Egad, the guru of smart photons is saying that the predictions of increasing warming has failed since 2008? LOL, what a really dumb ****. Six of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since then.
10 Hottest Years on Record
The reflectance for s-polarized light is
while the reflectance for p-polarized light is
where Z1 and Z2 are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively, μ1 and μ2 are the magnetic permeability of the two materials, and ε1 and ε2 are the electric permittivity of the two materials (at the frequency of the light wave).
For non-magnetic media (i.e. materials for which μ1 ≈ μ2 ≈ μ0
**********************************************************************
and thus proportional to the ratios of the indices of refraction of the two media. Your interpretation Mr Westwall, is crap.
That would make the IPCC an "outlier" or we could just call it what it is.. an outright fabrication..Link?
CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries
In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).
A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).
It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.
What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).
Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).
CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries
Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.
The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.
This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne
Add this...
LOLThe removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.Link?
CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries
In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).
A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).
It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.
What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).
Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).
CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries
Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.
The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.
This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne
Abbildung 1: CO2-Verlauf der letzten 800.000 Jahre. Quelle: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via Climate Central.
The residence of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 5 years. But as one molecule is absorbed by the ocean or vegetation, another is emitted into the atmosphere. So the balance remains the same, and, as the author points out, we are looking at a thousand years or more to completely remove the CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere. And the author also points out it will be warming the atmosphere the whole time.
"On the other hand, CO2 is absorbing ALL of the 15 micron radiation that the surface"
LOLThe reflectance for s-polarized light is
while the reflectance for p-polarized light is
where Z1 and Z2 are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively, μ1 and μ2 are the magnetic permeability of the two materials, and ε1 and ε2 are the electric permittivity of the two materials (at the frequency of the light wave).
For non-magnetic media (i.e. materials for which μ1 ≈ μ2 ≈ μ0
**********************************************************************
and thus proportional to the ratios of the indices of refraction of the two media. Your interpretation Mr Westwall, is crap.
So are you claiming that IR from either the earth, or the atmosphere is polariarized?
Tell me again, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 at sea level? And given that amount, in ppm, what percentage of the available LWIR could it absorb?
LOL
More bafflgab from Billy Bob.
Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.
On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.
A radiation monitor tag has a range. If it is maxed out, that is the minimum radiation you were exposed to, it could be 1000x more.
Water vapour could absorb some 15 micron IR but it is already completely absorbed by CO2.
LOL
More bafflgab from Billy Bob.
Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.
On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.
A radiation monitor tag has a range. If it is maxed out, that is the minimum radiation you were exposed to, it could be 1000x more.
Water vapour could absorb some 15 micron IR but it is already completely absorbed by CO2.
More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption. Your making an assumption not based in the facts. Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do over 99% of the emissions?
