Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[ding]

Tyndall wasn't dealing with radiative forcing.

Perhaps you can stop playing this silly coy game and just tell us what is in your confused little mind and how it all fits together for you.

But you said others have done that experiment, right?

What temperature difference did they measure for various concentrations of CO2?

 

[Crick]

It's a strangely non-scientific approach to demand that all things be able to be done in a lab. That's the best way to realize that folks like ding don't really know much about sciences like the earth sciences.

Yes lab work has value, and has helped establish a lot of climate science, but usually when it comes to earth-sized hypotheses it is really hard to do that in a lab.

Also: many people don't ever have a chemistry class and never run an FTIR so they never get to see what just intro chem can show them.

It has been a consistent belief here from several of the more persistent AGW-deniers, that theories are worthless unless they can be tested in a lab. Of course half these folks seem to think that all science is simply clever guessing and wishful thinking. I appreciate your posts.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Can you thumbnail the experiment for me.

Read the section called "Constraints from the Instrumental Period". There are also a number of references related to the Mt Pinatubo eruption that formed a "real-time" analysis.

But there are many others in the paper. That's the beauty of Figure 3. It shows you not only the wide variety of methods but compares them.

You know how to read graphs, right?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

But you said others have done that experiment, right?

No. I said that running an experiment to estimate climate sensitivity is not something one does in a "lab".

Tyndall (and before him Fourier, don't worry you've probably never heard that name before) both did groundbreaking work on the concept of energy absorption by various gases as well as the "transparency" of other gases. Kind of scoping out why O2 and N2 don't act as greenhouse gases (wrong type of bond configuration to absorb significant IR).

No doubt Fourier and Tyndall themselves didn't know why these gases absorbed as they do. That's something we can show little kids in an intro chemistry class today.

When you fire up an FTIR (that's a Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectrometer) you measure the background which is usually just room air. You get this really clean huge CO2 absorption peak. It's a royal pain and you have to subtract it out before you can use the FTIR (don't worry what it's used for, but it's used by chemists...those are scientists who study chemicals).

But the point is that estimating climate sensitivity (which is how much temperature increases by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) is a bit more nuanced. You have a more complex system made up of a variety of feedbacks like increased water vapor etc.

That's why, if you ever read real climate literature, you'll see that climate sensitivity is estimated for CO2. And is a range.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I know the units but I don't believe you know the units. Because the units aren't in deg C.

The first one (delta T) is. It's kind of a hint that delta T is there. Now, obviously, lnC/Co is unitless but the calculation is such that the output is in degC (or degF or K or Rakine, etc.)

So again... what is the equation for ASSOCIATED TEMPERATURE in degrees C for CO2

I just provided it to you.

Maybe you should just stop trying to play "smart" and tell us what your point is, gnomic one.

 

[ding]

Read the section called "Constraints from the Instrumental Period". There are also a number of references related to the Mt Pinatubo eruption that formed a "real-time" analysis.

But there are many others in the paper. That's the beauty of Figure 3. It shows you not only the wide variety of methods but compares them.

You know how to read graphs, right?

So no laboratory experiments?

 

[Dagosa]

Too much common sense for the left to follow.

so, you’re saying that every university, govt agency, and major corporation are all lefties ? Ha ha
The rate of change is FASTER then at any-other time man has been on earth. Nothing else matters. The faster the climate change the greater the pressure on evolving species to adapt. If you don’t believe in evolution and don’t know enough math, you won’t get AGW along with all the other less educated.

 

[Dagosa]

No. I said that running an experiment to estimate climate sensitivity is not something one does in a "lab".

Tyndall (and before him Fourier, don't worry you've probably never heard that name before) both did groundbreaking work on the concept of energy absorption by various gases as well as the "transparency" of other gases. Kind of scoping out why O2 and N2 don't act as greenhouse gases (wrong type of bond configuration to absorb significant IR).

No doubt Fourier and Tyndall themselves didn't know why these gases absorbed as they do. That's something we can show little kids in an intro chemistry class today.

When you fire up an FTIR (that's a Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectrometer) you measure the background which is usually just room air. You get this really clean huge CO2 absorption peak. It's a royal pain and you have to subtract it out before you can use the FTIR (don't worry what it's used for, but it's used by chemists...those are scientists who study chemicals).

But the point is that estimating climate sensitivity (which is how much temperature increases by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) is a bit more nuanced. You have a more complex system made up of a variety of feedbacks like increased water vapor etc.

That's why, if you ever read real climate literature, you'll see that climate sensitivity is estimated for CO2. And is a range.

Yup….We are the lab. AGW just like covid is happening before our eyes.

 

[ding]

The first one (delta T) is. It's kind of a hint that delta T is there. Now, obviously, lnC/Co is unitless but the calculation is such that the output is in degC (or degF or K or Rakine, etc.)

Actually the calculation is such that the output is in deg C. It would be a neat trick if it copuld be anything you wanted like deg F or deg R but that's not how unit cinversions work.

But this is great. So what would be the predicted delta T in deg C if atmospheric CO2 went from 300 ppm to 420 ppm?

 

[ding]

No. I said that running an experiment to estimate climate sensitivity is not something one does in a "lab".

Tyndall (and before him Fourier, don't worry you've probably never heard that name before) both did groundbreaking work on the concept of energy absorption by various gases as well as the "transparency" of other gases. Kind of scoping out why O2 and N2 don't act as greenhouse gases (wrong type of bond configuration to absorb significant IR).

No doubt Fourier and Tyndall themselves didn't know why these gases absorbed as they do. That's something we can show little kids in an intro chemistry class today.

When you fire up an FTIR (that's a Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectrometer) you measure the background which is usually just room air. You get this really clean huge CO2 absorption peak. It's a royal pain and you have to subtract it out before you can use the FTIR (don't worry what it's used for, but it's used by chemists...those are scientists who study chemicals).

But the point is that estimating climate sensitivity (which is how much temperature increases by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) is a bit more nuanced. You have a more complex system made up of a variety of feedbacks like increased water vapor etc.

That's why, if you ever read real climate literature, you'll see that climate sensitivity is estimated for CO2. And is a range.

I'm not asking for an experiment on climate sensitivity. I am asking for an experiment that measures changes in temperature due to changes in CO2 concentration.

 

[Crick]

I'm not asking for an experiment on climate sensitivity. I am asking for an experiment that measures changes in temperature due to changes in CO2 concentration.

"Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much Earth's surface will cool or warm after a specified factor causes a change in its climate system, such as how much it will warm for a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.[1] In technical terms, climate sensitivity is the average change in global mean surface temperature in response to a radiative forcing, which drives a difference between Earth's incoming and outgoing energy.[2] Climate sensitivity is a key measure in climate science,[3] and a focus area for climate scientists, who want to understand the ultimate consequences of anthroprogenic global warming."

Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you just want to see how much IR is absorbed by CO2, you can establish a power spectrum for one of these:

 

[ding]

"Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much Earth's surface will cool or warm after a specified factor causes a change in its climate system, such as how much it will warm for a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.[1] In technical terms, climate sensitivity is the average change in global mean surface temperature in response to a radiative forcing, which drives a difference between Earth's incoming and outgoing energy.[2] Climate sensitivity is a key measure in climate science,[3] and a focus area for climate scientists, who want to understand the ultimate consequences of anthroprogenic global warming."

Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you just want to see how much IR is absorbed by CO2, you can establish a power spectrum for one of these:

View attachment 647198

That's great. Climate sensitivity isn't the GHG effect. It's made up bullshit.

But it still isn't a controlled laboratory experiment which measures the associated temperature at various concentrations.

 

[Crick]

That's great. Climate sensitivity isn't the GHG effect. It's made up bullshit.

View attachment 647202

But it still isn't a controlled laboratory experiment which measures the associated temperature at various concentrations.

The absorption spectrum tells you how much of incidental IR energy is absorbed. You looking for a specific temperature is just another display of your science shortfall.

 

[ding]

The absorption spectrum tells you how much of incidental IR energy is absorbed. You looking for a specific temperature is just another display of your science shortfall.

That graphic is an excellent representation of the atmosphere's absorption spectrum. From it you can see exactly how much water vapor dominates.

So, it was two different things. The lack of controlled laboratory experiments for the associated temperature of CO2 at various concentrations is still outstanding.

 

[Crick]

That graphic is an excellent representation of the atmosphere's absorption spectrum. From it you can see exactly how much water vapor dominates.

So, it was two different things. The lack of controlled laboratory experiments for the associated temperature of CO2 at various concentrations is still outstanding.

I can take CO2 at any concentation you like and make its temperature anything from -273C to 2,730C. There is no fixed temperature that will be produced by a given CO2 concentration. Your grasp of what's going on here is infantile.

 

[ding]

I can take CO2 at any concentation you like and make its temperature anything from -273C to 2,730C. There is no fixed temperature that will be produced by a given CO2 concentration. Your grasp of what's going on here is infantile.

Interesting. Can you repeat Tyndall's experiment and measure the temperature differentials at various CO2 concentrations.

 

[Crick]

Your rejection of the greenhouse effect marks you unmistakeably as a science idiot. Period.

 

[ding]

Your rejection of the greenhouse effect marks you unmistakeably as a science idiot. Period.

I don't reject the GHG effect, dummy. I totally accept the GHG effect which is a result of an ATMOSPHERE WITH WATER VAPOR. I reject climate sensitivity and the quantification of CO2's impact at such ridiculously low concentrations because it's never been measured.

 

[Crick]

I don't reject the GHG effect, dummy. I totally accept the GHG effect which is a result of an ATMOSPHERE WITH WATER VAPOR. I reject climate sensitivity and the quantification of CO2's impact at such ridiculously low concentrations because it's never been measured.

Never been measured?!?!?! How are these data like these acquired Mr Wizard?

 

[ding]

Never been measured?!?!?! How are these data like these acquired Mr Wizard?

View attachment 647599
View attachment 647600

I'm not seeing the laboratory test which is measuring temperature at different CO2 concentrations.