• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Questioning the climate's sensitivity to added CO2


CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere, similar to how glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
Click to expand...

Some Google "Searches" LINKS and results: [Links removed to meet the 5000 character limit]

"CO2 absorption bands"
Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs infrared (IR) radiation around 15 μm and 4.3 μm, which are key to the greenhouse effect.

"atmospheric window microns"
The atmospheric window is located between approximately 8 and 13 micrometers (μm).

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 4.3 microns?"
Answer 674K (750°F)

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 8 microns"
Answer 362.25K (192°F)

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 15 microns?"
Answer 193.2K (-112°F)

"What is the temperature of dry ice in kelvin?"
Answer 194.7 K (-109°F)

Hmm Google AI says, "15 μm and 4.3 μm, are key to the greenhouse effect."

And Google AI says, "The primary atmospheric window for infrared radiation is located between approximately 8 and 13 μm."

So CO2 Frames the Atmospheric Window between the temperatures of a Pizza Oven and a Brick of Dry Ice. Comment: First time I've seen CO2's 4.3 μm band discussed as part of the greenhouse effect.

One has to wonder how much Pizza Oven & Dry Ice temperatures exist on the surface to radiate upwards.
 
Well 4.3 um would hit a water vapor molecule long before it encountered a CO2 molecule.
If we consider that if someplace has 1% relative humidity that is 10,000 ppm, and most places are a LOT higher than 1% RH.
Also the central band of CO2 at 15um is saturated, and while near the surface pressure can broaden the absorption bands,
they dynamic is very different because the effect declines with air pressure.
 

Among other things, you wrote:
"...the central band of CO2 at 15um is saturated."
Click to expand...
It was pointed out above that a cake of dry ice could represent a black body that radiates at ~15um. You know what? 15um isn't going to warm anything. If the oceans were liquid nitrogen instead of water, then maybe 15um might do some warming. But as we all know energy flows down the temperature gradient. Heat flows from the warm body to the colder body. That means that 15um isn't going to "trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere" or anywhere else.

Uh. What about the stratosphere?

A short Google search on "What's the temperature of the stratosphere" LINK
Answer: AI says: The stratosphere generally experiences increasing temperatures with altitude, ranging from about -60°C (-76°F) at the bottom to 0°C at the top.

So 15um at -109°F isn't going to do any warming or "trapping heat" whatever that means, there either..
 
Last edited:
I was trying to think of an analogy that an average person might understand.
The Central band of incoming sunlight is about 0.5 um, or 2,746.7 meV
15 um is 82.7 meV.
If one could imagine a dam 274 feet high with water pouring over the top striking a 8.2 foot tall slab at the bottom.
The water that rebounds off the slab will not have nearly the energy as the water that fell the 268 feet.
 

I guess I must be in the average person category as you lose me at meV W/m² & Severdrups etc.

The "Climate Crisis" crowd understands that heat flows from hot to cold but they forget or
ignore that concept when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Increasing CO2 interferes with
the cooling effect of the outgoing radiation. The sun keeps on shining and warming the
planet until the equilibrium of radiation energy out equals radiation energy in is restored.

The sun does the warming, not the back radiation from CO2 and the other greenhouse gases.
 
Sorry I was attempting to describe how much lower the energy levels are for 15 um photons vs what
comes from the sun (Centered about 0.5um).
Still a work in progress.
 
And it all adds up to the fact that unless we curb emissions the future generations will be living in a shithole.
 
soylentgreen said:
And it all adds up to the fact that unless we curb emissions the future generations will be living in a shithole.
Click to expand...
No, it does not!
For Human size emission steps of ~2.5ppm per year, it adds up to the maximum warming from
having a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of less than 1.2 C.
We likely will reach the first doubling of the CO2 level at 560 ppm,
but it would be almost impossible for us to reach a second doubling at 1120 ppm.
Only the people advocating Net Zero emissions via lifestyle cuts are saying people should get by with less.
Our future is very bright, and market conditions will drive our transition to sustainable fuels.
The people who dislike the oil companies will not be happy, because it is their technology that
will power the future, but will will get to Net Zero, without any legislation.
By the way, Net Zero will not change whatever the climate is doing, but the most likely cause
(Our clearing air pollution) will run out of potential in a few years.
 
Read your own ****ing link.
 
longview said:
Sorry I was attempting to describe how much lower the energy levels are for 15 um photons vs what
comes from the sun (Centered about 0.5um).
Still a work in progress.
Click to expand...
Good golly Miss Molly, I thought I did that by pointing out that
a cake of dry ice radiates at 15 um. There isn't very much energy
in that, only enough to warm liquid nitrogen and not much else.
Not even the minus 60 Fahrenheit of the stratosphere.
 
Steve Case said:
Good golly Miss Molly, I thought I did that by pointing out that
a cake of dry ice radiates at 15 um. There isn't very much energy
in that, only enough to warm liquid nitrogen and not much else.
Not even the minus 60 Fahrenheit of the stratosphere.
Click to expand...
You did and I got it, but thought another reference might help. There is so little energy in a 15 um photon, it’s barely above ground state.
 
longview said:
The link is only about the data, I care nothing about the authors opinions!
Click to expand...
Of course you do not because his opinion is based on the research and maths in that link. Where as your opinion is nothing more than cherry picked nonsense.
 
There have been some studies that suggest the relationship temperate and CO and temp isn't linear, but logarithmic
 
soylentgreen said:
Of course you do not because his opinion is based on the research and maths in that link. Where as your opinion is nothing more than cherry picked nonsense.
Click to expand...
The findings are numerical data, they found what they found, their opinions of what they found is irrelevant.
Do you understand that this paper was research designed to downplay an earlier study?
They mention the earlier study in the abstract, Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
While it may not look like it, Ricke and Caldeira, is very dangerous to the narrative of added CO2 causing catastrophic warming,
and had to be diminished. When they could not change the earlier findings, they showed that the lag between
the pulse emission and maximum warming changed with the pulse size, increased radically in fact.
The problem is that Human size emission pulses, are smaller than Ricke and Caldeira, not greater!
This is not my opinion but measured fact. Our annual step increases are pulses of added CO2, averaging 2.5 ppm per year,
and each step begins it's own timer of about a decade.
NOAA CCGG trends
The follow on study in an attempt to discredit Ricke and Caldeira, took the simulation out to 1000 years,
and inadvertently reinforced Ricke and Caldeira. They also published their data graphically that could be
worked back to a sensitivity. The smaller the pulse size the smaller the lag between emission and maximum warming,
AND the lower the climate sensitivity.
Think for a second about the name of the second study?

The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission ​

Click to expand...
If the time lag increases with the size of emission, it also decreases is the emission size is smaller.
Both Studied used 100 GtC or a pulse of 47 ppm above 389 ppm,
The second study also used 1000 GtC or a pulse of 470 ppm,
and 5000 GtC or a pulse of 2736 ppm.
But the average annual "pulse" step increase, is 2.5 ppm.
The time lag will be less, and the sensitivity will be less!
 
longview said:
.
Only the people advocating Net Zero emissions via lifestyle cuts are saying people should get by with less.
Click to expand...
No, conservatives advocate living within means. Liberals not so much.
longview said:
market conditions will drive our transition to sustainable fuels.
Click to expand...
Not anytime soon. Our federal government is artificially low pricing nuclear, oil, and coal, and not allowing the energy market to operate freely.
 
Bullseye said:
There have been some studies that suggest the relationship temperate and CO and temp isn't linear, but logarithmic
Click to expand...
And if added CO2 were doing what was theorized that would be correct, but the curve would run in the opposite direction!
What their graphic displays is that the larger the pulse the higher the sensitivity, but
the hypothesis is that each next step is smaller than the one before it.
The IPCC uses this formula to show the logarithmic nature of the relationship.
5.35 X ln( CO2_new/CO2_old) so 5.35 X ln(2) = 3.708 W m-2, the 2 in parathesis representing a doubling.
So if the CO2 level increased from 200 ppm to 400 ppm, 400/200 =2, a doubling, but 800/400 is also a doubling.
 
Volunteer said:
No, conservatives advocate living within means. Liberals not so much.

Not anytime soon. Our federal government is artificially low pricing nuclear, oil, and coal, and not allowing the energy market to operate freely.
Click to expand...
Living within your means does not mean reducing your lifestyle, unless your lifestyle already exceeded your means!

Oil companies get business related tax deductions, like any business.
Think about it, A retail store, a hospital, and an oil company, all have very different business expenses,
but those expenses can be justified as a cost of continued business operations.
For Walmart it might be deducting shoplifting losses, a for profit hospital may deduct emergency
services for an indigent person, and the oil company can deduct the cost of drilling a dry well.
BTW, I think price where it will be more profitable for a refinery to make their own feedstock,
is a sustained oil price of about $96 a barrel, but that is based on conservative numbers from the NAVY.
 
longview said:
Oil companies get business related tax deductions, like any business.
Click to expand...
Name any industry that receives as much government support as oil. They're not "like any business." Oil gets even more U.S. federal subsidies, tax credits, loans, grants, R&D, federal land use, security, etc. than nuclear energy.
 
Volunteer said:
Name any industry that receives as much government support as oil. They're not "like any business." Oil gets even more U.S. federal subsidies, tax credits, loans, grants, R&D, federal land use, security, etc. than nuclear energy.
Click to expand...
Business operations include risks, and the risks are different for different businesses.
 
soylentgreen said:
And it all adds up to the fact that unless we curb emissions the future generations will be living in a shithole.
Click to expand...
If you separate the emissions taking the pollutants out of it, the added CO2 will make for a better earth.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, I mean i have to accept its cookies which I will not do.
Click to expand...
Not very many places you can go without encountering the cookie monster. No wonder you have zero knowledge in the field. You only know the propaganda.
 
soylentgreen said:
Read your own ****ing link.
Click to expand...
You are going to cuss and not say why? Perhaps you can quote the part the link that you want him to read.

Or are you going by what someone else told you without verification?

You seem to know that Longview is wrong. Therefor I challenge you to show us how he is wrong. If you cannot do that, maybe you should learn from those of us that understand the material instead from lying activists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…