Posted on 03/10/2010 12:30:14 AM PST by neverdem
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.
But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:
And this graphic of his shows carbon dioxide’s contribution to the whole greenhouse effect:...
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
All of DB units are 10xlog. Is this new?
With all due respect my knowledge was best served in the RADAR and overall power distribution industry.
what quantitative effect does water vapor have, and how was water vapor accounted for in this data?
Greenhouse gases comprise 2% of the entire atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is about 3.5% of the greenhouse gases and human produced CO2 is about 3.5% of that. That means that human are responsible for a little over .12% of greenhouse gases. Hugh and series!
hope it’s a REAL long term effect! I want to live a long time and breathing helps =P
Hmmm no science to back man made 'problem,' to regulate the amount of water vapor.
Darn, socialism hits another wall.
This is the best explanation of the stupidity I have seen:
Even if all 6.8 billion humans on Earth gave up ALL forms of transportation, ALL forms of industrial activity, ALL forms of energy production and even reverted back to a Stone Age state before the discovery of fire, living in cold damp caves as hunter gatherers and eating raw food, bearing in mind that most of us would die of starvation and/or hypothermia, we could only reduce overall atmospheric CO2 content by about 4.1 parts per million per year against a supposed average background level of 385 ppm. That is assuming of course that all anthropogenic CO2 ends up in the atmosphere and remains there for a significant length of time.
I would have thought they would be e^x
I think it’s bunk, in the first line he states “The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere” - What is the “than it would otherwise be” temp? Does he have data to show what “normal” is?
- he may have some sort of point if our CO2 output was also logarithmic but I don’t know what point he could possibly make.
Damn those termite farts. However, if you start with a faulty premise, your data fails to get more impressive just because you can mathematically apply amplifiers to a non existent issue.
Talking about the shielding effect of the carbon dioxide portion of the atmosphere, in keeping radiant heat from escaping from the globe into space.
The equivalent of the fossil fuel burned today would be a heck of a lot of trees.
How can grown people be so damn stupid?? ( Everyone one knows this nation ceased to exist over 150 yrs ago, because of widespread tobacco use.)
Gee, so Bill Gates funding and desire for world-wide sterilization vaccines really are not necessary to curb CO2? He will be shocked. The politicization of science is becoming widespread and is extremely dangerous. The logarhythmic nature of atmospheric CO2 is intentionally disregarded by current policy makers, and is likely to remain so for the near future. The US EPA has closed its doors to any new information, or old information it has already disregarded and is pressing ahead even though the UN is in disarray at the moment over the exposure of the illegitimacy of the premises of the original claims.
Without any involvement at all, world population is projected to begin declining on its own by 2050. If global cooling persists, probably sooner due to greater crop interruptions and reductions associated with global cooling and “little ice ages”.
I understand what he is saying.
My point is this, what is “normal shielding”?
Is there such thing as “partial” shielding or is it like being “just a little bit pregnant”?
The atmosphere either shields or it doesn’t, if it does, we’re fine, if it don’t we’re so screwed.
It’s an overall effect of certain atmospheric gases on how much of the incoming sun energy is kept on the globe rather than either being bounced away before reaching the surface or radiating back out into space from the surface. A larger proportion of such a gas in the atmosphere produces more of the effect.
Carbon dioxide is one gas in the atmosphere that has this kind of effect. It isn’t the only gas that does.
It’s kind of a “backwards shielding.”
This logarithmic fall-off in the effect of atmospheric CO2 is also discussed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner in their paper Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
From the Physics Conclusion,
“The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.”
In other words, more CO2 has little effect, since what CO2 is in the atmosphere is already absorbing most of the energy in the fraction of the infrared spectrum that CO2 can affect. More CO2 just increases absorption of an increasingly smaller amount of radiant energy, hence the logarithmic fall off.
That is a very worthwhile paper on this subject, by the way, though very technical.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
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.