# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: How much is the increase in CO2 every year?  (Read 72198 times)

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #75 on: 23/09/2009 12:53:39 »
Hi there. Read the theory! You ignored the question about how much energy can be "absorbed". I am off.
I grew up as a young man in western Europe where it was mostly cold and wet and humid. I remember only feeling the "heat" (which we know is infra red) of the sun only during a few weeks in summer, if we were lucky. I then moved to Africa and we live inland where it is very dry, humidity usually below 30%. Now  here we do feel the heat the sun! Both in winter and in summer. In fact in summer the heat is so scorching that only after ten minutes you will look for cover or shade. But on a sunny day moving to the coast going from west to east on the same height you can actually see a) a rise in humidity the nearer you get to the sea and b)  a lowering of the temperature. You can actually feel that the heat from the sun is being lessened by the presence of water vapor. These experiences of mine were like the apple on Newtons head and in my mind I was able to formulate a simple rule: the higher the humidity the less infra red heat you feel from the sun, the cooler it gets. Obviously we know that carbondioxide reacts similar to water vapor, so from this I was able to formulate the general rule: the higher the humidity and carbon dioxide levels the more it covers us as a shield against infra red. So all this talk about the greenhouse effect and then to ignore the cooling effect makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Hence here is my theory, for those who are interested:As carbon dioxide traps the infra red radiation (IR) from earth (keeping us warm) then it must follow that carbon dioxide also blocks IR coming from the sun (similar to ozone blocking UV, keeping us cool). So the logical question everyone must ask, is: what is the nett effect, especially at the relevant levels of carbon dioxide 0.02-0.04%? Using my body as the sensor, I can measure that the IR coming from earth must be a lot less than the IR coming from the sun. This means that the cooling effect of carbon dioxide must be greater than the warming up effect. So I say: carbon dioxide is good. So my theory is this:Global warming is probably caused by energy released by human activities and/or unseen volcanic activity in the oceans or the change in salinity in the water , & probably has little or nothing at all to do with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Human population has doubled in the past 50 years).

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #76 on: 24/09/2009 07:09:59 »
Good bye.
Where ever you hav gone to you might want to thinks about the fact that the atmosphere will only re emit heat after it has been heated up.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #77 on: 09/10/2009 14:16:00 »
Heeee! I am back! If you read my initial posting you will note that I was a "believer" in the theory that CO2 causes globsal warming. Now I am a total skeptic. Here is my final report.

CARBON DIOXIDE NOT THE REASON FOR GLOBAL WARMING?

An ordinary scientist’s quest to find the real reason(s) for global warming.

What is the greenhouse effect?

Quote from Wikipedia (on the interpretation of the greenhouse effect);

"The Earth's surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth."

Water and carbon dioxide behave similarly when exposed to infra red radiation. Each molecule accepts one or more photons. Once this transaction is completed the molecule becomes sort of like a little mirror to infra red radiation and the molecules start reflecting the infra red. Because of the random position of the molecules we may assume that at least 50% of the infra red from earth is radiated back to earth. The process repeats itself.

Air composition of the two main greenhouse gases

Note that according to the definition the two main components in the air that are causing the greenhouse effect are water and carbon dioxide. Air contains ca. 1.2% water vapor (at 70%humidity) and 0.035% carbon dioxide.  The increase in carbon dioxide during the past 50 years was 0.007%. So the carbon dioxide content went up from 0.028 % in 1960 to 0.035% now. At this point the question arises: whatever would a difference of only 0.007% carbon dioxide make, especially when compared to the ca. 1.0 – 1.5% water vapor in the air? (1) The fluctuations in the water content in the air are a lot more than  0.01%.  Attempts by me to get an answer to this simple question from the so-called experts proved unsuccessful. If any recent experiments were done, I do not know about it.
Without getting any figures on that, my doubt that carbon dioxide is a major or even a contributory factor to the global warming problem remained.

The anti greenhouse effect

A number of personal experiences in the past were to me like the apple on Newton’s head.
I noticed that the direct heat that you feel from the sun decreases as the humidity increases. We know that the heat that we ‘feel” from the sun is actually mainly infra red radiation. As carbon dioxide behaves similar to water vapor, I was able to formulate the simple rule: the higher the humidity and carbon dioxide content, the less infra red (heat) you feel from the sun. This cooling effect is explained by the same mechanism and the same physical laws that govern the greenhouse effect: the infra red (now coming from the sun) is absorbed by the water and carbon dioxide and is then re-radiated in all directions including back to space for at least 50%. Unlike water, carbon dioxide is diffused in the air at all levels of the atmosphere. Therefore the cooling effect of carbon dioxide must be at all levels. Obviously when humidity increases you tend to sweat a bit more, but this is something biological and has nothing to do with my observation that the heat that you feel directly from the sun becomes less when humidity increases. It is because of this effect that the temperature on the coast during a sunny day is usually a bit lower than more inland. At this point my main question became like this: If carbon dioxide traps infra red radiation from earth (keeping us warm) then it must follow that carbon dioxide also shields us from the sun blocking infra red(similar to ozone blocking UV). So what is the nett effect, especially at the relevant levels of carbon dioxide of 0.02% – 0.05%? (2)
Like with my first question, I did not get any answers. Contrary to my own observations, most scientists did not even accept (or know of!) the possibility of there even being such a thing as a cooling effect coming from carbon dioxide. Of those that did, some claimed that the earth’s infra red radiation is a lot more than that coming from the sun…

What appears to have gone wrong?

Almost 100 years ago, Svante Arrhenius predicted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause warming up. In the meantime, carbon dioxide has increased even more than he expected, but Earth hasn't warmed as much as he thought it would (applying his formula). Subsequent followers have always assumed that his theory must have some truth in it and never challenged it with modern research. Eventually, the whole theory really became something like this: let us have a planet, add more carbon dioxide, see if the temperature goes up, it did, so that must be it! For example, we have Al Gore and a couple of profs in the US who did exactly this. They said: “see, how fast the temperature of earth rises as the CO2 rises!” (b) Obviously it is easy to make two graphs look the same if you put the right scaling in. But they still had to prove that there is a correlation. So apparently they had analysed ice cores going back to as far as 650000 years. Then they said, and I quote: " whenever the carbon dioxide was higher the climate was warmer." So I asked myself: but why were there periods in history (before man and any kind of major human activities) when the carbon dioxide was higher? Well, where does all carbon dioxide come from? Wow, it comes from volcanic activities (a)! That is why life exists. So when there is more volcanic activity, should we not expect a temperature rise? There is an awful amount of heat released when volcanoes explode. So that explains that correlation.  So the climate history of the past half-million years provides no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.
I also studied the IPCC report. Now I accept that global warming is happening as a matter of fact. You only need a thermometer and camera for that. But what they did in the IPCC report is to compare the concentrations of the gases in 2005 with 1750. Then they assigned a measure of relative radiative forcing to the so-called greenhouse gasses depending on the increase in concentrations measured. But this is like working at the problem from the wrong end! That is assuming that you are 100% sure what the cause is (of global warming) and then trying to work your way backwards to find a solution to the problem. They took all the gases that absorb infra red as positive forcing. "This must be the cause, what else can it be?"
It is really commendable to try and quantify global warming. However, they forgot /ignored /overlooked the cooling effect and the fact that without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere even more heat (infra red energy) would be slammed onto our heads and into our oceans. So, without the relevant research and without the relevant facts it could well be that the IPCC is simply putting the horse behind the carriage.

So what are my findings?

Astonishingly, it appears that no proper research has been done at all that would give us clear  answers to the questions 1+2 that I raised.  I also could not find any other research done that would give us a clear relationship of the correlation between carbon dioxide and heat retention, especially at the current concentration levels of carbon dioxide. Surely, Svante Arrhenius’ measuring equipment must have been much poorer than what we have now and unknowingly he could have made grave errors. In any case, it would have been impossible for him in those days to test at the relevant carbon dioxide concentration levels with the correct energy sources.

The whole greenhouse theory is therefore not an exact science, it is some kind of a belief system. If you ask any of the “believing” scientists for the relevant proof or the answers to my particular two nasty questions, you are either completely ignored or you will be told to do some ‘studying”. There clearly is no experimental evidence whatsoever that proves that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
Unfortunately I do not have the testing equipment to carry out the required research. However, I do hope that with my simple observations I will be able to create enough doubt so that the big stakeholders (e.g. the oil companies) will spend some money on carrying out the necessary research that will give the answers to our questions.
We know that about 47-49% of the sun’s total energy output is in infra red. Let us assume a constant air composition. For the greenhouse effect to be equal or greater than the anti-greenhouse effect, the earth’s total infra red output in 24 hours (which includes the bounce backs) must match that of the sun in 12 hours. 70% of earth’s surface is water. So only 30% of earth’s surface is able to radiate infra red radiation.  Using my body as the gauge, I can sense that the cooling effect of carbon dioxide is probably equal or greater than the warming up effect.
Another observation is this: Everyone knows that all the places on earth where there never is any water vapor, are called deserts. As we have seen, carbon dioxide behaves similar to water vapor under infra red. So the question in my mind and perhaps in those of other scientists: Is asking for a reduction in carbon dioxide not just as nonsensical as asking for a reduction in water vapor?

What causes global warming?

If, as I suspect, global warming is not caused by carbon dioxide, then what does? Well I have given two clues in (a) and (b). There may even still be other reasons. First, we have to make sure that there is no volcanic activity going on somewhere that we are not aware of. Perhaps all the atomic bombs that were exploded in the Indian Ocean may have caused instability. Hence, earthquakes and tsunamis in that region. Also, the whole Mid-Atlantic Ridge is essentially a linear, segmented volcano. We must monitor the temperatures of the oceans and report any anomalies (e.g. concentrated heat).
Secondly. And I think this must get more emphasis. We have to accept that there must be an effect that man’s presence on earth is having on global warming. Surely the reason as to why CO2 rises is because the population of earth is increasing, and that means more energy is released. The human population has doubled in the past 50 years. If you put the kettle on, the water in the kettle gets warmer. The problem could simply be the amount of heat that we produce to fly, to drive, to cook or to stay warm or cold. Simple arithmetic. I can see a raise of 2.5 degrees in temp. when I drive at night from the country into the city. If global warming is indeed not caused by carbon dioxide you may feel a little less guilty about driving your car.  But don’t open the champagne bottles just yet. The fight against global warming might in fact get more difficult. If global warming = us, we would have to reduce the total energy output per person. We have to steal energy from nature. (Wind, gravity, tides, solar etc.). Carbon emissions would not be green. Nuclear energy would not be green. Hydrogen and oxygen combustion (rocket fuel) would also not be green. In that case we will have to re-visit the whole global warming debate, for example in the case of sending rockets out to space: will the burden of all that energy released in the atmosphere by placing that satellite in orbit, result in similar savings in energy on earth?

Henry Pool
PS. If you have any figures of actual measurements carried out during actual experiments that would prove that CO2 is to blame, I would love to hear from you.

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #78 on: 10/10/2009 17:40:05 »
Quote
Water and carbon dioxide behave similarly when exposed to infra red radiation. Each molecule accepts one or more photons. Once this transaction is completed the molecule becomes sort of like a little mirror to infra red radiation and the molecules start reflecting the infra red. Because of the random position of the molecules we may assume that at least 50% of the infra red from earth is radiated back to earth. The process repeats itself.

You still do not understand. There is a difference between reflection and absorbtion/re-emission. And as Bored Chemist said in his last post, it doesn't matter where the re-emitted energy goes, because the atmosphere has already become heated from the absorbtion. Even if the re-emitted energy is somehow directed 100% back out into space, the atmosphere has still absorbed energy in the first place, therefore warming up.

Quote
If carbon dioxide traps infra red radiation from earth (keeping us warm) then it must follow that carbon dioxide also shields us from the sun blocking infra red(similar to ozone blocking UV).

It's as if you think that the atmosphere isn't a part of the planet. If the atmosphere is heated, we are heated.

Think of this analogy; you're in a room with a fireplace with a fire burning fiercely away. You're up close to it and it's burning your face. You pull out a dirty great shield and put it between your face and the fire. Now your face is fine, the shield is absorbing the heat instead. The shield has blocked the infrared, just like you say CO2 does. But do you think that the shield is going to cool the whole room down?

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #79 on: 10/10/2009 18:06:59 »
Henry also still doesn't understand that the relative change in CO2 levels isn't 0.007% it's about a quarter.
It's easy to see that having 4 blankets on the bed is a fair bit warmer than having 3.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #80 on: 11/10/2009 05:14:00 »
I think you people still do not understand the nature of light. It cannot get "absorbed" in the atmosphere. Let me give you this example: Let us say that on earth with a lightmeter I measure the light by holding the meter in a certain direction, at a certain time of the day on a) a sunny day and b) on a cloudy day. On the cloudy day I notice a) it is cooler and b) it is darker. So where did the difference in light go? yes, because of the nature of the water (in gas form!) the clouds reflected most of that light, including the (hot) infra red light. This light cannot "stay" in the atmosphere! It has to move.. It is reflected back to space. Likewise carbon dioxide is opaque to infra red, so some of the infra red that would otherwise hit earth is reflected back to space. Without giving me any figures on on how much cooling and warming one layer of carbon dioxide would cause, the debate about it is pointless.....

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #81 on: 11/10/2009 10:29:39 »
It's amusing you think we don't understand the nature of light.

Quote
This light cannot "stay" in the atmosphere!

The light is converted to heat energy when absorbed.

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #82 on: 11/10/2009 10:53:24 »

I think it's Henry who doesn't understand things. He writes stuff like" because of the nature of the water (in gas form!) the clouds" but we know that the  water in a cloud is a bunch of tiny drops of liquid.

Clouds of liquid can reflect light quite well- but the issue here is CO2 and it's always a gas in the Earth's atmosphere so Henry's "point" is a total red herring.
Until he learns the basic facts there's not a lot of point putting numbers to them.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #83 on: 12/10/2009 10:38:50 »
I cannot believe that you people do not understand that there is a limit to how many photons can be taken up by a certaine amount of a substance. I have a definition here of the greenhouse effect by Elmar Uherek:
"Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) absorb infrared radiation from the surface of the Earth and trap the heat in the troposphere.  If this absorption is really strong, the greenhouse gas blocks most of the outgoing infrared radiation close to the Earth's surface".
I think let us keep the discussion of the role of the water & water vapor out of it, as it only confuses things. What we are really only interested in is the effect of the carbon dioxide which happens to be completely diffused into the air @ ca. 0.035%
Keyword that he used in his definition is "blocks". That is the word that I also used. This is where the infra red keeps coming back to earth instead of going outwards. Now he is the only scientist so far who actually agrees with me that there is or that there may be some cooling effect(s) by carbon dioxide. In fact, to quote from his e-mail to me, he says:
"This (web) page (i.e. these are his own studies into the cooling effect of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere) does not consider the amount of infrared radiation from the sun coming from the top of the atmosphere. It would be interesting to find out how much is coming bottom up compared to top down. Honestly, I do not know it. I am sorry, that I cannot do a sound inquiry in this issue, since I am a bit overworked and additionally became father last week.I hope, my ideas helped a bit how to proceed with further inquiry". End of quote.

Now if you will go back to my report, to my "findings", you will note that this is exactly the whole point that I am trying to make. This is what the whole issue is about.I am saying top down infra red is probably more than bottom up because
1) The total energy coming from the sun is 47-49% in infra red (for 12 hours per day)
2) We only have 30% of earth that can radiate infra red  (for 24 hours per day).
3) So for the carbon dioxide to have any impact, the infra red from earth in 8 hours (= ca.1/3 of 24 hours) must match that of the sun in 12 hours.
4) From where I am (stand), I can feel that what we get in infra red from the sun is a lot more than what earth emits.
So now you understand why I am not worried anymore about the carbon dioxide.
Again, unless someone has actual figures, debating it further is really quite pointless....

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #84 on: 12/10/2009 18:22:14 »
"I cannot believe that you people do not understand that there is a limit to how many photons can be taken up by a certaine amount of a substance. "
Unfortunately for your rather odd beliefs there is no such limit.
Since we tend to prefer reality we don't believe in that limit.
You don't seem to have grasped what the bloke you cited actually said.
"If this absorption is really strong, the greenhouse gas blocks most of the outgoing infrared radiation close to the Earth's surface".
I have underlined a bit for you.
If the gas stops the heat getting out the earth's temperature rises.
Greenhouse gases cause warming.

Incidentally, there is yet another thing you haven't understood; you are not a good IR meter.
So when you say "From where I am (stand), I can feel that what we get in infra red from the sun is a lot more than what earth emits. "
there's a simple explanation.
You are hotter than the earth, but colder than the sun.
When you fact the sun you emit IR towards it but it sends a lot more IR (and visible light) your way so the net effect is that your face warms up.

When you face the earth you emit more IR to it than it sends you so there's no net warming of your face.

If you were trying to prove that the sun is hotter than the earth then this set of observations would help.
It says absolutely nothing about the greenhouse effect.
It does, on the other hand, show that as usual, you have not understood what you are saying.
Incidentally that rubbish about "12 hours a day" shows that you don't understand that the sun and earth emit radiation all the time.

Whatever the figures may be, debating nonsense is, as you say, pointless.
Feel free to stop.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #85 on: 12/10/2009 20:34:03 »
sorry, BC, you lost me now. Just go back a a few steps to see what the argument was about. I never said that I do not believe in the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. But according to the same mechanics there must also be a cooling effect. Surely, going from the top to the bottom is the same as going from the bottom to the top (of the atmosphere) for infra red. And everywhere the CO2 content is the same. So it looks to me that the cooling effect is as much or even more then the warming effect. But admittedly I do not have the figures. I think it is you who has brought nothing but nonsense in this discussion so far. Feel free to stop "helping" me. You are only fooling yourselves.

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #86 on: 13/10/2009 07:09:24 »
"Surely, going from the top to the bottom is the same as going from the bottom to the top"
No, going from hot to cold is not the same as going from cold to hot.
The sun emits visible light which can pass through the atmosphere whereas the earth tries to emit IR which doesn't.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #87 on: 13/10/2009 11:47:13 »
Quote: "Direct sunlight ......includes infrared (47% share of the spectrum), visible (46%), and ultra-violet (only 6%) light". Apparently 98.7% of the UV is blocked by the ozone.Let's keep that out of the equations. The reality is that only 30% of earth's surface is able to emit infra red. A lot of the visible light comes through but a large portion of that is also reflected, especially by clouds and on the poles and mountains and by the seas. You only have to study the pictures from earth from outer space to see what happens. Anyway, a maximum of a third of that 46% visible and a maximum of a third of that Infra red 47% part hits upon us.
But, as I said, whether all of that would be reflected as infra red by earth?
I doubt very much that it would be possible for earth to emit as much infra red radiation as  what we get from the sun.

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #88 on: 13/10/2009 12:34:17 »
During the day more energy comes in than goes out. The planet warms. The more greenhouse gases there are, the less energy that gets out. The warmer the planet.

I'm not sure if I can simplify it any further

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #89 on: 13/10/2009 13:45:54 »
sorry MS, I think you also lost the thread of what we were discussing.
Like me, some scientists accept(ed) that carbon dioxide also causes cooling but they believed that per square meter solid ground area (of earth) the infra red was brighter (i.e. more) than what the sun puts on that square meter. There may be some truth in that. But I think that would be ignoring the cooling effect that the carbon dioxide causes above our oceans: I say that without the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere even more heat would be dumped into our oceans. Remember that infra red cannot escape the water. It can only heat it, as it has been doing for thousands of years.
So what is really important is to know the total output in infra red of earth per square meter per time unit compared to the total input of infra red from the sun per square meter per time unit. I am pretty sure that if you average it out over the whole surface area of earth, you will find that the infra red coming from earth is a lot lower than that coming from the sun.
that means: carbon dioxide is good for life and good for global cooling.

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #90 on: 13/10/2009 19:15:37 »
OK, for a start lets drop the nonsense about day and night.
It is always daytime on earth and it is always nighttime.

The earth reflects about 39% of the light that falls on it- Vangelis wrote a song about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo_0.39
so it's simply wrong to say "A lot of the visible light comes through but a large portion of that is also reflected, especially by clouds and on the poles and mountains and by the seas"
Most of it isn't reflected.
Most of it is absorbed and warms the earth up a bit. The earth re-emits heat as IR. If the atmosphere is full of CO2 then this gets in the way of the outgoing CO2.
Because the earth can't lose heat so easily, it warms up.

You have provided data on the radiation from the sun. Here's a rough breakdown of the energy emitted by the earth.
IR-  practically all of it
Visible light- virtually none
UV- even less

The earth gains energy from the sun- the only way it can lose it is by emitting IR. If something gets in the way of that IR the earth gets warmer.
This isn't complicated; why won't you understand it?

Incidentally, Re "Remember that infra red cannot escape the water."
Nonsense- Water emits IR perfectly well.

You say "So what is really important is to know the total output in infra red of earth per square meter per time unit compared to the total input of infra red from the sun per square meter per time unit. "
Well, you are nearly right. The two figures you need are
1 how much energy comes in from the sun (and it doesn't matter a tinker's cuss what wavelength it comes in as because, once it is absorbed, it will come out as IR because the earth isn't very hot)
and
2 the rate at which that area can lose heat by radiation.
(which will be all in the IR because the earth isn't hot enough to give out visible light or UV)
The input is pretty near constant- the sun's not changing much.
The output can be altered if we put something in the way- like extra CO2.
(strictly you need to add heat generated within the earth too but that's not going to change much anyway so we can ignore it here.

BTW, I am thinking of going through every one of your posts on this and collecting all the assertions that you have made that are simply not true. To save me the trouble, could I ask you not to bother posting any more trash? All I would ask is that you don't waste time saying things like "the clouds are made of gas" or "Remember that infra red cannot escape the water"
They, and the associated corrections, just clutter up the site.
It would be better if you checked that what you post is factually correct before posting it. This is, after all, meant to be a scientific site.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #91 on: 14/10/2009 12:42:09 »
First of all, let me say that it was not me who did not understand the mechanism or the proposed mechanism of the greenhouse effect. We wasted a lot of time on that.
Anyway, thanks for that page on the albedo, from there I was able to jump somewhere else and get a figure for the total infra red emitted by earth, it is 230W/m2.
Apparently it is defined as 288 K (15 C) min. I did not realize this. I was used to having infra red ovens for curing of paint, so I always associate IR with much higher temperatures.
So indeed, apparently above water there can also be infra red. I do apologize for not knowing or picking up on that before.
Now, the sun apparently puts a total of 1366 W/m2 on earth.
The IR range 760nm to 500 um (micrometer) equals 46% of the energy; so that would be 628 W/m2.
Now 628>230. I expected this result. This proves to me that my findings as reported earlier are correct.
The cooling effect of carbon dioxide must be greater than the warming effect...

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #92 on: 14/10/2009 13:14:41 »
Sorry, I was going with BC's assumption not to worry anymore about day and night. That was wrong!
QUOTE:
The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 342 W/m²). At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth's surface depends on the state of the atmosphere and the location's latitude"
e.g. here in Africa I was probably right in saying or feeling that the IR from the sun is more than that of earth.
So now 157< 230. If all these figures are correct it means that the warming effect due to the carbon dioxide is more probable.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #93 on: 15/10/2009 07:05:28 »
I am sure of the value of the emittance from the sun onto earth. I have various sources for that. However, I am not too sure anymore about the 230 coming from earth. It seems to me this was calculated from the albedo of earth which was taken at about 0.3. Some sources mention an albedo of 0.3. One source that I have puts the albedo of earth at 0.36 +- 0.06. If we went for the top value we have an albedo of 0.42. In that case the value of 230 would already change to 0.58 x 342=198. But obviously if this is how the earth's emittance was calculated or estimated then this is is not particularly good science for our research here.
We have to try and get a measured value for earth's IR emittance that is independant of the value that we got for the sun.

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #94 on: 15/10/2009 18:36:55 »
"Apparently it is defined as 288 K (15 C) min. "
no it's not- or at least that's not how most people define it.

The day vs night bit isn't important because the earth is big and so it averages temperature changes out quite a bit. Changes on a day to day basis or even a season to season basis are not significat from the point of view of climate change.

Some of that is reflected- for the visible bit it is about 39%
We simply don't have any information about the IR but I guess we can assume it's similar (unless anyone has the real numbers)
That incoming radiation is averaged over the earth's surface to give, as Henry calculated about 342 W/m^2 and, since about 39% is reflected about 61% is absorbed
The true figure is somewher between about 204 and 225
Henry also provided a figure of about 230W/m^2 for the loss (By IR)
You may note that the difference between these figures for the incoming and outgoing energy are rather similar. That's not a shock. If they were not then the earth would heat up or cool down until they were balanced.
The earth also generates heat because of the decay of radioactive materials in the rocks.
This explains the reamaining dozen or so w/m^2

The incoming and outgoing energy balance.

The question is what happens if you make it more difficult for the IR to escape.
The answer is that the planet warms up a bit so it emits more IR so that (even with part of it reabsorbed by the CO2) the system still balances.

Henry has assumed that, because these numbers match, one must have been calculated from the other.
He doesn't understand that they are bound to match because the earth has been here long enough to reach (close to) equilibrium and any other result would be a breach of the principle of the conservation of energy.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #95 on: 15/10/2009 19:18:11 »
thanks BC.It does makes sense. But I have been thinking and I am worried we might have been going about this in a wrong way. I think we have to go back to the actual infra red spectrum of CO2, see where it absorbs, i.e the wavelengths, then take the energy from the sun between these two particular wavelengths where CO2 absorbs, from the solar constant (I think can calculate this from the tables that I found!).But after this, we must get the radiance from earth between these two wavelengths where CO2 absorbs, ... now where and how do I get this information?

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #96 on: 15/10/2009 20:43:35 »
"thanks BC.It does makes sense. "
It always did.

I could find a copy of the IR spectrum of CO2 and that would give you the information on how much IR is absorbed at what wavelengths.
But it doesn't matter, if some of the IR (at watever wavelength) is blocked on the way out then the world heats up a bit.
The spectra involved would make a difference to how big the warming is but it would be warming anyway.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #97 on: 17/10/2009 16:34:12 »
Ok. I am still looking at all of this. I need more time. Here is an interesting graph:
http://faculty.engineering.ucdavis.edu/jenkins/courses/EBS216/SolarEnergy/SolarEnergy.pdf
The blue line is the energy we would get without an atmosphere, yellow line is what we get with it. Look at the combined efforts of carbon dioxide and water vapor: it keeps us cool!!
I think it will be difficult to get a more quantifiable result as this, unless somebody puts some money into some real research.

#### Henry Pool

• Full Member
• Posts: 88
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #98 on: 17/10/2009 16:42:47 »
Somehow the link does not work anymore. How can I attach the graph here?

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8667
• Thanked: 42 times
##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #99 on: 17/10/2009 17:32:00 »
Just because you have a graph doesn't mean we will believe it.
There's already been a whole lot of research done and, like common sense, it says that the greenhouse effect causes warming

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #99 on: 17/10/2009 17:32:00 »