- Thread starter
- #121
This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.
How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.
I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.
You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?
Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.
Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?
At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?
A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.
Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.
In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.
Are you pulling an SSDD now?
What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.
Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.