Page 218 of 227 FirstFirst ... 118168208216217218219220 ... LastLast
Results 2,171 to 2,180 of 2267

Thread: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

  1. #2171
    Sage
    Media_Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,622

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    No shortage of the uneducated trying to act educated on this thread. Why did not one of them post a link? Oh, I forgot. They are omniscient, and have no need for experts.

  2. #2172
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,502

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by Quaestio View Post
    My track record is pretty good as I stick with accepted science and valid sources like published literature, major reports, science textbooks, major science institution websites etc and I've never claimed to be an "expert".

    Your track record is woeful as you make things up, repeat pseudoscience from blogs, waffle and misrepresent science you don't understand, have an extreme "anything but CO2" bias, indulge in fact-free conspiracies, and have delusions that you're "expert" yet you make really silly basic mistakes. You continually beat your chest about how awesome you think you are and how ignorant you thing everyone else is. Your posting history speaks for itself. Do a search for all your posts using the word "ignorant"...
    Your track record is horrendous. I guess I'll add arrogance.

  3. #2173
    Sage
    Media_Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,622

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by Quaestio View Post
    My track record is pretty good as I stick with accepted science and valid sources like published literature, major reports, science textbooks, major science institution websites etc and I've never claimed to be an "expert".

    Your track record is woeful as you make things up, repeat pseudoscience from blogs, waffle and misrepresent science you don't understand, have an extreme "anything but CO2" bias, indulge in fact-free conspiracies, and have delusions that you're "expert" yet you make really silly basic mistakes. You continually beat your chest about how awesome you think you are and how ignorant you thing everyone else is. Your posting history speaks for itself. Do a search for all your posts using the word "ignorant"...
    Actually, if the deniers want to pound their chest, they could point out that CO2 hasn't gone up from the three months of January 2019 (410.53 PPM) to April 2019 (also 410.53 PPM). My guess is that this will change. It would be a good trend, if it continues. After all, this is what many of us are striving for...

    Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

  4. #2174
    Proud member of the 'ilk'

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    36,960

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by Media_Truth View Post
    Actually, if the deniers want to pound their chest, they could point out that CO2 hasn't gone up from the three months of January 2019 (410.53 PPM) to April 2019 (also 410.53 PPM). My guess is that this will change. It would be a good trend, if it continues. After all, this is what many of us are striving for...

    Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
    Seasonal cycles.

    You can’t look at it month to month, only year to year.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  5. #2175
    Guru
    Quaestio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Oz
    Last Seen
    05-20-19 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Your track record is horrendous. I guess I'll add arrogance.
    The Lord of Projection strikes again!
    "The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell

  6. #2176
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    20,681

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by Quaestio View Post
    continued...



    So now you’re looking at something completely different again - direct observations over a short period of time, not the percentages of the total greenhouse effect, or the direct no-feedback TOA radiative forcing of a doubling of CO2.



    Wrong. The correct formula for a no-feedback radiative forcing for CO2 is:
    ΔFCO2 = (5.35 Wm-2) ln(CO2/CO2 original) – see your own ACS link. What you’ve ‘calculated’ is nonsense.





    That’s for a no-feedback direct TOA radiative response to a doubling of CO2. You seem to keep getting confused about this.






    Again, no it’s not. You’re talking nonsense. Read the paper and what they actually write instead of making up your own nonsense calculations.

    You took the number for their trend in the long-term radiative surface forcing: 0.2 +/- 0.06 W-m2 per decade and were using it incorrectly (with the incorrect formula) for a TOA energy imbalance for a no-feedback response.

    The direct no-feedback radiative forcing at the TOA for CO2 over that decade (which is way too short a period anyway for any sort of Transient Climate Response (TCR) or Equilibrium Climate Response (ECR) value) would be:

    ΔFCO2 = (5.35 Wm-2) ln(CO2/CO2 original)

    (5.35 Wm-2) ln(392/369) = 0.32348879726 Wm-2 (or ~0.32 Wm-2)





    Who cares what you think? Your numbers are all nonsense because you mix up concepts, input nonsense numbers, and use calculations incorrectly.

    Normally I couldn’t be bothered wasting the time to take apart your tossed number-salad nonsense posts because they are usually so wrong it’s not easy to explain what you’re doing wrong and takes too much time, so this is enough time wasted by me on your posts in this thread.
    SO many word to not really say much!
    The basic premise, is that all the greenhouse gasses in combination, caused an TOA energy imbalance of 155 Wm-2.
    CO2's total portion of that 155 Wm-2 is said to be 31 W-m2.
    From 1750 to 2010, they calculate that added CO2 has contributed 1.5 Wm-2 based on the formula 5.35 X ln(371/280) (Note no units on the multiplier!).
    The 5.35 multiplier is because it takes 8 doubling s of CO2 to get from 1 ppm to 256 ppm, so 3.71 Wm-2 X 8 doubling s =29.68 Wm-2 plus the
    calculated 1.5 Wm-2 since 1750, leads to ~ 31.18 Wm-2 for CO2's contribution.
    All this is fine and good until you start to think about how they know what the TOA energy imbalance was in 1750,
    or even what the TOA energy imbalance is even today, (it is a noisy calculation.).
    They also assume that zero CO2 means 1 ppm, but that likely is not true, why would we think
    the change between 500 ppb and 1000 ppb would be any different than the change between 1 ppm and 2 ppm?
    In addition, if they are calculating the change to 2010 from 1750, from measured TOA numbers today, why would there be no feedbacks?
    I digress a bit, so back to the point.
    Feldman represented someone actually trying to measure a change in imbalance over a change in CO2 level.
    He measured downwelling longwave radiation, and measured .2 Wm-2 per over the 11 year experiment,
    and
    Between2000 and 2011, the global CO2concentration at the surface increased from about 369 ppm to about 392ppm,
    as measured by ARM-NOAA Earth Science ResearchLaboratory (ESRL) flasks
    Here is where we learn where the 5.35 multiplier comes form.
    If the the imbalance from 2XCO2 is 3.71 Wm-2, then 3.71 Wm-2/ln(2)= ???, 5.35
    So from what Feldman measured, .2 Wm-2 X 1.1 decades =.22 Wm-2/ln(392/369)=3.64,
    no 3.64 X ln(2)=2.52 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2.
    Yes, Feldman is a very short period, but it is an actual measurement, as opposed to a theoretical calculation.
    It is also a measurement in the frequency band where CO2 is supposed to be conducting it's greenhouse gas action.
    For everyone's benefit the units cm-1 convert to um by dividing 10,000, so 500 cm-1 is 10000/500=20 um,
    and 10000/1800=3 um, so Feldmans sensor coverage was between 3 and 20 um, or a large portion of the infrared.
    I am not mixing up concepts,We have calculated results vs measured results, using the same formulas.

  7. #2177
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,502

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    SO many word to not really say much!
    The basic premise, is that all the greenhouse gasses in combination, caused an TOA energy imbalance of 155 Wm-2.
    CO2's total portion of that 155 Wm-2 is said to be 31 W-m2.
    From 1750 to 2010, they calculate that added CO2 has contributed 1.5 Wm-2 based on the formula 5.35 X ln(371/280) (Note no units on the multiplier!).
    The 5.35 multiplier is because it takes 8 doubling s of CO2 to get from 1 ppm to 256 ppm, so 3.71 Wm-2 X 8 doubling s =29.68 Wm-2 plus the
    calculated 1.5 Wm-2 since 1750, leads to ~ 31.18 Wm-2 for CO2's contribution.
    All this is fine and good until you start to think about how they know what the TOA energy imbalance was in 1750,
    or even what the TOA energy imbalance is even today, (it is a noisy calculation.).
    They also assume that zero CO2 means 1 ppm, but that likely is not true, why would we think
    the change between 500 ppb and 1000 ppb would be any different than the change between 1 ppm and 2 ppm?
    In addition, if they are calculating the change to 2010 from 1750, from measured TOA numbers today, why would there be no feedbacks?
    I digress a bit, so back to the point.
    Feldman represented someone actually trying to measure a change in imbalance over a change in CO2 level.
    He measured downwelling longwave radiation, and measured .2 Wm-2 per over the 11 year experiment,
    and
    Here is where we learn where the 5.35 multiplier comes form.
    If the the imbalance from 2XCO2 is 3.71 Wm-2, then 3.71 Wm-2/ln(2)= ???, 5.35
    So from what Feldman measured, .2 Wm-2 X 1.1 decades =.22 Wm-2/ln(392/369)=3.64,
    no 3.64 X ln(2)=2.52 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2.
    Yes, Feldman is a very short period, but it is an actual measurement, as opposed to a theoretical calculation.
    It is also a measurement in the frequency band where CO2 is supposed to be conducting it's greenhouse gas action.
    For everyone's benefit the units cm-1 convert to um by dividing 10,000, so 500 cm-1 is 10000/500=20 um,
    and 10000/1800=3 um, so Feldmans sensor coverage was between 3 and 20 um, or a large portion of the infrared.
    I am not mixing up concepts,We have calculated results vs measured results, using the same formulas.
    He simply couldn't follow that your math showed a negative feedback is in play, reducing the constant for simplifying the math from 5.35 to 3.64. His priests of AGW tell him there is only positive feedback.

  8. #2178
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    785

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    I am not mixing up concepts,We have calculated results vs measured results, using the same formulas.
    Yes, you are. You are taking a surface measurement and using it to calculate a Top Of Atmosphere result. And doing so is both unscientific and dishonest.

  9. #2179
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    20,681

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Yes, you are. You are taking a surface measurement and using it to calculate a Top Of Atmosphere result. And doing so is both unscientific and dishonest.
    No! The fist law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
    If the energy is not leaving the atmosphere, it must be downwelling in some form.
    If the concept of AGW is correct, that form will be in Infrared radiation, which is where the Feldman study was looking.
    For the most part, quantum energy states only decay from greater to lessor energy levels, on a path back to ground state.
    If the IR photons causing the effect are 15 um, then the residual decay energy levels must be 15 um or less energy (longer wavelengths).
    Even the very likely collision decay would cause the other atmospheric components to throw off their own longer wavelength.
    The basics are that if the energy is not heading towards space, it is heading back towards the ground.

  10. #2180
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    785

    Re: [W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    No! The fist law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
    If the energy is not leaving the atmosphere, it must be downwelling in some form.
    If the concept of AGW is correct, that form will be in Infrared radiation, which is where the Feldman study was looking.
    For the most part, quantum energy states only decay from greater to lessor energy levels, on a path back to ground state.
    If the IR photons causing the effect are 15 um, then the residual decay energy levels must be 15 um or less energy (longer wavelengths).
    Even the very likely collision decay would cause the other atmospheric components to throw off their own longer wavelength.
    The basics are that if the energy is not heading towards space, it is heading back towards the ground.
    Oh, come on long... Nobody is saying or implying that energy is being created or destroyed. It is being absorbed and later released or changed by the atmosphere. You do understand that it takes energy to create weather, correct?

    The fact of the matter is that surface measurements are much different that TOA measurements and that it is fundamentally wrong to be making a calculation in the manner that you are.

    Here is that part of the Feldman study that you want to ignore as just opinion:

    Surface forcing represents a complementary, underutilized resource with which to quantify the effects of rising CO2 concentrations downwelling longwave radiation. This quantity is distinct from stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing at the tropopause, but both are fundamental measures of energy imbalance caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases. The former is less than, but proportional to, the latter owing to tropospheric adjustments of sensible and latent heat, and is a useful metric for localized aspects of climate response
    That part about sensible and latent heat is basicly the weather.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •