Satellite photos show uncomfortable truth

[RKMBrown]

One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.

Do you or do you not know that their models did not work? That their predictions of global warming did not play out? This is a yes or no question.

 

[RKMBrown]

One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.

Yeah...I have seen that before....it is your go to bit of dogma....I have read it all and I have asked before, which part of it do you believe constitutes anything like hard proof of anything? I expect, that as usual, you will not point to any section, or any link within that bit of drivel that is actually hard evidence of anything other than the fact that you don't have the slightest idea of what hard evidence is if you think it can be found in your link. If you believe anything there is anything like hard evidence that man is responsible for climate change it explains exquisitely why you have been so completely duped.

AYUP they created a Theory with a model that predicted disaster, then asked for "grant" money to try to save the planet. We would have been better off spending that money on asteroid detection and deflection... the real reason for the prior planet extinctions.

 

[SSDD]

One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.

Yeah...I have seen that before....it is your go to bit of dogma....I have read it all and I have asked before, which part of it do you believe constitutes anything like hard proof of anything? I expect, that as usual, you will not point to any section, or any link within that bit of drivel that is actually hard evidence of anything other than the fact that you don't have the slightest idea of what hard evidence is if you think it can be found in your link. If you believe anything there is anything like hard evidence that man is responsible for climate change it explains exquisitely why you have been so completely duped.

AYUP they created a Theory with a model that predicted disaster, then asked for "grant" money to try to save the planet. We would have been better off spending that money on asteroid detection and deflection... the real reason for the prior planet extinctions.

There are plenty of real environmental issues that need to be dealt with here on the ground but the AGW hoax sucks the air out of the room and the money out of the coffers...no other issue can be effectively dealt with till the hoax is exposed for what it is and is put on the trash heap with all the other failed hypotheses of the past.

 

[Kosh]

CO2 does not drive climate.

Thus making the AGW scriptures bunk!

 

[jc456]

At some point, there will have to be an emergency in order to get permission to burn fossil fuels. The emission of sequestered CO2 and CH4 are destabalizing the climate, and raising the level of the sea. As well as acidifying the oceans.

One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.

hahahahahahahahaahahahahaahaha, same old mumbo jumbo, dude don't you have an actual experience that you can reference like say an experiment that shows your claim? oh I forgot, you don't. blah, blah, blah same old mumbo and jumbo you have nothing to supprot your claim therefore........................LoSiNg

One more time from The Discovery of Global Warming February 2014
Skepticism (1900-1940s)

TOP OF PAGE

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Crick]

This is probably a waste of time as far as you (JC456) are concerned. This will look like more of your "mumbo jumbo. But I thought the people who'd actually passed seventh grade physical science and 8th grade English in on what Angstrom (in your post) missed.
**************************************************************************************
After the famous Arrhenius paper in 1896, where he did the first calculations of the CO2greenhouse effect, his theory was dismissed by Angstrom with a simple experiment. He let an infrared beam pass through a tube filled with CO2 and measured the emerging light intensity. Upon reducing CO2 concentration in the tube, only a tiny difference could be found and he concluded that very few CO2 molecules are enough to completely absorb the IR beam. The conclusion was that a CO2 increase could not matter. This was the birth of the first skeptic of the then called "CO2 theory" and of the more recent "CO2 effect is saturated" skeptic argument.

Thirty years later, E. O. Hulburt (Phys. Rev. 38, 1876–1890 (1931)) added convection to the purely radiative equilibrium assumed by Arrhenius. He found that convective equilibrium holds in the lower part of the troposphere up to about 10 Km, while radiative holds equilibrium above. The important consequence is that the details of the absorption in the lower troposphere do not matter since heat "is spread around and transferred upward byconvection". In other words, what govern the energy balance of the earth is the radiative balance in the upper troposphere and CO2 concentration there does matter.

Hulburt was very prudent in his conclusions:

"The agreement is no doubt better than is warranted by the accuracy of the data on which the calculations are based. Apparently the uncertainties and omissions have conspired to counteract each other to some extent."
Nevertheless, his work is definitely a milestone in the understanding of our atmosphere.

Hulburt's work should have put the controversy on the CO2 theory to an end, since "objections which have been raised against it by some physicists are not valid". Unfortunately, this paper passed almost unnoticed, I guess because meteorologists and geologists do not read Physical Review so often.

At the time of Hulburt the CO2 absorption coefficient was not known very accurately and even less its line shape, forcing Huburt to use a "box-like" shape. We may now build a simple model with a more realistic line shape and show that we get an increased absorption with increasing CO2 concentration anyways.

Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure. Did this energy disappear forever? Surely not, radiatively or convectively this energy "is spread around and transferred upward". But on the way up this light will find a decreasing pressure, i.e. less CO2 molecules. There will be a point where the light can escape to the outer space. The intensity of the emerging light will be appropriate for the temperature of this "last" layer layer.

We can crudely model this behavior using the Plank law and a gaussian-shaped absorption coefficient. We consider just two layers, the surface and the "last" layer, and the emissivity of this outer layer is modulated between 0 and 1 according to the absorption coefficient α. The result is shown in the figure below.

In the calculations I used an absorption wavenumber of 650 cm-1 and tuned the optical depth to reach saturation. The two dashed lines correspond to the Plank law for T=300 K and T=220 K. The red curve is the calculated emission; it follows the 300 K curve but deviates from it near the absorption band. This dip represents the energy prevented to reach the outer space, i.e. the greenhouse effect.

This graph can be qualitatively compared with real measurements to be sure we're not too far off.

We can now look at what happens when we increase α. Following Angstrom (and many others in his times) the energy absorbed should not change. On the contrary, if we recall that the absorption coefficient is gaussian we would expect an increase in the energy retained by our layer along the wings. The effect is shown in the figure below.

We can see that although the absorption dip cannot fall below the 220 K curve, it becomes wider and the absorbed energy increases accordingly. This is as far as we can get with this simple model. Needless to say that there's much more than what can be done with the very crude model presented here. We know, for example, that the line shape of the absorption coefficient changes with both pressure and temperature due to what are called pressure and Doppler broadening. In the upper layers of the atmosphere the band initially gets narrower and then splits into several narrow bands (the roto-vibrational spectrum) leaving more room for the increase in CO2 concentration being more effective. We also know that there are weaker absorption peaks other than the stronger one quoted above which are not saturated.

Gilbert Plass in 1956 used these words:

One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: theatmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.
There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.

Clearly there's a world behind the absorption of IR light by CO2 in the atmosphere which I omitted. The physics behind it is now solid thanks to the decades of work of many different scientists, and despite the first highly respected skeptic ever who put the CO2 theory on hold for half a century. But you know, this is how science works.

Note: I cannot conclude without acknowledging the fundamental role of Spencer Weart "The Discovery of Global Warming" from which I borrowed (and learned) a lot. His book and the supporting website are a treasure cove for anyone interested in how our current knowledge has been built step by step over time.

Is the CO2 effect saturated ​

 

[flacaltenn]

The edge effects of saturation are nearly inconsequential to the warming power compared to what it is initially at low ppm. And all that discussion uses an IDEALIZED CO2 absorption spectra without regards to the OTHER bands in CO2. OR the overlap of water vapor.

About 1degC/doubling or less. That's about all you need to know. And THAT is without interference from water vapor..

 

[RKMBrown]

The edge effects of saturation are nearly inconsequential to the warming power compared to what it is initially at low ppm. And all that discussion uses an IDEALIZED CO2 absorption spectra without regards to the OTHER bands in CO2. OR the overlap of water vapor.

About 1degC/doubling or less. That's about all you need to know. And THAT is without interference from water vapor..

Which is the real issue... how does one use a lab experiment that does not reflect actual atmospheric thermodynamic conditions, to model predictive changes? It's like saying hey look if we generate heat under water it boils... then drawing the conclusion that generating heat is bad. It's like everyone forgot the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[skookerasbil]

This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation. It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem.

lmao.....leave it to the SanFrancisco guy to buy into the PC hype hook, line and stinker!!!


A historical perspective of extreme weather highlights the level of bozo in these people >>>


Chronology of Extreme Weather

 

[skookerasbil]

God.....I love this forum!!!

 

[Crick]

I hate the space you waste.

 

[flacaltenn]

Say what? Every has a fairy tale to sell....

There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.

At 60,000 feet, the density of the atmos is so thin that it is virtually transparent to ALL EM radiation. And the amount of heat retained is about as significant to surface warming as your 0.08degC at 700 meters under the ocean.. The volume of CO2 being added does not THICKEN the atmos at altitude. Although retained heat MIGHT by a schoch...

If the profile of absorption goes to higher altitude, the EFFECT of IR opaqueness goes down exponentially.

 

[flacaltenn]

The edge effects of saturation are nearly inconsequential to the warming power compared to what it is initially at low ppm. And all that discussion uses an IDEALIZED CO2 absorption spectra without regards to the OTHER bands in CO2. OR the overlap of water vapor.

About 1degC/doubling or less. That's about all you need to know. And THAT is without interference from water vapor..

Which is the real issue... how does one use a lab experiment that does not reflect actual atmospheric thermodynamic conditions, to model predictive changes? It's like saying hey look if we generate heat under water it boils... then drawing the conclusion that generating heat is bad. It's like everyone forgot the laws of thermodynamics.

Basic heat retention properties of any gas is an entry in a Chemistry handbook. That's the basis for the 1degC/doubling of CO2. But it DEPENDS on assumptions about the SPECTRUM of the illumination for the Sun and the IRed heat coming from the surface. AND the amount of water vapor which overwhelmingly STEAL warming from the CO2.

So you can bet that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas, but trying to apply that to get a GLOBAL warming isn't gonna happen in a lab..

 

[skookerasbil]

I hate the space you waste.

Translation?

"I hate this mofu who keeps blowing my shit up!!!"

 

[Crick]

You haven't touched a single thing I've posted in all the time I've been here. Not once.

 

[SSDD]

You haven't touched a single thing I've posted in all the time I've been here. Not once.

Typical warmer dishonesty....you failed to mention that everyone else tears down your claims on a daily basis.

 

[jc456]

This is probably a waste of time as far as you (JC456) are concerned. This will look like more of your "mumbo jumbo. But I thought the people who'd actually passed seventh grade physical science and 8th grade English in on what Angstrom (in your post) missed.
**************************************************************************************
After the famous Arrhenius paper in 1896, where he did the first calculations of the CO2greenhouse effect, his theory was dismissed by Angstrom with a simple experiment. He let an infrared beam pass through a tube filled with CO2 and measured the emerging light intensity. Upon reducing CO2 concentration in the tube, only a tiny difference could be found and he concluded that very few CO2 molecules are enough to completely absorb the IR beam. The conclusion was that a CO2 increase could not matter. This was the birth of the first skeptic of the then called "CO2 theory" and of the more recent "CO2 effect is saturated" skeptic argument.

Thirty years later, E. O. Hulburt (Phys. Rev. 38, 1876–1890 (1931)) added convection to the purely radiative equilibrium assumed by Arrhenius. He found that convective equilibrium holds in the lower part of the troposphere up to about 10 Km, while radiative holds equilibrium above. The important consequence is that the details of the absorption in the lower troposphere do not matter since heat "is spread around and transferred upward byconvection". In other words, what govern the energy balance of the earth is the radiative balance in the upper troposphere and CO2 concentration there does matter.

Hulburt was very prudent in his conclusions:

"The agreement is no doubt better than is warranted by the accuracy of the data on which the calculations are based. Apparently the uncertainties and omissions have conspired to counteract each other to some extent."
Nevertheless, his work is definitely a milestone in the understanding of our atmosphere.

Hulburt's work should have put the controversy on the CO2 theory to an end, since "objections which have been raised against it by some physicists are not valid". Unfortunately, this paper passed almost unnoticed, I guess because meteorologists and geologists do not read Physical Review so often.

At the time of Hulburt the CO2 absorption coefficient was not known very accurately and even less its line shape, forcing Huburt to use a "box-like" shape. We may now build a simple model with a more realistic line shape and show that we get an increased absorption with increasing CO2 concentration anyways.

Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure. Did this energy disappear forever? Surely not, radiatively or convectively this energy "is spread around and transferred upward". But on the way up this light will find a decreasing pressure, i.e. less CO2 molecules. There will be a point where the light can escape to the outer space. The intensity of the emerging light will be appropriate for the temperature of this "last" layer layer.

We can crudely model this behavior using the Plank law and a gaussian-shaped absorption coefficient. We consider just two layers, the surface and the "last" layer, and the emissivity of this outer layer is modulated between 0 and 1 according to the absorption coefficient α. The result is shown in the figure below.

In the calculations I used an absorption wavenumber of 650 cm-1 and tuned the optical depth to reach saturation. The two dashed lines correspond to the Plank law for T=300 K and T=220 K. The red curve is the calculated emission; it follows the 300 K curve but deviates from it near the absorption band. This dip represents the energy prevented to reach the outer space, i.e. the greenhouse effect.

This graph can be qualitatively compared with real measurements to be sure we're not too far off.

We can now look at what happens when we increase α. Following Angstrom (and many others in his times) the energy absorbed should not change. On the contrary, if we recall that the absorption coefficient is gaussian we would expect an increase in the energy retained by our layer along the wings. The effect is shown in the figure below.

We can see that although the absorption dip cannot fall below the 220 K curve, it becomes wider and the absorbed energy increases accordingly. This is as far as we can get with this simple model. Needless to say that there's much more than what can be done with the very crude model presented here. We know, for example, that the line shape of the absorption coefficient changes with both pressure and temperature due to what are called pressure and Doppler broadening. In the upper layers of the atmosphere the band initially gets narrower and then splits into several narrow bands (the roto-vibrational spectrum) leaving more room for the increase in CO2 concentration being more effective. We also know that there are weaker absorption peaks other than the stronger one quoted above which are not saturated.

Gilbert Plass in 1956 used these words:

One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: theatmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.
There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.

Clearly there's a world behind the absorption of IR light by CO2 in the atmosphere which I omitted. The physics behind it is now solid thanks to the decades of work of many different scientists, and despite the first highly respected skeptic ever who put the CO2 theory on hold for half a century. But you know, this is how science works.

Note: I cannot conclude without acknowledging the fundamental role of Spencer Weart "The Discovery of Global Warming" from which I borrowed (and learned) a lot. His book and the supporting website are a treasure cove for anyone interested in how our current knowledge has been built step by step over time.

Is the CO2 effect saturated ​

So all of that and not one mention that the dude who did the experiment was wrong. The fact is the CO2 saturates and adding CO2 will not cause the affect that you want and believe it will. Sorry pal it's a good calculation, just doesn't represent the actual temperatures that you wish it to do. The fact is the science isn't settled. I just wish for once you'd just accept that we disagree with that claim. And, that you can't even prove what it is you want to. Just say it once and I'll leave you alone.

 

[Crick]

I thought you'd fail to understand. What I posted was a clear and unambiguous refutation of Angstrom's experiment. That the Earth's temperature, at present and at numerous times in the past, has been driven upwards by CO2 levels over a broad regime is also clear proof that, about this at least, Angstrom was wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

I thought you'd fail to understand. What I posted was a clear and unambiguous refutation of Angstrom's experiment. That the Earth's temperature, at present and at numerous times in the past, has been driven upwards by CO2 levels over a broad regime is also clear proof that, about this at least, Angstrom was wrong.

Bullshit.. It was GUESSING and conjecture on Hulbert's part. From his wrong assumptions on the shape of the CO2 absorption spectra to his inability to measure atmos densities at high altitude. The idea that thinner gases in the upper trop are gonna hold enough heat to make up for saturation and convection at lower levels is a CONJECTURE for him at best..

They are retaining approximately the SAME heat now as they did in the 1850s..

 

[Crick]

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.