since heat is spread around and moved upward by convection. The energy balance of our atmosphere is controlled by convective movement in the upper atmosphere. (YOu can read more by Hulburt on this topic HERE)

There are also subtleties around the shape of the absorption peak within the spectrum by CO2. So CO2 absorbs at about 15um absorption band. But that heat energy isn't "gone", it is being transferred around in the air, and upward by convection in the upper atmosphere. At higher levels of the atmosphere the energy is limited in its re-emission back into space because the gas concentration up there is less. It is less efficient at re-emitting the energy, so the level at which the energy re-emits gets higher and higher and higher with increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

There's even more detail to be found around the absorption co-efficient for IR by CO2 and the various other bands that are not saturated.

It's far, far, far more complex than simple declarations about how the effect is saturated. You are about 120 years too late to the party.

The analogy of CO2 emitting from higher and higher elevations as the CO2 level increases, may not do what you think.
When an excited CO2 Molecule is within 100 feet of the ground, it's probability of emitting a random direction photon towards the Earth vs space,
is slightly less than 50%. As the elevation of the emission point increases, the probability of an emission towards the earth decreases, as the
probability of a emission towards space increases.
The reality is that the chances of the 667 cm-1 energy state resulting in a spontaneous emission, is almost ZERO,
as the mean free path is much less than the tens of milliseconds needed for a spontaneous decay.
i.e. it is going to run into something else long before it will likely emit a photon.
The physics requirement is only that all the energy absorbed, will be passed on somehow,
But the actual wavelength of what is passed on could be anywhere from a complete 15 um photon, to
hundreds of lesser steps from water vapor.

 

[istodolez]

The analogy of CO2 emitting from higher and higher elevations as the CO2 level increases, may not do what you think.
When an excited CO2 Molecule is within 100 feet of the ground, it's probability of emitting a random direction photon towards the Earth vs space,
is slightly less than 50%. As the elevation of the emission point increases, the probability of an emission towards the earth decreases, as the
probability of a emission towards space increases.
The reality is that the chances of the 667 cm-1 energy state resulting in a spontaneous emission, is almost ZERO,
as the mean free path is much less than the tens of milliseconds needed for a spontaneous decay.
i.e. it is going to run into something else long before it will likely emit a photon.
The physics requirement is only that all the energy absorbed, will be passed on somehow,
But the actual wavelength of what is passed on could be anywhere from a complete 15 um photon, to
hundreds of lesser steps from water vapor.

Yet the fact remains that saturation of the absorption bands is not at issue here.

 

[longview]

Yet the fact remains that saturation of the absorption bands is not at issue here.

I am not certain we can say that!
The central band of 667 cm-1 is certainty near saturation, (where 100% of the photons at that wavelength are absorbed in the first few hundred meters.)
The pressure broadening is a real factor, but a secondary one, like the second lobe of a Fourier transform,
and requires pressure, as we get higher in elevation, pressure broadening itself is less and less a factor.
lastly we would get to sky glow, creating a noise floor.
There might be some 667 cm-1 emissions from Earth to space, but they may not be photons that started from earths surface.

 

[istodolez]

I am not certain we can say that!

And yet again the experts seem to understand that Angstrom's objection (from over 100 years ago) is not a problem for the AGW hypothesis.

Why is it that the experts in earth and atmospherics over the last century are so very wrong on literally EVERYTHING? (It must be scary for you to realize that everyone on earth is wrong!)

 

[longview]

And yet again the experts seem to understand that Angstrom's objection (from over 100 years ago) is not a problem for the AGW hypothesis.

Why is it that the experts in earth and atmospherics over the last century are so very wrong on literally EVERYTHING? (It must be scary for you to realize that everyone on earth is wrong!)

The Younger Angstrom's experiment lacked the resolution, I wonder what it would show today?
Imagine a CO2 laser with a cavity length selecting off 15 um, sending a beam down a 100 meter tube with air and CO2 at different concentrations,
ranging from say 280 ppm to 1000 ppm. I wonder if the amount of 15 um photons coming out the other end would change at all?
It may help to think of the partial pressure of CO2 at 280 ppm and the mean free path of the gas at that vacuum level, vs at 1000 ppm.
Both look to be near 1 mm, so the chances of a photon traveling the entire 100 meters without getting absorbed, is near zero.

 

[flogger]

What a stupid site. There is no way to determine with any accuracy how much radiative forcing has changed, so to state it as fact is moronic. This number is pure speculation, using the known values of greenhouse gas spectral lines. The earth is too complicated to make such a juvenile claim. It is even possible the radiative forcing has decreased. Even the assumed radiative forcing balance at any given time has an exceptionally wide error range.

Until we know the empirical climate sensitivity of the 0.01% of our atmosphere (100PPM) we are allegedly responsible for influencing then its all just agenda driven poltical hyperbole

 

[istodolez]

Until we know the empirical climate sensitivity of the 0.01% of our atmosphere (100PPM) we are allegedly responsible for influencing then its all just agenda driven poltical hyperbole

...or science you personally don't understand.

I'm sure in your world there is little difference...

 

[watsup]

Until we know the empirical climate sensitivity of the 0.01% of our atmosphere (100PPM) we are allegedly responsible for influencing then its all just agenda driven poltical hyperbole

Is that what the climate scientists say?

 

[Lord of Planar]

...or science you personally don't understand.

I'm sure in your world there is little difference...

But I do understand enough to know when I see BS.

 

[istodolez]

But I do understand enough to know when I see BS.

Not aimed at you. The point remains that when someone expresses some disbelief predicated on the "small numbers" related to the amount of a component without actually looking at what is known about that amount it is little more than personal incredulity, not a legitimate take on the science.

 

[flogger]

Is that what the climate scientists say?

No its what the politicians say .and. they pay the scientists to say what they pay for .... sorry if its confusing

 

[flogger]

...or science you personally don't understand.

I'm sure in your world there is little difference...

OK if you clearly think you understand it that much more than I do ...... then please explain it to me using empirical science of course

 

[watsup]

No its what the politicians say .and. they pay the scientists to say what they pay for .... sorry if its confusing

Conspiracy theory/denier talking point.

 

[watsup]

But I do understand enough to know when I see BS.

You read your own posts????? Good for you!

 

[flogger]

Conspiracy theory/denier talking point.

Money talks .there are now some 20 times more people earning a handsome living from promoting AGW than there were 30 years ago ... prove I'm wrong ?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Money talks .there are now some 20 times more people earning a handsome living from promoting AGW than there were 30 years ago ... prove I'm wrong ?

It's probably between 20 to 100 times more.

 

[flogger]

It's probably between 20 to 100 times more.

Indeed. This is an intergovernmental sponsored agenda that knows no bounds. We as humans ignore it at our peril

 

[istodolez]

OK if you clearly think you understand it that much more than I do ...... then please explain it to me using empirical science of course

Here ya go!

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change describes a change in the average conditions in a region over a long period of time.

climatekids.nasa.gov

 

[istodolez]

It's probably between 20 to 100 times more.

So in your field do people just do or say whatever they have to for a buck? Are people in your field inherently dishonest and just act out pure greed?

That's too bad. I feel for ya'!

 

[istodolez]

Indeed. This is an intergovernmental sponsored agenda that knows no bounds. We as humans ignore it at our peril

This will help:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

 

[Lord of Planar]

This will help:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Is that what you wear when debating creationists?

 

[watsup]

OK if you clearly think you understand it that much more than I do ...... then please explain it to me using empirical science of course

“The primary empirical evidence that greenhouse gasses cause global warming is the absorption (as a function of wavelength of radiation) of gasses like CO2, CH4 and N2O. This was discovered in 1859 by John Tyndall and has become a part of fundamental physics. Anyone can check this empirical relationship at any time with an absorption spectroscopy device.

The empirical evidence that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations (from fossil fuel burning) are the primary cause of century-scale warming is that observed global temperatures have risen in line with what would be expected from the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and observations of natural drivers of climate change (e.g. solar output and volcanic eruptions) indicate that natural drivers are not causing warming.”

Do empirical observations support commonly-held climate change range shift hypotheses? A systematic review protocol - Environmental Evidence

Background Among the most widely anticipated climate-related impacts to biodiversity are geographic range shifts, whereby species shift their spatial distribution in response to changing climate conditions. In particular, a series of commonly articulated hypotheses have emerged: species are...

environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com

 

[istodolez]

Is that what you wear when debating creationists?

Did you intend to suggest that Creationists are making valid scientific points? And that when I defend evolution and deep time in geology I'm doing so as a tin-foil hat person?

I'm so sorry if my discussion of Creationism has led you to become a Creationist, but you will be fine and at home with your usual debate points. Again, apologies if you've become a Creationist. We all have our personal faith journeys I suppose.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Did you intend to suggest that Creationists are making valid scientific points? And that when I defend evolution and deep time in geology I'm doing so as a tin-foil hat person?

I'm so sorry if my discussion of Creationism has led you to become a Creationist, but you will be fine and at home with your usual debate points. Again, apologies if you've become a Creationist. We all have our personal faith journeys I suppose.

No, you are the one implying that. You imply it by comparing sound reasoning and logic to their debating tactics.