Re: For RChung the Science Guy

bjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

"Conclusions
It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR
absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global
warming or even a climate catastrophe.

The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. ~
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

"There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This
means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters."

Kun-Kun,

This is crap. The author of the first document
measures a CO2 absorption opacity at (what I take
to be) room temperature and pressure and then
extrapolates to the entire thickness of the
atmosphere as if it were a single slab, and
concludes that the CO2 absorption is optically
thick and therefore adding more CO2 has no effect.

As I said, this is crap. People made this mistake
in 1900, but continuing to make it now is deliberate
ignorance. See
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
and search for the name "Knut Angstrom" and
description of his experiment in 1900.

The problem is that a real model of the regulation
of atmospheric temperature has to take into account
the heat flux up and down between different layers
of the atmosphere at different temp and pressure,
and the behavior of the CO2 absorption changes with
pressure. The single-slab model does not work.
See
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141

Arrhenius correctly understood the need for a
stratified model already in 1896, but making a
realistic model had to wait until the 1960s or
so and computer calculations. Besides, from 1900
to 1960, hardly anyone was worried about climate
change, and so the wrongness of the single slab
model was not widely understood. But it is wrong,
even if J. Random Chemist hasn't figured that out.

From the first aip.org link:
"The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if
the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in
the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is
regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation
does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse
gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1%
change in that delicate balance would make a serious
difference in the planet's surface temperature. The
logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it
takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere - not
as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or
the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of
interacting layers. "

By the way, I just saw that Newsweek's current
cover article is about (my paraphrase) how the
global-warming-is-a-hoax industry has been propped
up long after the scientific consensus has left it
behind, by generous wads of cash thrown at it by
interested parties such as oil and energy companies.
So you can add Newsweek to the Black Solar
Helicopter Conspiracy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Ben
Radiative transfer models are a bitch.


I read Newsweek--rather compelling.

Steve (actually graduated a chem major--but that was many brain-cells ago).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The green house effect - one of Thatchers lies?
    ... Indeed, by all accounts much more potent than CO2, ... absorbed at any low level of water vapour in the atmosphere. ... Yes because with radiation incident at the surface and then re ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: OT: Climate Change
    ... The big source/sink of CO2 is the sea. ... temperature of the sea controlls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. ... emissions are insignificant. ... The earth then loses this heat exclusively by radiation. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more opportunities there ... >> because it is a frequency which is transparent to CO2. ... Once the radiation is absorbed it ceases to exist, ... this process has been called radiation trapping for a long time. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: R. W. Woods "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse"
    ... to make the atmosphere a significantly more effective "radiation ... atmosphere absorbs IR being radiated from the ground and re-radiate it ... that their little gee-whiz diagrams never show the CO2 radiating IR ... about the true situation of the moose after dismissing the nonsense. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O?
    ... First, I'm referring to the bands of IR absorption that CO2 absorbs, ... I'm not sure if 99.999% is a correct absorption. ... Is our atmosphere at this ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading