Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 146

Thread: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

  1. #11
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,292

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
    Sounds like between you and LoP you could manage it and put the video on uTube.
    Thanks, but I am sure I do not have the right equipment. I am not sure how one would measure the difference between 280 and 560 ppm with
    and accuracy on a active flow process, both are under 1%.

  2. #12
    Professor
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    USA - Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,542

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    I went looking for the earliest source of Earth being 33C warmer than it would
    be if the atmosphere were transparent....
    Here's an interesting link from April 2018:

    CO2 is Not Driving Global Warming - Tower of Reason

    A 30 dB drop means 1/1000 of the power. To get a 30 dB drop in the available electromagnetic energy
    at 15m due to CO2 at roughly 1atmosphere, your path would only have to be 500m (1640 feet) long.
    That's way less distance than the IR radiation from the Earth has to travel to be radiated into space.
    ...
    If we were in outer space looking at the infrared emissions from the Earth and running them through a
    prism, we would detect nothing between 14.5m and 15.5m.

    Is that at odds with the conventional wisdom that says:

    In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a
    uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative
    cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2C
    (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006). IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 page 631

    An old analogy says after you paint a red wall with so many layers of white paint, one more coat won't
    make it any whiter.

    I haven't seen anyone of note disagree with the basic no feed backs CO2 climate sensitivity of 1.2C.
    CO2 is NOT
    a Problem

  3. #13
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,292

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    Here's an interesting link from April 2018:

    CO2 is Not Driving Global Warming - Tower of Reason

    A 30 dB drop means 1/1000 of the power. To get a 30 dB drop in the available electromagnetic energy
    at 15m due to CO2 at roughly 1atmosphere, your path would only have to be 500m (1640 feet) long.
    That's way less distance than the IR radiation from the Earth has to travel to be radiated into space.
    ...
    If we were in outer space looking at the infrared emissions from the Earth and running them through a
    prism, we would detect nothing between 14.5m and 15.5m.

    Is that at odds with the conventional wisdom that says:

    In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a
    uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative
    cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2C
    (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006). IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 page 631

    An old analogy says after you paint a red wall with so many layers of white paint, one more coat won't
    make it any whiter.

    I haven't seen anyone of note disagree with the basic no feed backs CO2 climate sensitivity of 1.2C.
    I find it strange that everyone seems to accept the 2XC02 =1.2C, when that is tied back to the
    2XCO2 causing 3.71 Watts per meter square of energy imbalance, yet if all the energy is already absorbed,
    there is nothing else to add.
    Even the simulation run by real climate only showed added imbalance of ~1 watt per meter square.

  4. #14
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,292

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    I found an Air Force paper from 1962 entitled
    AtmosphericTransmittanceFrom0.25to 28.5p.m.
    https://books.googleusercontent.com/...VmKZ6siP3qePlg
    Some of the more interesting findings were Figure 7 on page 40 entitled,
    Atmospheric transmittance for a vertical path to space from sea level for six model atmospheres.
    sealevel to space 1962.jpg
    So way back in 1962, when CO2 levels were only 318 ppm, the absorption bands around CO2
    were already saturated, zero 15 um radiation was making it from sea level to space.
    Adding CO2 might slightly broaden the absorption spectrum, but the full absorption range
    is already from 14 to 16 um, additional broadening would start to run into H2O broadening.

  5. #15
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,292

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    An additional paper from 1956 found similar results.
    https://www.osapublishing.org/view_a...0YKT%20Library
    Atmospheric Transmission in the Infrared.
    Typical atmospheric transmission spectra are shown in Figs. 4-8. The regions 4.2 to 4.3 ,5.6 to 6.5 u, and 14.0 to 15.0,u
    were all found to be opaque over the two long paths and are omitted from the figures
    .
    IR transmission 1956.jpg
    In 1956 they found a ZERO percent transmission at 10.1 miles for 14 to 15 um radiation at sea level.
    Few things say saturation, like zero percent of the energy getting through.
    In fact the graph shows the saturation extends down to 13.5 um.

  6. #16
    Irritant

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,168

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    I went looking for the earliest source of Earth being 33C warmer than it would
    be if the atmosphere were transparent. It looks like Arrhenius first mentioned
    the Earth average temperature was 15 C in 1896.
    Along the way I found that Knut ngstrm had challenged Arrhenius's findings of climate sensitivity,in 1900,
    saying that CO2 has a greenhouse effect at lower levels, but quickly becomes saturated.
    ngstrm's findings in turned were challenged by the alarmist blog real climate.
    A Saturated Gassy Argument << RealClimate
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...gument-part-ii
    Where this gets interesting, is if we evaluate what data we can extract from the realclimate graph.

    While they did not link to any numerical data, the graph roughly says that at 1XCO2
    between .661 and .664% of the of the transmission passes.
    For 2XCO2 between .636 and .639% of the light transmitted passes.
    The greenhouse warming of 33C is based on an energy imbalance of 150 Wm-2,
    of this 150 Wm-2 up to 26%, or 39 Wm-2 is attributed to CO2.
    If we convert the above percentages to changes in energy imbalance,
    we see that doubling the CO2 level, will add an imbalance of between
    .86 and 1.1 Wm-2. This amount from an alarmist blog site is much lower
    than the predicted amount of forcing of 3.71 Wm-2.
    O.K... I have been meaning to do this:

    Longview, you have either completely missed the whole point of these two posts or are completely ignoring the main point.

    And, of course, you are now running around here misinforming people again. Do you think you can figure out what I'm talking about or do I need to explain it to you?

  7. #17
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,292

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    O.K... I have been meaning to do this:

    Longview, you have either completely missed the whole point of these two posts or are completely ignoring the main point.

    And, of course, you are now running around here misinforming people again. Do you think you can figure out what I'm talking about or do I need to explain it to you?
    Buzz, based on the DOD studies and even the real climate article graphed findings,
    Atmospheric Transmittance from 0.25 to 28.5 Micrometers: Supplement LOWTRAN ... - J. E. A. Selby, Eric P. Shettle, R. A. McClatchey - Google Books
    do you think CO2 and continue along the 3.71 Wm-2 doubling curve?
    If in fact, as the real climate article states, the center band (15 um) of CO2 is saturated,
    Supported by empirical data from the 1960's, that the pressure broadened wings of CO2 will have the exact same
    capability as the center band?
    Look at the real climate graphic on pressure broadening?

    Do you really think the yellow portion of that long curve, contains as much energy as the pink portion of the curve?
    Also consider that the yellow portion is for 4XCO2 at sea level pressure.
    As we get higher in the atmosphere the pressure drops, and so does the pressure broadening.
    If the amount of energy/temperature perturbation CO2 can cause is limited,
    so to is the feedback that perturbation could possibly cause!

  8. #18
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    36,186

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    O.K... I have been meaning to do this:

    Longview, you have either completely missed the whole point of these two posts or are completely ignoring the main point.

    And, of course, you are now running around here misinforming people again. Do you think you can figure out what I'm talking about or do I need to explain it to you?
    If you cold explain your position in your own words, without TMI in links, that would be welcome, and a first!

    Please do!
    The left says the right is full of racists and bigots and have no tolerance. Nobody from the right organizes interference with gay pride parades, or other leftist events. The left however always has a group interfering with events organized by the right. Who are the tolerant ones I ask? Most certainly not the left.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    36,186

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    Buzz, based on the DOD studies and even the real climate article graphed findings,
    Atmospheric Transmittance from 0.25 to 28.5 Micrometers: Supplement LOWTRAN ... - J. E. A. Selby, Eric P. Shettle, R. A. McClatchey - Google Books
    do you think CO2 and continue along the 3.71 Wm-2 doubling curve?
    If in fact, as the real climate article states, the center band (15 um) of CO2 is saturated,
    Supported by empirical data from the 1960's, that the pressure broadened wings of CO2 will have the exact same
    capability as the center band?
    Look at the real climate graphic on pressure broadening?

    Do you really think the yellow portion of that long curve, contains as much energy as the pink portion of the curve?
    Also consider that the yellow portion is for 4XCO2 at sea level pressure.
    As we get higher in the atmosphere the pressure drops, and so does the pressure broadening.
    If the amount of energy/temperature perturbation CO2 can cause is limited,
    so to is the feedback that perturbation could possibly cause!
    I don't think he comprehends log10. Without that comprehension, he couldn't possible see how insignificant the yellow area is. My visual estimation places the two yellow wings around 40 dB less in value the the parts between them.
    Last edited by Lord of Planar; 12-11-19 at 01:39 PM.
    The left says the right is full of racists and bigots and have no tolerance. Nobody from the right organizes interference with gay pride parades, or other leftist events. The left however always has a group interfering with events organized by the right. Who are the tolerant ones I ask? Most certainly not the left.

  10. #20
    Irritant

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,168

    Re: CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    Buzz, based on the DOD studies and even the real climate article graphed findings,
    Atmospheric Transmittance from 0.25 to 28.5 Micrometers: Supplement LOWTRAN ... - J. E. A. Selby, Eric P. Shettle, R. A. McClatchey - Google Books
    do you think CO2 and continue along the 3.71 Wm-2 doubling curve?
    If in fact, as the real climate article states, the center band (15 um) of CO2 is saturated,
    Supported by empirical data from the 1960's, that the pressure broadened wings of CO2 will have the exact same
    capability as the center band?
    Look at the real climate graphic on pressure broadening?

    Do you really think the yellow portion of that long curve, contains as much energy as the pink portion of the curve?
    Also consider that the yellow portion is for 4XCO2 at sea level pressure.
    As we get higher in the atmosphere the pressure drops, and so does the pressure broadening.
    If the amount of energy/temperature perturbation CO2 can cause is limited,
    so to is the feedback that perturbation could possibly cause!
    Wow!! You never cease to amaze me with your ability to find posts like this one from RealClimate and cherry-pick the stuff you want while you completely ignore the main point of the article.

    This article basically states several times and in different ways that your "saturated" argument is BS! Here is just one time they state this:

    So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, heres all you need to say: (a) Youd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because its the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) Its not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2
    So... your new argument that you have been throwing around here lately is just more misinformation.

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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