- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 79,591
- Reaction score
- 27,083
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I disagree with you claiming these energy costs are artificially low. That is another lie told by the agenda.
I disagree with you claiming these energy costs are artificially low. That is another lie told by the agenda.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.
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.There have been some studies that suggest the relationship temperate and CO and temp isn't linear, but logarithmic
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.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.
Wow.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.
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 can see that (Like a 1mm microwave in an oven can boil water),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
Ok, thanks for the additional info.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 what effect does that have in 𝝙t? Am I missing something?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 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.And what effect does that have in 𝝙t? Am I missing something?
The relationship between Earth's energy imbalance and the temperature is linear,And what effect does that have in 𝝙t? Am I missing something?
You can linearize it for small changes, but realistically it is non-linear. The error will increase with the delta.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 are likely correct, but the IPCC clearly treats it as a linear relationship, hence the ratio of warming per W m-2.You can linearize it for small changes, but realistically it is non-linear. The error will increase with the delta.
True. But remember my illustration of RE and GWP, that a greenhouse gas cannot be linearized? It only works for a small range.You are likely correct, but the IPCC clearly treats it as a linear relationship, hence the ratio of warming per W m-2.
I am saying it is just the ratio of W m-2 to degrees C that is linear, not the co2 to forcing.True. But remember my illustration of RE and GWP, that a greenhouse gas cannot be linearized? It only works for a small range.
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.I am saying it is just the ratio of W m-2 to degrees C that is linear, not the co2 to forcing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?