Climate II

[choff]

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carb ... ll-it-can/

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can
Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.

The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.

The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance.

“Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules.
This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra 20ppm of atmospheric CO2.
AGW says: The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve, and use it already.

Skeptics say: The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). “Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: Test tubes don’t have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The “clouds and humidity” factor is bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet, but low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models don’t know, but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point: The feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbon’s alleged effect. E’Gad.

AGW says: It’s not 100% saturated.

Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that’s already up there.

And the effect is already so small, it’s unmeasureable.

Conclusion: If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in ice cores and thermometers. We don’t. Ergo, carbon’s effect is probably minor.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/ ... roversy-0/

The primary effect of carbon dioxide is called sensitivity, secondary effects, forcing. Climatologists say that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a primary effect (sensitivity) of about 1°C temperature increase, and the only dispute is the secondary effects.

The primary effect is the science; the secondary effect is the witchcraft. Therefore, the science of climatology is reduced to a number (1°C), and only the witchcraft is studied or disputed

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a ... on-expert/

It’s a canard of climate science that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 390PPM to 780PPM will raise the earth’s surface temperature by about 1°C (expanded to 3°C by positive feedbacks). From my way of thinking, the only thing CO2 can do is increase coupling to space…it certainly can’t store or trap energy or increase the earth’s peak or 24-hour average temperature.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

Conclusions

It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.

This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate [14]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m2, we get a similar value of 0.015 degC.

Kondratjew and Moskalenko are referring to their own work [15] - but when we checked their Russian book on that page, it turned out that this was nothing but an index of terms and nowhere else a deduction of this broadly referred 7.2 K figure [16] could be found. It should be mentioned that the radiative forcing for the present CO2 concentration varies considerably among references. K.P. Shine [17] specifies a value of 12 K whereas according to R. Lindzen CO2 only accounts for about 5% of the natural 33 degC greenhouse effect. This 1.65 degC is less than a quarter of the value used by IPCC and leads to a doubling sensitivity of 0.3 to 0.5 degC only [18].

What is really true? Is there anybody to present a scientific derivation or a reference where this figure is not copied or just stated from assumptions, but properly calculated?

[Schneibster]

Silliness again.

Of course CO2 isn't absorbing all it can, it's nowhere near extinction concentration. In fact, it's nowhere near the worst we know of that it's ever been on Earth, 7,000 ppm, 20 times its current concentration. And even if it were, it's not a high enough concentration to come anywhere near extinction of any of its spectral bands. That's only seven parts per thousand; and it's twenty times today's.

Seriously? Seven parts per thousand? 0.7%? You think that's an extinction percentage? Not even 1%? Really?

And the fact we're not Venus says 7,000 ppm isn't enough to cause runaway global warming; because we had 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian and we're not Venus. So stop worrying about it. But understand that 7,000 ppm may make human life on the surface impossible. It's no biggie as far as Earth is concerned. Earth's homeostatic systems know how to deal with it: kill the offender. But see, that's us. Soon we'll all be dead, nothing will be burning outrageous amounts of carbon, and the atmosphere will return to normal. In a few million years.

Adapt or die.

U R Darwin Bait

[Diogenes]

Nobody cares about your stupid climate con job scheisser.

[Schneibster]

Nobody cares about your stupid climate con job scheisser.

Did you get tired of trying to lie outright and decide to try ad hominem lies instead?

Oh, and 40 Baez points for pretending climate change is a conspiracy to delude (aka "con job"). I forget the precise number. Do you need me to look it up?

[choff]

Assuming the direct air measurements of CO2 from the last 200 years conform to the ice core data, CO2 levels from the pre-industrial era absorb the vast bulk of infrared heat, almost nothing left to heat CO2 added since. We are expected to believe that the flat end of the logarithmic absorption scale will produce an exponential amount of extra heating. We are also told we've gone through the hottest decade on record, when the MWP was clearly hotter, if not the 1930's. Also pointed out, there exists a 50 to 1 ratio of CO2 in the oceans to the air, and adding more CO2 won't change that.

If I was the climate alarmist, I'd be too embarrassed to be alive in 20 years when temperatures have flatlined and these blog threads are still around for everybody to read. Even if you weren't, your offspring will still have to live it down with peers.

[Schneibster]

CO2 levels from the pre-industrial era absorb the vast bulk of infrared heat,

The pre-industrial CO2 level was 280 ppm or 0.0028%.

How could 0.0028% possibly absorb "the vast bulk" of any spectral line, far less many spectral bands?

Does your imaginary friend tell you this stuff?

What's his name, Harvey?

[choff]

Check the graph.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carb ... ll-it-can/

[Schneibster]

Tell us why it's more important than the Arctic ice death spiral.

[choff]

No such thing, during the MWP, a Norwegian admiral described the route to the new world thus, 'travel north beyond Norway, turn east, sail past the Russian coast, beyond that unclaimed land, and you reach Greenlands west coast. Try doing the same route in an open sail boat today. There's nothing unusual about either the current makeup of the north or south ice zones.

[Schneibster]

Arctic Ice Death Spiral:

[Schneibster]

Oh, did you say something really, really stupid like "no such thing?"

Gee, that's a shame.

[Schneibster]

A hockey stick is one thing.

A death spiral is entirely another.

[Schneibster]

It doesn't seem to matter if you start from your assumptions or end with them, they still don't come out right.

You might want to stop trying to justify what you want and start trying to find out what is.

I mean, if you care.

[Stubby]

No such thing, during the MWP, a Norwegian admiral described the route to the new world thus, 'travel north beyond Norway, turn east, sail past the Russian coast, beyond that unclaimed land, and you reach Greenlands west coast. Try doing the same route in an open sail boat today. There's nothing unusual about either the current makeup of the north or south ice zones.

Do you have a link for us to peruse your source for such a quote? Sounds far fetched since Norway didn't exist during the MWP, maybe you meant viking admiral?

[JLawson]

No such thing, during the MWP, a Norwegian admiral described the route to the new world thus, 'travel north beyond Norway, turn east, sail past the Russian coast, beyond that unclaimed land, and you reach Greenlands west coast. Try doing the same route in an open sail boat today. There's nothing unusual about either the current makeup of the north or south ice zones.

Do you have a link for us to peruse your source for such a quote? Sounds far fetched since Norway didn't exist during the MWP, maybe you meant viking admiral?

Could be a Norwegian admiral describing what was going on at the time. Not like there aren't any records from that period...