You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and how it is "debunked".
But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in global warming, you don't really understand what all this is about, so you have to take somebody's version of facts, on blind faith.
This is an attempt to correct the situation, and explain CO2 saturation in laypersons' language.
Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging a zoo that's been releasing more Panda bears in the zoo. There is a lobby that is saying there are too many Panda bears already, and that the forest will be de-forested due to these extra Panda bears, causing bad problems.
If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you may notice something wrong about that - Panda bears only eat bamboo. So once all the bamboo is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. Many Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
(Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda bears can continue to live fine without bamboo, just on water.)
Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding any more doesn't affect the forest.
CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. They are picky eaters of radiation.
"CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in science since early 1900s.
"CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are like Panda bears. You may have heard that CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, heating it up. What you may not have heard is that the CO2 molecules can only trap a very small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2 molecules can only trap a very small fraction of what is known as "infra-red wavelengths". We call this small fraction "CO2 bands".
Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules are very selective.
The bamboo in this case -- the energy in the CO2 bands -- is all gone. So adding CO2 molecules means the new molecules have nothing to "eat". So they cannot absorb any more energy.
This part is not disputed. Global Warming supporters have some arguments, though, which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. These arguments can be seen at:
1) The Global Warmist argument is: The early scientists' experimental equipment or calculation was bad.
Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1%".
That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
But actually, the quote above is a crystal clear case of a very intentional attempt to cheat.
In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% because 100% - 0.4% = 99.6%
Even if modern calculations saying "1%" are right, that simply means CO2 saturation is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not really so large. It is really insignificant.
The Global Warmists know fully well that they are trying to cheat. Quote: "But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand..."
Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. He had nothing to do with either Global Warming supporters or deniers. He was just some scientist from a long past. There is no reason to just assume he was incompetent ot dishonest.
So why are the global warmists attacking him? How do they know what he would have thought?
Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when given the difference between 0.4% and 1%, and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, would indeed have thought this an "insignificant perturbation".
2) The other Global Warming "debunking" argument is:
ok, the energy gets depleted. But then it gets re-emitted, and re-abosrbed by higher layers, so it goes all the way to the top.
This is not as bad as argument 1, where it is clear that they are _knowingly_ attempting to cheat.
In this case, it is indeed possible that they are being honest, and just happen to be not very good at doing arithmetic.
So let us do the arithmetic for them.
Some of the heat will get lost via conduction and convection (normal heat loss processes.) A very fair top estimate of re-radiation is 30%.
Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than 100 meters of CO2.
So what happens by the time we get to 1000 meters up in the atmospheres?
By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and re-radiations of the heat. Each at a maximum efficiency of 30%.
30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, and multiply it by .3. Multiply it by .3 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
What do you see in the calculator?
If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total of 10 multiplications, you should be seeing a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
This is so small that it's close to zero for all practical purposes.
So both the arguments (1) and (2) that are supposedly "debunking" CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
The real reason CO2 saturation is ignored, is that scientists who brought up these issues were fired and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
> You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and > how it is "debunked".
> But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in > global warming, you don't really understand what > all this is about, so you have to take somebody's > version of facts, on blind faith.
> This is an attempt to correct the situation, and > explain CO2 saturation in laypersons' language.
> Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging > a zoo that's been releasing more Panda bears in > the zoo. There is a lobby that is saying there are > too many Panda bears already, and that > the forest will be de-forested due to these > extra Panda bears, causing bad problems.
> If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you > may notice something wrong about that - Panda > bears only eat bamboo. So once all the bamboo > is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. > Many Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
> (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda > bears can continue to live fine without bamboo, just > on water.)
> Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding > any more doesn't affect the forest.
> CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. > They are picky eaters of radiation.
> "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in > science since early 1900s.
> "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are > like Panda bears. You may have heard that > CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, > heating it up. What you may not have heard > is that the CO2 molecules can only trap a very > small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2 > molecules can only trap a very small fraction > of what is known as "infra-red wavelengths". > We call this small fraction "CO2 bands".
> Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules > are very selective.
> The bamboo in this case -- the energy in > the CO2 bands -- is all gone. So adding > CO2 molecules means the new molecules > have nothing to "eat". So they cannot > absorb any more energy.
> This part is not disputed. Global Warming > supporters have some arguments, though, > which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. > These arguments can be seen at:
> 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The > early scientists' experimental equipment > or calculation was bad.
> Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that > the absorption had not been reduced by > more than 0.4% when he lowered the > pressure, but a modern calculation shows > that the absorption would have decreased > about 1%".
> That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
> But actually, the quote above is a crystal > clear case of a very intentional attempt to cheat.
> In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% > because 100% - 0.4% = 99.6%
> Even if modern calculations saying "1%" > are right, that simply means CO2 saturation > is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
> The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not > really so large. It is really insignificant.
> The Global Warmists know fully well that > they are trying to cheat. Quote: "But even if > he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would > have thought this an insignificant > perturbation. He failed to understand..."
> Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. > He had nothing to do with either Global > Warming supporters or deniers. He > was just some scientist from a long > past. There is no reason to just assume > he was incompetent ot dishonest.
> So why are the global warmists attacking him? > How do they know what he would have thought?
> Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when > given the difference between 0.4% and 1%, > and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, > would indeed have thought this an > "insignificant perturbation".
> 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" > argument is:
> ok, the energy gets depleted. But then > it gets re-emitted, and re-abosrbed > by higher layers, so it goes all the way > to the top.
> This is not as bad as argument 1, where > it is clear that they are _knowingly_ > attempting to cheat.
> In this case, it is indeed possible that > they are being honest, and just happen > to be not very good at doing > arithmetic.
> So let us do the arithmetic for them.
> Some of the heat will get lost via conduction > and convection (normal heat loss processes.) > A very fair top estimate of re-radiation > is 30%.
> Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than > 100 meters of CO2.
> So what happens by the time we get to 1000 > meters up in the atmospheres?
> By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and > re-radiations of the heat. Each at a > maximum efficiency of 30%.
> 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, > and multiply it by .3. Multiply it by .3 > 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
> What do you see in the calculator?
> If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total > of 10 multiplications, you should be seeing > a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
> This is so small that it's close to > zero for all practical purposes.
> So both the arguments (1) and (2) > that are supposedly "debunking" > CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
> The real reason CO2 saturation is > ignored, is that scientists who > brought up these issues were fired > and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
Reposting the above to sci.physics, since it seems there is some interest from that newsgroup as well.
We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
> On Jan 17, 3:44 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
> > You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and > > how it is "debunked".
> > But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in > > global warming, you don't really understand what > > all this is about, so you have to take somebody's > > version of facts, on blind faith.
> > This is an attempt to correct the situation, and > > explain CO2 saturation in laypersons' language.
> > Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging > > a zoo that's been releasing more Panda bears in > > the zoo. There is a lobby that is saying there are > > too many Panda bears already, and that > > the forest will be de-forested due to these > > extra Panda bears, causing bad problems.
> > If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you > > may notice something wrong about that - Panda > > bears only eat bamboo. So once all the bamboo > > is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. > > Many Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
> > (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda > > bears can continue to live fine without bamboo, just > > on water.)
> > Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding > > any more doesn't affect the forest.
> > CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. > > They are picky eaters of radiation.
> > "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in > > science since early 1900s.
> > "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are > > like Panda bears. You may have heard that > > CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, > > heating it up. What you may not have heard > > is that the CO2 molecules can only trap a very > > small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2 > > molecules can only trap a very small fraction > > of what is known as "infra-red wavelengths". > > We call this small fraction "CO2 bands".
> > Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules > > are very selective.
> > The bamboo in this case -- the energy in > > the CO2 bands -- is all gone. So adding > > CO2 molecules means the new molecules > > have nothing to "eat". So they cannot > > absorb any more energy.
> > This part is not disputed. Global Warming > > supporters have some arguments, though, > > which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. > > These arguments can be seen at:
> > 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The > > early scientists' experimental equipment > > or calculation was bad.
> > Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that > > the absorption had not been reduced by > > more than 0.4% when he lowered the > > pressure, but a modern calculation shows > > that the absorption would have decreased > > about 1%".
> > That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
> > But actually, the quote above is a crystal > > clear case of a very intentional attempt to cheat.
> > In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% > > because 100% - 0.4% = 99.6%
> > Even if modern calculations saying "1%" > > are right, that simply means CO2 saturation > > is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
> > The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not > > really so large. It is really insignificant.
> > The Global Warmists know fully well that > > they are trying to cheat. Quote: "But even if > > he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would > > have thought this an insignificant > > perturbation. He failed to understand..."
> > Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. > > He had nothing to do with either Global > > Warming supporters or deniers. He > > was just some scientist from a long > > past. There is no reason to just assume > > he was incompetent ot dishonest.
> > So why are the global warmists attacking him? > > How do they know what he would have thought?
> > Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when > > given the difference between 0.4% and 1%, > > and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, > > would indeed have thought this an > > "insignificant perturbation".
> > 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" > > argument is:
> > ok, the energy gets depleted. But then > > it gets re-emitted, and re-abosrbed > > by higher layers, so it goes all the way > > to the top.
> > This is not as bad as argument 1, where > > it is clear that they are _knowingly_ > > attempting to cheat.
> > In this case, it is indeed possible that > > they are being honest, and just happen > > to be not very good at doing > > arithmetic.
> > So let us do the arithmetic for them.
> > Some of the heat will get lost via conduction > > and convection (normal heat loss processes.) > > A very fair top estimate of re-radiation > > is 30%.
> > Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than > > 100 meters of CO2.
> > So what happens by the time we get to 1000 > > meters up in the atmospheres?
> > By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and > > re-radiations of the heat. Each at a > > maximum efficiency of 30%.
> > 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, > > and multiply it by .3. Multiply it by .3 > > 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
> > What do you see in the calculator?
> > If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total > > of 10 multiplications, you should be seeing > > a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
> > This is so small that it's close to > > zero for all practical purposes.
> > So both the arguments (1) and (2) > > that are supposedly "debunking" > > CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
> > The real reason CO2 saturation is > > ignored, is that scientists who > > brought up these issues were fired > > and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
> Reposting the above to sci.physics, since > it seems there is some interest from > that newsgroup as well.
> On Jan 17, 3:44 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
> > You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and > > how it is "debunked".
> > But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in > > global warming, you don't really understand what > > all this is about, so you have to take somebody's > > version of facts, on blind faith.
> > This is an attempt to correct the situation, and > > explain CO2 saturation in laypersons' language.
> > Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging > > a zoo that's been releasing more Panda bears in > > the zoo. There is a lobby that is saying there are > > too many Panda bears already, and that > > the forest will be de-forested due to these > > extra Panda bears, causing bad problems.
> > If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you > > may notice something wrong about that - Panda > > bears only eat bamboo. So once all the bamboo > > is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. > > Many Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
> > (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda > > bears can continue to live fine without bamboo, just > > on water.)
> > Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding > > any more doesn't affect the forest.
> > CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. > > They are picky eaters of radiation.
> > "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in > > science since early 1900s.
> > "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are > > like Panda bears. You may have heard that > > CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, > > heating it up. What you may not have heard > > is that the CO2 molecules can only trap a very > > small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2 > > molecules can only trap a very small fraction > > of what is known as "infra-red wavelengths". > > We call this small fraction "CO2 bands".
> > Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules > > are very selective.
> > The bamboo in this case -- the energy in > > the CO2 bands -- is all gone. So adding > > CO2 molecules means the new molecules > > have nothing to "eat". So they cannot > > absorb any more energy.
> > This part is not disputed. Global Warming > > supporters have some arguments, though, > > which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. > > These arguments can be seen at:
> > 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The > > early scientists' experimental equipment > > or calculation was bad.
> > Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that > > the absorption had not been reduced by > > more than 0.4% when he lowered the > > pressure, but a modern calculation shows > > that the absorption would have decreased > > about 1%".
> > That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
> > But actually, the quote above is a crystal > > clear case of a very intentional attempt to cheat.
> > In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% > > because 100% - 0.4% = 99.6%
> > Even if modern calculations saying "1%" > > are right, that simply means CO2 saturation > > is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
> > The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not > > really so large. It is really insignificant.
> > The Global Warmists know fully well that > > they are trying to cheat. Quote: "But even if > > he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would > > have thought this an insignificant > > perturbation. He failed to understand..."
> > Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. > > He had nothing to do with either Global > > Warming supporters or deniers. He > > was just some scientist from a long > > past. There is no reason to just assume > > he was incompetent ot dishonest.
> > So why are the global warmists attacking him? > > How do they know what he would have thought?
> > Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when > > given the difference between 0.4% and 1%, > > and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, > > would indeed have thought this an > > "insignificant perturbation".
> > 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" > > argument is:
> > ok, the energy gets depleted. But then > > it gets re-emitted, and re-abosrbed > > by higher layers, so it goes all the way > > to the top.
> > This is not as bad as argument 1, where > > it is clear that they are _knowingly_ > > attempting to cheat.
> > In this case, it is indeed possible that > > they are being honest, and just happen > > to be not very good at doing > > arithmetic.
> > So let us do the arithmetic for them.
> > Some of the heat will get lost via conduction > > and convection (normal heat loss processes.) > > A very fair top estimate of re-radiation > > is 30%.
> > Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than > > 100 meters of CO2.
> > So what happens by the time we get to 1000 > > meters up in the atmospheres?
> > By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and > > re-radiations of the heat. Each at a > > maximum efficiency of 30%.
> > 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, > > and multiply it by .3. Multiply it by .3 > > 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
> > What do you see in the calculator?
> > If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total > > of 10 multiplications, you should be seeing > > a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
> > This is so small that it's close to > > zero for all practical purposes.
> > So both the arguments (1) and (2) > > that are supposedly "debunking" > > CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
> > The real reason CO2 saturation is > > ignored, is that scientists who > > brought up these issues were fired > > and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
> Reposting the above to sci.physics, since > it seems there is some interest from > that newsgroup as well.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I see Coppock has posted something in the thread. I stop reading those who are overly foul-mouthed (as I used to do in sci.physics) - in the sci.environment and alt.global-warming ng's, that's Coppock, John M. and Lloyd.
But if Coppock has posted a valid observation, and someone trying to honestly follow the discussion has a question, please feel free to repost the observation with any questions.
> On Jan 17, 5:52 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 3:44 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and > > > how it is "debunked".
> > > But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in > > > global warming, you don't really understand what > > > all this is about, so you have to take somebody's > > > version of facts, on blind faith.
> > > This is an attempt to correct the situation, and > > > explain CO2 saturation in laypersons' language.
> > > Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging > > > a zoo that's been releasing more Panda bears in > > > the zoo. There is a lobby that is saying there are > > > too many Panda bears already, and that > > > the forest will be de-forested due to these > > > extra Panda bears, causing bad problems.
> > > If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you > > > may notice something wrong about that - Panda > > > bears only eat bamboo. So once all the bamboo > > > is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. > > > Many Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
> > > (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda > > > bears can continue to live fine without bamboo, just > > > on water.)
> > > Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding > > > any more doesn't affect the forest.
> > > CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. > > > They are picky eaters of radiation.
> > > "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in > > > science since early 1900s.
> > > "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are > > > like Panda bears. You may have heard that > > > CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, > > > heating it up. What you may not have heard > > > is that the CO2 molecules can only trap a very > > > small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2 > > > molecules can only trap a very small fraction > > > of what is known as "infra-red wavelengths". > > > We call this small fraction "CO2 bands".
> > > Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules > > > are very selective.
> > > The bamboo in this case -- the energy in > > > the CO2 bands -- is all gone. So adding > > > CO2 molecules means the new molecules > > > have nothing to "eat". So they cannot > > > absorb any more energy.
> > > This part is not disputed. Global Warming > > > supporters have some arguments, though, > > > which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. > > > These arguments can be seen at:
> > > 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The > > > early scientists' experimental equipment > > > or calculation was bad.
> > > Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that > > > the absorption had not been reduced by > > > more than 0.4% when he lowered the > > > pressure, but a modern calculation shows > > > that the absorption would have decreased > > > about 1%".
> > > That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
> > > But actually, the quote above is a crystal > > > clear case of a very intentional attempt to cheat.
> > > In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% > > > because 100% - 0.4% = 99.6%
> > > Even if modern calculations saying "1%" > > > are right, that simply means CO2 saturation > > > is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
> > > The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not > > > really so large. It is really insignificant.
> > > The Global Warmists know fully well that > > > they are trying to cheat. Quote: "But even if > > > he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would > > > have thought this an insignificant > > > perturbation. He failed to understand..."
> > > Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. > > > He had nothing to do with either Global > > > Warming supporters or deniers. He > > > was just some scientist from a long > > > past. There is no reason to just assume > > > he was incompetent ot dishonest.
> > > So why are the global warmists attacking him? > > > How do they know what he would have thought?
> > > Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when > > > given the difference between 0.4% and 1%, > > > and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, > > > would indeed have thought this an > > > "insignificant perturbation".
> > > 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" > > > argument is:
> > > ok, the energy gets depleted. But then > > > it gets re-emitted, and re-abosrbed > > > by higher layers, so it goes all the way > > > to the top.
> > > This is not as bad as argument 1, where > > > it is clear that they are _knowingly_ > > > attempting to cheat.
> > > In this case, it is indeed possible that > > > they are being honest, and just happen > > > to be not very good at doing > > > arithmetic.
> > > So let us do the arithmetic for them.
> > > Some of the heat will get lost via conduction > > > and convection (normal heat loss processes.) > > > A very fair top estimate of re-radiation > > > is 30%.
> > > Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than > > > 100 meters of CO2.
> > > So what happens by the time we get to 1000 > > > meters up in the atmospheres?
> > > By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and > > > re-radiations of the heat. Each at a > > > maximum efficiency of 30%.
> > > 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, > > > and multiply it by .3. Multiply it by .3 > > > 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
> > > What do you see in the calculator?
> > > If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total > > > of 10 multiplications, you should be seeing > > > a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
> > > This is so small that it's close to > > > zero for all practical purposes.
> > > So both the arguments (1) and (2) > > > that are supposedly "debunking" > > > CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
> > > The real reason CO2 saturation is > > > ignored, is that scientists who > > > brought up these issues were fired > > > and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
> > Reposting the above to sci.physics, since > > it seems there is some interest from > > that newsgroup as well.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I see Coppock has posted something in the > thread. I stop reading those who are overly > foul-mouthed (as I used to do in sci.physics) - in > the sci.environment and alt.global-warming ng's, > that's Coppock, John M. and Lloyd.
> But if Coppock has posted a valid observation, > and someone trying to honestly follow the > discussion has a question, please feel > free to repost the observation with > any questions.
Coppock has not shown that CO2 is the CAUSE of warming, the warming could cause the increase in CO2.
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and > media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. > At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to > rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature > during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming > periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 > years or so.
You really need to spend some time explaining and clarifying it, just how and why do Antarctic temperatures rise, and where does all the CO2 come from so quickly to cause those abrupt warmings.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:39:06 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote: > We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the > atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would > plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
"To determine the total radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases, we have used IPCC [IPCC 2001] recommended expressions to convert greenhouse gas changes, relative to 1750, to instantaneous radiative forcing (see Table 1). These empirical expressions used for radiative forcing are derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models and generally have an uncertainty of about 10%."
Read the rest and watch them try to dance around the fact it's based on a model.
> On Jan 17, 4:52 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote: >> On Jan 17, 3:44 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and how it is >> > "debunked".
>> > But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in global warming, >> > you don't really understand what all this is about, so you have to >> > take somebody's version of facts, on blind faith.
>> > This is an attempt to correct the situation, and explain CO2 >> > saturation in laypersons' language.
>> > Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging a zoo that's >> > been releasing more Panda bears in the zoo. There is a lobby that >> > is saying there are too many Panda bears already, and that the forest >> > will be de-forested due to these extra Panda bears, causing bad >> > problems.
>> > If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you may notice >> > something wrong about that - Panda bears only eat bamboo. So once >> > all the bamboo is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. Many >> > Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
>> > (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda bears can >> > continue to live fine without bamboo, just on water.)
>> > Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding any more >> > doesn't affect the forest.
>> > CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. They are picky eaters of >> > radiation.
>> > "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in science since early >> > 1900s.
>> > "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are like Panda bears. You >> > may have heard that CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, >> > heating it up. What you may not have heard is that the CO2 >> > molecules can only trap a very small subset of the heat. That's >> > right - CO2 molecules can only trap a very small fraction of what is >> > known as "infra-red wavelengths". We call this small fraction "CO2 >> > bands".
>> > Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules are very selective.
>> > The bamboo in this case -- the energy in the CO2 bands -- is all >> > gone. So adding CO2 molecules means the new molecules have nothing >> > to "eat". So they cannot absorb any more energy.
>> > This part is not disputed. Global Warming supporters have some >> > arguments, though, which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. These >> > arguments can be seen at:
>> > 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The early scientists' >> > experimental equipment or calculation was bad.
>> > Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption >> > had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, >> > but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have >> > decreased about 1%".
>> > That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
>> > But actually, the quote above is a crystal clear case of a very >> > intentional attempt to cheat.
>> > In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% because 100% - 0.4% = >> > 99.6%
>> > Even if modern calculations saying "1%" are right, that simply means >> > CO2 saturation is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
>> > The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not really so large. It is >> > really insignificant.
>> > The Global Warmists know fully well that they are trying to cheat. >> > Quote: "But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have >> > thought this an insignificant >> > perturbation. He failed to understand..."
>> > Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. He had nothing to do >> > with either Global Warming supporters or deniers. He was just some >> > scientist from a long >> > past. There is no reason to just assume he was incompetent ot >> > dishonest.
>> > So why are the global warmists attacking him? How do they know what >> > he would have thought?
>> > Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when given the difference >> > between 0.4% and 1%, and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, would >> > indeed have thought this an >> > "insignificant perturbation".
>> > 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" argument is:
>> > ok, the energy gets depleted. But then it gets re-emitted, and >> > re-abosrbed >> > by higher layers, so it goes all the way to the top.
>> > This is not as bad as argument 1, where it is clear that they are >> > _knowingly_ attempting to cheat.
>> > In this case, it is indeed possible that they are being honest, and >> > just happen to be not very good at doing arithmetic.
>> > So let us do the arithmetic for them.
>> > Some of the heat will get lost via conduction and convection (normal >> > heat loss processes.) A very fair top estimate of re-radiation is >> > 30%.
>> > Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than 100 meters of CO2.
>> > So what happens by the time we get to 1000 meters up in the >> > atmospheres?
>> > By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and re-radiations of the >> > heat. Each at a maximum efficiency of 30%.
>> > 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, and multiply it by .3. >> > Multiply it by .3 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
>> > What do you see in the calculator?
>> > If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total of 10 multiplications, you >> > should be seeing a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
>> > This is so small that it's close to >> > zero for all practical purposes.
>> > So both the arguments (1) and (2) >> > that are supposedly "debunking" >> > CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
>> > The real reason CO2 saturation is >> > ignored, is that scientists who >> > brought up these issues were fired >> > and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
>> Reposting the above to sci.physics, since it seems there is some >> interest from >> that newsgroup as well.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:20:14 -0800, bhanwaram wrote: > On Jan 17, 5:52 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote: >> On Jan 17, 3:44 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and how it is >> > "debunked".
>> > But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in global warming, >> > you don't really understand what all this is about, so you have to >> > take somebody's version of facts, on blind faith.
>> > This is an attempt to correct the situation, and explain CO2 >> > saturation in laypersons' language.
>> > Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging a zoo that's been >> > releasing more Panda bears in the zoo. There is a lobby that is >> > saying there are too many Panda bears already, and that the forest >> > will be de-forested due to these extra Panda bears, causing bad >> > problems.
>> > If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you may notice >> > something wrong about that - Panda bears only eat bamboo. So once >> > all the bamboo is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. Many >> > Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
>> > (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda bears can >> > continue to live fine without bamboo, just on water.)
>> > Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding any more >> > doesn't affect the forest.
>> > CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. They are picky eaters of >> > radiation.
>> > "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in science since early >> > 1900s.
>> > "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are like Panda bears. You >> > may have heard that CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, heating >> > it up. What you may not have heard is that the CO2 molecules can >> > only trap a very small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2 >> > molecules can only trap a very small fraction of what is known as >> > "infra-red wavelengths". We call this small fraction "CO2 bands".
>> > Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules are very selective.
>> > The bamboo in this case -- the energy in the CO2 bands -- is all gone. >> > So adding CO2 molecules means the new molecules have nothing to >> > "eat". So they cannot absorb any more energy.
>> > This part is not disputed. Global Warming supporters have some >> > arguments, though, which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. These >> > arguments can be seen at:
>> > 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The early scientists' >> > experimental equipment or calculation was bad.
>> > Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had >> > not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the >> > pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would >> > have decreased about 1%".
>> > That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
>> > But actually, the quote above is a crystal clear case of a very >> > intentional attempt to cheat.
>> > In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% because 100% - 0.4% = >> > 99.6%
>> > Even if modern calculations saying "1%" are right, that simply means >> > CO2 saturation is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
>> > The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not really so large. It is >> > really insignificant.
>> > The Global Warmists know fully well that they are trying to cheat. >> > Quote: "But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have >> > thought this an insignificant >> > perturbation. He failed to understand..."
>> > Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. He had nothing to do >> > with either Global Warming supporters or deniers. He >> > was just some scientist from a long >> > past. There is no reason to just assume he was incompetent ot >> > dishonest.
>> > So why are the global warmists attacking him? How do they know what he >> > would have thought?
>> > Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when given the difference >> > between 0.4% and 1%, and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, would >> > indeed have thought this an >> > "insignificant perturbation".
>> > 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" argument is:
>> > ok, the energy gets depleted. But then it gets re-emitted, and >> > re-abosrbed >> > by higher layers, so it goes all the way to the top.
>> > This is not as bad as argument 1, where it is clear that they are >> > _knowingly_ attempting to cheat.
>> > In this case, it is indeed possible that they are being honest, and >> > just happen to be not very good at doing >> > arithmetic.
>> > So let us do the arithmetic for them.
>> > Some of the heat will get lost via conduction and convection (normal >> > heat loss processes.) A very fair top estimate of re-radiation is 30%.
>> > Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than 100 meters of CO2.
>> > So what happens by the time we get to 1000 meters up in the >> > atmospheres?
>> > By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and re-radiations of the >> > heat. Each at a maximum efficiency of 30%.
>> > 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, and multiply it by .3. >> > Multiply it by .3 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
>> > What do you see in the calculator?
>> > If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total of 10 multiplications, you >> > should be seeing a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
>> > This is so small that it's close to >> > zero for all practical purposes.
>> > So both the arguments (1) and (2) >> > that are supposedly "debunking" >> > CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
>> > The real reason CO2 saturation is >> > ignored, is that scientists who >> > brought up these issues were fired >> > and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
>> Reposting the above to sci.physics, since it seems there is some >> interest from >> that newsgroup as well.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> I see Coppock has posted something in the thread. I stop reading those > who are overly foul-mouthed (as I used to do in sci.physics) - in the > sci.environment and alt.global-warming ng's, that's Coppock, John M. and > Lloyd.
> But if Coppock has posted a valid observation, and someone trying to > honestly follow the discussion has a question, please feel free to repost > the observation with > any questions.
Don't bother - it's desperate BS. He's tried to pull it before and got caught then, too.
> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and > media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. > At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to > rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature > during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming > periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 > years or so.
Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2 starts to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to be a delay, not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to change.
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:39:06 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote: > > We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the > > atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would > > plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
> "To determine the total radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases, we > have used IPCC [IPCC 2001] recommended expressions to convert greenhouse > gas changes, relative to 1750, to instantaneous radiative forcing (see > Table 1). These empirical expressions used for radiative forcing are > derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models and generally have an > uncertainty of about 10%."
> Read the rest and watch them try to dance around the fact it's based on a > model.
So, unless you successfully challenge the model for atmospheric greenhouse gas saturation,
a constant times the log of the ratio of the new concentration over the old concentration,.
we are nowhere near CO2 concentration.
CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from the effects of mankind's Carbon Dioxide emissions. OK?
>> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and >> media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. >> At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to >> rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature >> during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming >> periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 >> years or so.
> Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2 starts > to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to be a delay, > not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to > change.
The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
<rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: >We've been through this several times Mr. Ward. >Let's see if you can finally get it, now.
>On Jan 18, 1:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:39:06 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote: >> > We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the >> > atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would >> > plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
>> "To determine the total radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases, we >> have used IPCC [IPCC 2001] recommended expressions to convert greenhouse >> gas changes, relative to 1750, to instantaneous radiative forcing (see >> Table 1). These empirical expressions used for radiative forcing are >> derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models and generally have an >> uncertainty of about 10%."
>> Read the rest and watch them try to dance around the fact it's based on a >> model.
>So, unless you successfully challenge the model for atmospheric >greenhouse gas saturation,
>a constant times the log of the ratio of the new concentration >over the old concentration,.
>we are nowhere near CO2 concentration.
>CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from the effects of >mankind's Carbon Dioxide emissions. OK?
Nothing can be done to save us from "the effects of mankind's Carbon Dioxide emissions", we all have to breathe.
Hey, there's another idea to get a few more bucks out of those who want to save the planet, rebreathing devices that remove the CO2 from the breath and seal it in a filter container.
Europe has been really doing good in the CO2 emissions department, they haven't had as much gas to burn, but some may be having problems staying warm.
>>> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and >>> media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. >>> At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to >>> rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature >>> during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming >>> periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 >>> years or so.
>> Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2 starts >> to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to be a delay, >> not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to >> change.
>The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
Yeah, those 30 MPH winds when it was -1 F Thursday had lots of inertia, my hand couldn't open the door, I had to stay inside where it was 80 degrees all day.
> We've been through this several times Mr. Ward. > Let's see if you can finally get it, now.
> On Jan 18, 1:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:39:06 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote: > > > We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the > > > atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would > > > plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
> > "To determine the total radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases, we > > have used IPCC [IPCC 2001] recommended expressions to convert greenhouse > > gas changes, relative to 1750, to instantaneous radiative forcing (see > > Table 1). These empirical expressions used for radiative forcing are > > derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models and generally have an > > uncertainty of about 10%."
> > Read the rest and watch them try to dance around the fact it's based on a > > model.
> So, unless you successfully challenge the model for atmospheric > greenhouse gas saturation,
> a constant times the log of the ratio of the new concentration > over the old concentration,.
> we are nowhere near CO2 concentration.
> CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from the effects of > mankind's Carbon Dioxide emissions. OK?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
< CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from the effects of < mankind's Carbon Dioxide emissions. OK?
Roger, are you saying that CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from a non-existent problem?
On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: < On Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: < [ . . . ] < < < The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate. < < Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice.
Yes, when the temperature rises (due mainly to solar causes), it takes time (approximately 800 years) to warm the seas and release more CO2 into the atmosphere. This release of CO2 is caused simply by the change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, a very well understood process.
This process (and the reverse with cooling) is why historical CO2 levels followed the temperature so closely, long before humans produced any significant amount of CO2.
Please note, I am NOT claiming that this is the only modern source of atmospheric CO2. Humans are now contributing to atmospheric CO2. This extra CO2 has very little effect on the temperature, just like the natural CO2 has very little effect on the temperature.
AGWers are too scared to acknowledge this natural variation of CO2 with temperature, because they fear that it would destroy their already weak theory.
> >> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and > >> media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. > >> At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to > >> rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature > >> during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming > >> periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 > >> years or so.
> > Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2 starts > > to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to be a delay, > > not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to > > change.
> The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
< The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
The inconvenient fact is that AGWers can not explain how a change in CO2 levels can affect the temperature 800 years BEFORE the change in CO2 levels.
Mr Right wrote: > On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: > < On Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: > < [ . . . ] > < > < < The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate. > < > < Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice.
> Yes, when the temperature rises (due mainly to solar causes), it takes > time (approximately 800 years) to warm the seas and release more CO2 > into the atmosphere. This release of CO2 is caused simply by the > change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, a very well > understood process.
> This process (and the reverse with cooling) is why historical CO2 > levels followed the temperature so closely, long before humans > produced any significant amount of CO2.
But the real point is that the CO2 released from the oceans AMPLIFIES a relatively weak forcing effect of the Milanchovich cycle and the ice caps retreating causing the Albedo to come down.
> Please note, I am NOT claiming that this is the only modern source of > atmospheric CO2. Humans are now contributing to atmospheric CO2. This > extra CO2 has very little effect on the temperature, just like the > natural CO2 has very little effect on the temperature.
Unfortunately CO2 is a very effective GHG, solve the radiative transfer problem for the longwave IR part, double CO2, and you get a systematic forcing at the tropopause.
> AGWers are too scared to acknowledge this natural variation of CO2 > with temperature, because they fear that it would destroy their > already weak theory.
AGW'ers know what they are talking about, publish in prestigious science journals like science and nature, win the nobel prize, and therefor get all science funding.
AGW deniers don't seem to get accomplished anything nowadays except maybe here and there a bombshell paper that they misinterpret for the next 20 years.
Bill Ward wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:20:14 -0800, bhanwaram wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 5:52 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote: >>> On Jan 17, 3:44 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
>>>> You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and how it is >>>> "debunked". >>>> But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in global warming, >>>> you don't really understand what all this is about, so you have to >>>> take somebody's version of facts, on blind faith. >>>> This is an attempt to correct the situation, and explain CO2 >>>> saturation in laypersons' language. >>>> Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging a zoo that's been >>>> releasing more Panda bears in the zoo. There is a lobby that is >>>> saying there are too many Panda bears already, and that the forest >>>> will be de-forested due to these extra Panda bears, causing bad >>>> problems. >>>> If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you may notice >>>> something wrong about that - Panda bears only eat bamboo. So once >>>> all the bamboo is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing. Many >>>> Panda bears will have nothing to eat. >>>> (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda bears can >>>> continue to live fine without bamboo, just on water.) >>>> Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding any more >>>> doesn't affect the forest. >>>> CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. They are picky eaters of >>>> radiation. >>>> "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in science since early >>>> 1900s. >>>> "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are like Panda bears. You >>>> may have heard that CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere, heating >>>> it up. What you may not have heard is that the CO2 molecules can >>>> only trap a very small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2 >>>> molecules can only trap a very small fraction of what is known as >>>> "infra-red wavelengths". We call this small fraction "CO2 bands". >>>> Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules are very selective. >>>> The bamboo in this case -- the energy in the CO2 bands -- is all gone. >>>> So adding CO2 molecules means the new molecules have nothing to >>>> "eat". So they cannot absorb any more energy. >>>> This part is not disputed. Global Warming supporters have some >>>> arguments, though, which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation. These >>>> arguments can be seen at: >>>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm >>>> 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The early scientists' >>>> experimental equipment or calculation was bad. >>>> Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had >>>> not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the >>>> pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would >>>> have decreased about 1%". >>>> That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times! >>>> But actually, the quote above is a crystal clear case of a very >>>> intentional attempt to cheat. >>>> In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% because 100% - 0.4% = >>>> 99.6% >>>> Even if modern calculations saying "1%" are right, that simply means >>>> CO2 saturation is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%. >>>> The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not really so large. It is >>>> really insignificant. >>>> The Global Warmists know fully well that they are trying to cheat. >>>> Quote: "But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have >>>> thought this an insignificant >>>> perturbation. He failed to understand..." >>>> Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. He had nothing to do >>>> with either Global Warming supporters or deniers. He >>>> was just some scientist from a long >>>> past. There is no reason to just assume he was incompetent ot >>>> dishonest. >>>> So why are the global warmists attacking him? How do they know what he >>>> would have thought? >>>> Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when given the difference >>>> between 0.4% and 1%, and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%, would >>>> indeed have thought this an >>>> "insignificant perturbation". >>>> 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" argument is: >>>> ok, the energy gets depleted. But then it gets re-emitted, and >>>> re-abosrbed >>>> by higher layers, so it goes all the way to the top. >>>> This is not as bad as argument 1, where it is clear that they are >>>> _knowingly_ attempting to cheat. >>>> In this case, it is indeed possible that they are being honest, and >>>> just happen to be not very good at doing >>>> arithmetic. >>>> So let us do the arithmetic for them. >>>> Some of the heat will get lost via conduction and convection (normal >>>> heat loss processes.) A very fair top estimate of re-radiation is 30%. >>>> Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than 100 meters of CO2. >>>> So what happens by the time we get to 1000 meters up in the >>>> atmospheres? >>>> By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and re-radiations of the >>>> heat. Each at a maximum efficiency of 30%. >>>> 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, and multiply it by .3. >>>> Multiply it by .3 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers. >>>> What do you see in the calculator? >>>> If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total of 10 multiplications, you >>>> should be seeing a number with five zeros after the decimal point! >>>> This is so small that it's close to >>>> zero for all practical purposes. >>>> So both the arguments (1) and (2) >>>> that are supposedly "debunking" >>>> CO2 saturation, are simply bogus. >>>> The real reason CO2 saturation is >>>> ignored, is that scientists who >>>> brought up these issues were fired >>>> and/or otherwise harassed and intimated. >>> Reposting the above to sci.physics, since it seems there is some >>> interest from >>> that newsgroup as well.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text - >> I see Coppock has posted something in the thread. I stop reading those >> who are overly foul-mouthed (as I used to do in sci.physics) - in the >> sci.environment and alt.global-warming ng's, that's Coppock, John M. and >> Lloyd.
>> But if Coppock has posted a valid observation, and someone trying to >> honestly follow the discussion has a question, please feel free to repost >> the observation with >> any questions.
> Don't bother - it's desperate BS. He's tried to pull it before and got > caught then, too.
> Mr Right wrote: > > On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: > > < On Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: > > < [ . . . ] > > < > > < < The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate. > > < > > < Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice.
> > Yes, when the temperature rises (due mainly to solar causes), it takes > > time (approximately 800 years) to warm the seas and release more CO2 > > into the atmosphere. This release of CO2 is caused simply by the > > change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, a very well > > understood process.
> > This process (and the reverse with cooling) is why historical CO2 > > levels followed the temperature so closely, long before humans > > produced any significant amount of CO2.
> But the real point is that the CO2 released from the oceans AMPLIFIES a > relatively weak forcing effect of the Milanchovich cycle and the ice > caps retreating causing the Albedo to come down.
> > Please note, I am NOT claiming that this is the only modern source of > > atmospheric CO2. Humans are now contributing to atmospheric CO2. This > > extra CO2 has very little effect on the temperature, just like the > > natural CO2 has very little effect on the temperature.
> Unfortunately CO2 is a very effective GHG, solve the radiative transfer > problem for the longwave IR part, double CO2, and you get a systematic > forcing at the tropopause.
> > AGWers are too scared to acknowledge this natural variation of CO2 > > with temperature, because they fear that it would destroy their > > already weak theory.
> AGW'ers know what they are talking about, publish in prestigious science > journals like science and nature, win the nobel prize, and therefor get > all science funding.
> AGW deniers don't seem to get accomplished anything nowadays except > maybe here and there a bombshell paper that they misinterpret for the > next 20 years.
> Q
< AGW'ers know what they are talking about, publish in prestigious science < journals like science and nature, win the nobel prize, and therefor get < all science funding.
Because of AGW, scientists are now ranked between politicians and used car salesmen, in surveys looking at trustworthiness.
Because of AGW, nobel prizes (especially the peace prize) are an object of ridicule and derision.
I like the way that you are so open about things that the IPCC would rather keep quiet. Giving all funding to AGWers is what non-AGWers have been claiming for a long time. The IPCC denies it, but you confirm it.
I take it that you are on the gravy train. I understand that science is now considered part of the oldest profession.
>> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and >> media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. >> At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to >> rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature >> during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming >> periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 >> years or so.
> Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2 starts > to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to be a delay, > not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to > change.
>Because of AGW, nobel prizes (especially the peace prize) are an >object of ridicule and derision.
Yeah but be fair - only so by mouthbreathers who thought Sarah Palin would make a good VP because she was fuckable, you know, walmart shoppers who view anyone with an education as "elitist." People who don't see subject matter knowledge as a prerequisite to informed debate. People like you.
|
