Correlation between temperature and CO2

[SSDD]

When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?

Sorry you can't read for comprehension.

The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact. Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.

Who said it was. The US Navy tries to keep the CO2 levels in its submarines to about 8000 ppm which sailors live in for up to a year at a stretch. The atmospheric CO2, to the best of our knowledge has never been much above 7000ppm. Right now, it is around 400ppm. So exactly what the hell are you talking about?

We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".

Did you learn how much more 8000 is than 400?

 

[SSDD]

By the same logic, sunlight can't heat a rock, because it can't penetrate the 'skin' of the rock.

Interesting how after all this time, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between solids and liquids and they way they handle energy.

 

[SSDD]

LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.

You know rocks...I just had a revelation, and came to realize that you are even more gullible than I though you were. I took a little trip in the way back machine all the way back to 2008 when you first showed up here...you were pushing the same line of bullshit then that you are are now...tell me rocks, how many failed predictions does "every scientific society" have to support and thus entice you on the bandwagon before you wake up to the fact that you have been duped?

Or have you been bent over the kitchen table by "every scientific society in the world' for so long now that you have come to like it..and can't imagine not being screwed by them every day of your life?

Egad, the guru of smart photons is saying that the predictions of increasing warming has failed since 2008? LOL, what a really dumb fuck. Six of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since then.

10 Hottest Years on Record

So which highly massaged record does that chart represent...and smart photons are all yours rocks...you invented them since you seem to belive that they must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...and rocks must be smart in order to fall down instead of up and on and on.

 

[Crick]

The reflectance for s-polarized light is

while the reflectance for p-polarized light is

where Z1 and Z2 are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively, μ1 and μ2 are the magnetic permeability of the two materials, and ε1 and ε2 are the electric permittivity of the two materials (at the frequency of the light wave).

For non-magnetic media (i.e. materials for which μ1 ≈ μ2 ≈ μ0
**********************************************************************

and thus proportional to the ratios of the indices of refraction of the two media. Your interpretation Mr Westwall, is crap.

 

[SSDD]

Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction? Do tell....

And apparently the hairball thinks that water and rocks have the same refractive index as well.

 

[SSDD]

The reflectance for s-polarized light is

while the reflectance for p-polarized light is

where Z1 and Z2 are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively, μ1 and μ2 are the magnetic permeability of the two materials, and ε1 and ε2 are the electric permittivity of the two materials (at the frequency of the light wave).

For non-magnetic media (i.e. materials for which μ1 ≈ μ2 ≈ μ0
**********************************************************************

and thus proportional to the ratios of the indices of refraction of the two media. Your interpretation Mr Westwall, is crap.

So are you claiming that IR from either the earth, or the atmosphere is polariarized?

 

[IanC]

I think the upshot to all this is that any solar radiation that enters the oceans is eventually absorbed and added to the total energy content, no matter how weakly it interacts with water.

Unlike the atmosphere, where radiation that is transmitted will eventually escape to space. The mean free path keeps getting longer as density decreases with height.

 

[mamooth]

Interesting how after all this time, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between solids and liquids and they way they handle energy.

By all means, explain the difference. As you're the self-proclaimed expert, you should have no problem. Tell us why energy will heat a solid that it only barely penetrates, but won't heat a liquid that it only barely penetrate.

That is, why do you say liquids can magically make energy disappear, but not solids?

 

[mamooth]

Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction? Do tell....

Pay attention.

You say the longwave IR only barely penetrates the water. If it barely penetrates, it has still penetrated. It has passed the air-water interface, and is entirely in the water. Your theory states that's when the IR does it's magical U-turn. So what causes it to do that?

And again, the reflectivity of seawater has been measured in the lab to be about 3% in the far IR. That is, 97% of it is passed through and quickly absorbed. That's not a theory, that's direct measurement by experiment. Your theory doesn't agree with experiment. So ...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman

 

[SSDD]

Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction? Do tell....

Pay attention.

You say the longwave IR only barely penetrates the water. If it barely penetrates, it has still penetrated. It has passed the air-water interface, and is entirely in the water. Your theory states that's when the IR does it's magical U-turn. So what causes it to do that?

And again, the reflectivity of seawater has been measured in the lab to be about 3% in the far IR. That is, 97% of it is passed through and quickly absorbed. That's not a theory, that's direct measurement by experiment. Your theory doesn't agree with experiment. So ...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman

Just for fun hairball, what is the emissivity of sea water?

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

Add this...

That would make the IPCC an "outlier" or we could just call it what it is.. an outright fabrication..

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.

Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne


Abbildung 1: CO2-Verlauf der letzten 800.000 Jahre. Quelle: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via Climate Central.

The residence of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 5 years. But as one molecule is absorbed by the ocean or vegetation, another is emitted into the atmosphere. So the balance remains the same, and, as the author points out, we are looking at a thousand years or more to completely remove the CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere. And the author also points out it will be warming the atmosphere the whole time.

LOL

What a bunch of crap..

The farce is strong with this one...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

You are the one not asking yourself the right questions ian...you should be asking yourself how goofy an individual has to be in order to believe that a substance which increases the emissivity of a thing could possibly be responsible for warming that thing...can you think of any real world example of such a thing happening or does it only happen in the case of magical CO2?

Good ole SSDD. He says things he thinks are smart but they usually come back to bite him in the ass.

This post of his is no exception. I told Westwall to consider the emissivity of the atmospheric window at zero, and the CO2 band at one.

What are the consequences? The atmosphere in the atmospheric window has none. It is as if it wasn't there at all. At those wavelengths the surface is radiating at full power into space, unimpeded. This is a case of the single object S-B equation being in play. All radiation loss, none coming back. You don't have to consider net power because the flow is only in one direction.

On the other hand, CO2 is absorbing ALL of the 15 micron radiation that the surface produces within metres of its emission. If the surface was warm enough to produce twice as much 15 micron radiation it would still be all totally absorbed.

This is where the two object S-B equation comes into play. Emissivity is very close to one for both objects, the area is equal because one object is enclosed by the other, only the temperature makes a difference between outgoing and incoming radiation at the surface.

Two things must be repeated for clarification. The ability to absorb a certain wavelength is exactly the same as the ability to emit the same wavelength, for any substance. It is called emissivity.

Area for a gas is a bit of a misnomer. The volume of gas that is capable of absorbing the radiation is a closer definition. Therefore the average temperature of the whole slab must be used in the S-B equation. Even this is not quite right but is close enough for our purposes. For 15 micron radiation the depth of the slab is roughly 10 metres, at STP.

Any object that absorbs and emits will affect a nearby object if it is replacing area exposed to a cooler environment, like space. If the nearby object has a power source then the equilibrium temperature will rise, if the nearby object is only warmer but not powered then the heat loss will be reduced.

"On the other hand, CO2 is absorbing ALL of the 15 micron radiation that the surface"

Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The reflectance for s-polarized light is

while the reflectance for p-polarized light is

where Z1 and Z2 are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively, μ1 and μ2 are the magnetic permeability of the two materials, and ε1 and ε2 are the electric permittivity of the two materials (at the frequency of the light wave).

For non-magnetic media (i.e. materials for which μ1 ≈ μ2 ≈ μ0
**********************************************************************

and thus proportional to the ratios of the indices of refraction of the two media. Your interpretation Mr Westwall, is crap.

So are you claiming that IR from either the earth, or the atmosphere is polariarized?

LOL

If its polarized, then photons can be rejected by molecules of like polarization and thus can not warm or be absorbed to warm them.... Is this how they get smart photons?

I believe this is the exact premise I tried to explain to Todd a while back and he laughed at me... Now Crick/Hairball are promotin it... Too Funny~!!

 

[IanC]

Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail

I thought you were part of the group saying that water couldn't absorb LWIR, and therefore couldn't warm the oceans.

Where did your suspiciously fake looking 99.79% number come from? Do you have a link?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail

I thought you were part of the group saying that water couldn't absorb LWIR, and therefore couldn't warm the oceans.

Where did your suspiciously fake looking 99.79% number come from? Do you have a link?

Tell me again, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 at sea level? And given that amount, in ppm, what percentage of the available LWIR could it absorb?

0.21% is probably severely over estimating its ability at 400ppm..

Water vapor on the other hand, fully absorbs it as it is a boundary vapor (between liquid and vapor) . Sea water however, will not allow it beyond the 10 micron boundary layer and can not be absorbed by it..

 

[IanC]

Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail

I thought you were part of the group saying that water couldn't absorb LWIR, and therefore couldn't warm the oceans.

Where did your suspiciously fake looking 99.79% number come from? Do you have a link?

Tell me again, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 at sea level? And given that amount, in ppm, what percentage of the available LWIR could it absorb?

0.21% is probably severely over estimating its ability at 400ppm..

Water vapor on the other hand, fully absorbs it as it is a boundary vapor (between liquid and vapor) . Sea water however, will not allow it beyond the 10 micron boundary layer and can not be absorbed by it..

More bafflgab from Billy Bob.

Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.

On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.

A radiation monitor tag has a range. If it is maxed out, that is the minimum radiation you were exposed to, it could be 1000x more.

Water vapour could absorb some 15 micron IR but it is already completely absorbed by CO2.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail

I thought you were part of the group saying that water couldn't absorb LWIR, and therefore couldn't warm the oceans.

Where did your suspiciously fake looking 99.79% number come from? Do you have a link?

Tell me again, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 at sea level? And given that amount, in ppm, what percentage of the available LWIR could it absorb?

0.21% is probably severely over estimating its ability at 400ppm..

Water vapor on the other hand, fully absorbs it as it is a boundary vapor (between liquid and vapor) . Sea water however, will not allow it beyond the 10 micron boundary layer and can not be absorbed by it..

More bafflgab from Billy Bob.

Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.

On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.

A radiation monitor tag has a range. If it is maxed out, that is the minimum radiation you were exposed to, it could be 1000x more.

Water vapour could absorb some 15 micron IR but it is already completely absorbed by CO2.

LOL

More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption. Your making an assumption not based in the facts. Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do over 99% of the emissions?

 

[IanC]

This diagram contains a lot of information. It is well worth studying.

Almost all of the surface radiation energy that escapes freely to space is in the range of 8-14 microns, otherwise known as the atmospheric window.

Other energy also escapes but it is generated higher up, in the atmosphere.

When the surface loses part of its ability to shed solar input energy it reacts by increasing surface temperature so that more radiation is lost through the atmospheric window band.

 

[IanC]

Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail

I thought you were part of the group saying that water couldn't absorb LWIR, and therefore couldn't warm the oceans.

Where did your suspiciously fake looking 99.79% number come from? Do you have a link?

Tell me again, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 at sea level? And given that amount, in ppm, what percentage of the available LWIR could it absorb?

0.21% is probably severely over estimating its ability at 400ppm..

Water vapor on the other hand, fully absorbs it as it is a boundary vapor (between liquid and vapor) . Sea water however, will not allow it beyond the 10 micron boundary layer and can not be absorbed by it..

More bafflgab from Billy Bob.

Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.

On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.

A radiation monitor tag has a range. If it is maxed out, that is the minimum radiation you were exposed to, it could be 1000x more.

Water vapour could absorb some 15 micron IR but it is already completely absorbed by CO2.

LOL

More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption. Your making an assumption not based in the facts. Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do over 99% of the emissions?

????

What point are you trying to make? I have stated a dozen times or more that emission is dependent on temperature but absorption is not. If the surface was warm enough to double the 15 micron IR, CO2 would still absorb it all, it would just take a slightly increased volume of air to do it. Perhaps 15 metres instead of just the first ten metres. The actual numbers don't really matter, the concept behind it does.

What blackbodies do you think I am ignoring? Their emissions are related to their temperatures. What is your point, and how does it dispute anything I have said?