Questioning the climate's sensitivity to added CO2

[Lord of Planar]

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.

I disagree with you claiming these energy costs are artificially low. That is another lie told by the agenda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There have been some studies that suggest the relationship temperate and CO and temp isn't linear, but logarithmic

Not quite true. The forcing curve is a log2 function. That said, energy to temperature is a fourth power equation. Then in the complexities of the earths atmosphere, you have other factors modulating these two math functions.

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.

The equalization response is an exponential one. The pure math has this never equalizing, until infinity. This is why you will typically seeing an author state a percentage of equalization in a given time period. If you understand electronics, it is like a capacitors response to charge.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

Wow.

They lied to you really good.

 

[Steve Case]

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.

I'm going to drop the Dry Ice 15 um argument This Web Page has some interesting things to say such as:

If a material is capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation of a particular wavelength,
then that wavelength is capable of heating the material, without any temperature limit.

And this reply from Frank from NoVa

 

[longview]

I'm going to drop the Dry Ice 15 um argument This Web Page has some interesting things to say such as:

If a material is capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation of a particular wavelength,
then that wavelength is capable of heating the material, without any temperature limit.

And this reply from Frank from NoVa

I can see that (Like a 1mm microwave in an oven can boil water),
but CO2 runs into some ugly population inversions, that slow how much energy can cycle,
for a given density of gas molecules. In a laser they add in about 70% helium to assist the CO2 back to ground state.
If you do not do this the power of the laser is greatly limited. H2O may fill the same role in the atmosphere.

 

[Bullseye]

Not quite true. The forcing curve is a log2 function. That said, energy to temperature is a fourth power equation. Then in the complexities of the earths atmosphere, you have other factors modulating these two math functions.

Ok, thanks for the additional info.

 

[Bullseye]

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.

And what effect does that have in 𝝙t? Am I missing something?

 

[Lord of Planar]

And what effect does that have in 𝝙t? Am I missing something?

The delta T is best estimated from a forcing change using a baseline of about 500 W/m^2 and 288 K to calculate the changes from. 288 degrees Kelvin is 15 degrees Celsius. 15 degrees is assumed to be the average global temperature. The Kelvin scale must be used for calculations beyond simple addition and subtraction. It is known as the absolute temperature scale.

If the forcing is another 2 W/m^2 we use 500 and 502 W/m^2. We will take the 1/4th power root of each, then divide.

502^0.25 / 500^0.25 = 1.000999 or 1.001

1.001 x 288 = 288.288

The increase is 0.29 degrees, for a surface warming of 2 W/m^2.

Of course, they have this magical feedback that they want to use to make it scary. There likely is some positive feedback, but it shouldn't be much.

 

[longview]

And what effect does that have in 𝝙t? Am I missing something?

The relationship between Earth's energy imbalance and the temperature is linear,
so the same curve applies to ether.
The IPCC claims that a doubling of the CO2 level would result in an energy imbalance of 3.71 W m-2,
and a temperature increase of 3C, making a ratio of 3C/3.71 = 0.808 C per W m-2 imbalance.
The natural log formulas work both ways, 3C/ln(2) = 4.328, so 4.328 X ln(2) = 2.9999C

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now if we consider a doubling is stated to produce a 3.71 change in the atmospheric window, we are taking the science used by the IPCC as correct. With the TOA at 240 W/m^2 incoming and outgoing for balance, then we have a consideration for the surface forcing change for a CO2 doubling.

This will create an imbalance of 240 / 236.29 = 1.003842. If we use a simple linear relationship for atmospheric amplification to the surface forcing change it is a ratio of 500:240. 500 / 240 = 2.08333. This is the surface forcing change vs. the TOA imbalance change, useful in other considerations. The simple method is to create a surface balance ratio equal to the TOA balance. It will need to change by the same percentage as the TOA to achieve the new equilibrium. This means the earlier 500 W/m^2 surface forcing becomes 500 x 1.003842 = 507.7292. When the same fourth degree math is applied, this yields a 1.1 degree temperature increase.

Some of this cannot be accurately done in a linear manner. The areas of land will respond different than the areas of ocean, and ice will be different too. Latent heat will track outside of this linearity as well. What I showed can only represent a crude change in surface temperature from a doubling, but it will not be dramatically far away from the 1.1 degrees, but the magicians at the IPCC would like to trick you otherwise.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The relationship between Earth's energy imbalance and the temperature is linear,
so the same curve applies to ether.
The IPCC claims that a doubling of the CO2 level would result in an energy imbalance of 3.71 W m-2,
and a temperature increase of 3C, making a ratio of 3C/3.71 = 0.808 C per W m-2 imbalance.
The natural log formulas work both ways, 3C/ln(2) = 4.328, so 4.328 X ln(2) = 2.9999C

You can linearize it for small changes, but realistically it is non-linear. The error will increase with the delta.

 

[longview]

You can linearize it for small changes, but realistically it is non-linear. The error will increase with the delta.

You are likely correct, but the IPCC clearly treats it as a linear relationship, hence the ratio of warming per W m-2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are likely correct, but the IPCC clearly treats it as a linear relationship, hence the ratio of warming per W m-2.

True. But remember my illustration of RE and GWP, that a greenhouse gas cannot be linearized? It only works for a small range.

 

[longview]

True. But remember my illustration of RE and GWP, that a greenhouse gas cannot be linearized? It only works for a small range.

I am saying it is just the ratio of W m-2 to degrees C that is linear, not the co2 to forcing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am saying it is just the ratio of W m-2 to degrees C that is linear, not the co2 to forcing.

That is not true either. There is a fourth power relationship between the absolut forcing and absolut temperiture. You can linearize for small changes but the error increases with divergence. This also depends on how many significant digits of accuracy required in the results.