Posted on 10/21/2006 5:44:49 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
Was this done satisfactorily in your opinion?
Such application of compensation for light island effect is based on indirect correlations with nighttime light levels to indicating population density and is marginal and prone to large errors at its best and does little to compensate for low qualitity measures occuring throughout third world counties areas in remote wilderness not to mention sparsness of stations in many sections of the globe.
the simple fact is that the CO2 in the atmosphere has gone steadily upwards by about 2 parts per million per year, for the fifty some years it's been measured. It has gone up from 270 ppm before the 20th century to the present 382 ppm.
The simpler fact is that the direct radiative effects of CO2 have only marginal effect on climate change. The models erroneously relying on feedback factors that are not demonstated to actually exist in nature in the magnitude or even sign required in global warming models of the UN/IPCC.
Of even interest is that the radiative heating effects of CO2 actually decline in efficacy as concentration increases in a logrithmic relationship providing only a linear increase with an exponential increase in CO2 such that it only adds ~0.2oK for each doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above."
--- "Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation Energy Balance and Surface Temperature" (V. Ramanathan and M. S. Lian), J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 84, p. 4949, 1979.
Okay thanks for that. I assumed NASA in the url meant it was satellites. Stupid assumption I guess.
And what is the primary 'greenhouse' gas found in a typical actual Greenhouse ? Is it Nitrogen ? Is it Oxygen ? I always thought the 'green' in the typical Greenhouse consumed CO2 and produced O.
Most informative post I've read on the topic. Thanks. I've been searching for a reserch paper that even has the crudest of partial differential eqns in discussing the purported phenomenon, and have found zilch to back up the claims other than GIGO papers written at pre-algebra intellect levels.
The most educated argument I ever heard on the topic was at an IEEE meeting during a QA session when a proponent of global warming couldn't respond to an observation that some trade winds headed towards the Antarctic land mass had been stable for millenia and from ice core samples it had been determined the ice pack had been getting thinner, however, in a region where the temperature never rose above freezing, if globl warming existed, one would anticipate a thicker ice pack over more recent years from increased precipitation from higher evaporation over oceans in the approaching wind currents. The researcher had concluded the opposite.
I ran some inquiries during the Clintonist regieme only to discover their 'scientific' basis for their position was less substantial than that. E.g. a 2nd grader with a thermometer and a Big Chief would have put their intellectual wherewithal to shame. In a nutshell, proponents of global warming tend to tip their hand that they have serious doubt on their credibility with little to no competetive academic competence.
The claim is that the CO2 (or water vapor, etc) in the atmosphere serves the same role as the glass of a greenhouse, warming it by allowing sunlight in but retaining heat.
Bump.
You are right, thank you for the correction.
The glass is initially heated by absorbing all the infrared light from the sun light that travels through the glass from outside the greenhouse. That heat is very significant and most of it is transferred away from the greenhouse by the outside atmospheric winds which travel over the glass. The visible sun light that enters the green house is primarily absorbed by the surfaces within the greenhouse. These surfaces heat and warm the air or (water vapor) within the green house. That is why the green house warms. Water vapor. Same as our atmosphere. Obviously CO2 has nothing at all to do with Greenhouse warming and now it appears that it also has very little to do with Global Warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.