Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
John the Savage
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Lab Rat
Oct 9, 2010, 11:58:21 AM10/9/10
to
Had a quick look at the link you posted, and a bit of a play around with
the simulator he uses (the 70km sensor). There are a couple of comments I
want to think about and do some research on, but I will say this in the
interim:
There is some increase in IR absorption, due as the author says to the
weakly absorbing wings of the spectrum. Using the simulator he links, and
going from 280 ppm to 390 ppm CO2 results in a decrease of about 1.1w/m2
in outgoing radiation, corresponding to a temp increase of about 0.25K
predicted. This assumes, however, that all of the decrease happens in the
troposhere - certainly some appears to be at a temperature corresponding
to stratospheric emission, which cannot affect ground temperatures. In
other words, the site you linked seems to predict a temperature increase
due to CO2 of at most 0.25K since the industrial revolution. Less any
feedback from clouds and other processes.
Taking the difference between the 280ppm and 390ppm curves would enable an
estimate to be made of where the increased heat retention is happening, by
the emission temperature.
Hopefully I will get a good look at it next week. It concerns me that the
author didn't simply reinforce his message by doing the very simple
comparison that I did.
the simulator he uses (the 70km sensor). There are a couple of comments I
want to think about and do some research on, but I will say this in the
interim:
There is some increase in IR absorption, due as the author says to the
weakly absorbing wings of the spectrum. Using the simulator he links, and
going from 280 ppm to 390 ppm CO2 results in a decrease of about 1.1w/m2
in outgoing radiation, corresponding to a temp increase of about 0.25K
predicted. This assumes, however, that all of the decrease happens in the
troposhere - certainly some appears to be at a temperature corresponding
to stratospheric emission, which cannot affect ground temperatures. In
other words, the site you linked seems to predict a temperature increase
due to CO2 of at most 0.25K since the industrial revolution. Less any
feedback from clouds and other processes.
Taking the difference between the 280ppm and 390ppm curves would enable an
estimate to be made of where the increased heat retention is happening, by
the emission temperature.
Hopefully I will get a good look at it next week. It concerns me that the
author didn't simply reinforce his message by doing the very simple
comparison that I did.
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
0 new messages