Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: MarkPawelek on 23/10/2019 09:02:23
-
In chemistry the term acid test means a basic test which gives one precise information. A bit like a flame test tells you whether a substance contains calcium, sodium, copper or iron. Hoping you did flame tests at high school, so you know what I'm on about!
I've had much difficulty communicating with the climate faithful (those poor souls who've lost their minds to climate hysteria). Over very basic things. For example, when I talk about basic climate models I mean, for example, the model of Manabe and Wetherald, 1967 (https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2), or one of Jim Hansen's models. Most of them published in science journals. I don't mean computer code from a General Circulation Model. Because I'm a computer programmer and I know it's senseless to reverse engineer computer code to try to work out the coder's intention.
I going to deal with this ambiguity about what basic climate models mean by proposing the climate model acid test™. It's not really trade marked, you, too, can do it. I will propose to the climate faithful, that we go online, find one of these basic climate models, and we do a textual analysis looking all basic assumptions and predictions made. Then look for the science behind those basic assumptions. For eample, when they say "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more opaque to infrared". Let's look for the basic scientific studies showing this. If the climate modeler says: "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in less out-going longwave radiation energy emitted to space", then this too is a clear, simple, assumption which must be verified and quantified by basic experiment. Eventually, by finding all these basic experiments, we can figure out what assumptions, and predictions, made by climate models are rock solid, and which may not be quite right.
The point of the climate model acid test is not to win believers to my side. It is to show naive people how science should be done; how genuine skeptics should think.
-
Hold on! An acid test can't be a basic test! (Chemistry joke - not bad for a physicist). Anyway, an acid test is intentionally potentially destructive: if a substance is pure gold, or an article is covered with contiguous gold plating, it will not dissolve in hydrochloric acid, but pretty well anything else will be destroyed.
Whilst the assumptions of a model must be unequivocal and testable, that doesn't guarantee the validity of the model. They must also be complete (everyone knows water is a far more important climate driver than CO2, but its behaviour is too complex to model) and robust (probably OK for CO2, but the behavior of water is anomalous be cause ice floats and reflects sunlight). But more significant is the stability of the model itself: does it back-project to zero, infinity, or what we actually know - a long-period oscillation? And does it predict the observed phase lag between temperature and CO2 level? I'm not aware of any that meet those criteria.
-
If the climate modeler says: "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in less out-going longwave radiation energy emitted to space", then this too is a clear, simple, assumption which must be verified and quantified by basic experiment.
I presume that you know that it has been verified.nyway, an acid test is intentionally potentially destructive: if a substance is pure gold, or an article is covered with contiguous gold plating, it will not dissolve in hydrochloric acid, but pretty well anything else will be destroyed.
I have some gold I want to sell you.
Here are some things we know.
The Earth loses some heat by radiation of IR
Carbon dioxide absorbs IR which "traps" heat.
There is about a third more CO2 in the air than there was.
We are responsible for that additional CO2
The climate is getting more extreme.
So, how detailed does the model need to be?
-
Sufficiently detailed to demonstrate causality, using the criteria set out in my second paragraph.
There's no doubt that (a) the climate is changing, and there are plenty of reasons for reducing (b) the amount of CO2 we emit. The problem is that nobody is doing anything to mitigate the effect of (a), nor has there been any net progress on reducing (b), but an awful lot of people are making a living, disrupting traffic, driving teenagers to despair, and generally wasting their lives and taxpayers' money trying to produce a model that shows that b causes a.
-
If you think that predicting the long-term future of climate is hard (or retroactively explaining the climate we have now)...
Have a listen to this podcast, interviewing staff at the European Center for Medium-term Weather Forecasting.
A majority of their processing power goes into finding out what the weather is right now.
- The size of the code that finds out the current weather is mind-boggling
- They have adopted some learnings from the climate modelers, and can show that this makes their predictions more accurate
Listen: https://omegataupodcast.net/326-weather-forecasting-at-the-ecmwf/
-
Years ago, when they had just installed their first supercomputer (probably no more powerful than this desktop, but it was a watercooled Cray "Dogsnuts" prototype) I had the task of retrieving a pilot who had completely misread the actual and forecast weather, and landed his glider in a field less than 10 miles from our base.
Having quaffed the traditional modicum of ale in recognition of my efforts, I said "Aren't you a director of the ECMWF?" "Yes. But only the finance director."
-
Hold on! An acid test can't be a basic test!
Caustic wit appeals only to those with a more base sense of humour.
What we could do is study what happens next time there is a sudden slowdown in the world economy.
-
Immediately after 9/11 there was an absence of vapor trails over the USA. These tend to nucleate high-level clouds, so for several days there was much less cloud cover than forecast over much of the arid southwest, leading to a measurable change in mean surface temperature.
-
I presume that you know that it has been verified.
You want me to take that on trust and you think you can sell me some gold? You must think me very gullible. In my OP, I implied I wanted to see the studies you read which convinced you of this. The data. The studies. Can you really not remember a study you read showing what you claim?
Carbon dioxide absorbs IR which "traps" heat.
If so, that can be demonstrated by publishing a scientific study, can't it? Please cite the study so that we can read it, and see precisely what was measured.
My studies indicate:
CO2 absorbs IR, and emits IR; more or less at the same frequency and intensity.
Absorption and emission vary depending on temperature. Using Planck's Law, one can calculate the equilibrium temperature for CO2 main band (15µm). It is -77.8C. Which is very cold. At, or below, -77.8C CO2 absorbs IR. Above that temperature it emits IR. There are very few places on Earth or in the atmosphere which get that cold. So it looks to me that the equilibrium position (w.r.t. temperature) for this CO2 'absorption band' is to emit. It, no doubt depends on the temperature of the molecule. An energised molecule should emit a photon, taking the activated electron back to a minimal energy orbital. (is that a 'ground state'). No IR photons will be trapped. No trapped heat.
Other people, say that CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR. Can anyone show me a citation from the people who measured that?
-
My studies indicate:
CO2 absorbs IR, and emits IR; more or less at the same frequency and intensity.
Absorption and emission vary depending on temperature. Using Planck's Law, one can calculate the equilibrium temperature for CO2 main band (15µm). It is -77.8C. Which is very cold. At, or below, -77.8C CO2 absorbs IR. Above that temperature it emits IR. There are very few places on Earth or in the atmosphere which get that cold. So it looks to me that the equilibrium position (w.r.t. temperature) for this CO2 'absorption band' is to emit. It, no doubt depends on the temperature of the molecule. An energised molecule should emit a photon, taking the activated electron back to a minimal energy orbital. (is that a 'ground state'). No IR photons will be trapped. No trapped heat.
Other people, say that CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR. Can anyone show me a citation from the people who measured that?
Yes. You are correct that the excited molecule relaxes again, re-emitting the IR photon (with roughly the same frequency), so the photon is not "trapped" in a single molecule. BUT......
The direction that the photon is traveling in after it is re-emitted is not the same that it was initially going--it is effectively randomized.
If the atmosphere is transparent, then the photon can leave at the speed of light (disappearing in a fraction of a second, never to return).
But if the atmosphere is NOT transparent to the photons, then they must do a "random walk," effectively bouncing from absorbing/emitting molecule to absorbing/emitting molecule until it finally escapes. The extreme version of this is what happens to light in a star: it can take tens of thousands of years for photons initially generated in the core to make it out to the corona (non-interacting neutrinos moving at subluminal speeds make it out much sooner)
So the question is, what is the mean free path of a 15 µm photon in an atmosphere with 400 ppm of CO2 vs that with only 350 ppm? And how does that translate into time required to exit the atmosphere? (according to the paper linked below, the mean free path is on the order of a meter at 300 ppm, which means that the photon would have to be absorbed an re-emitted at least 50,000 times before getting from the ground to an altitude of 50 km--and this small number would only occur if every re-emission were up (highly unlikely)
This is nicely done here: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.1803
-
Keatings paper, cited by you, is more speculation. Itself citing speculation in its support. That speculation then cites even more speculation. In my OP I asked,
Then look for the science behind those basic assumptions.
In addition, Keatings speculative paper isn't a key modeling paper; so I don't want to waste time on it; pointing out its assumptions and guesses. I'd much rather ask (again) "What is the science (as opposed to the speculation) behind anthropogenic climate change?"
I should clarify what I mean by science. I mean those things we know for sure as opposed to the things we're guessing (speculating) about. For example: scientific laws. They are laws because we know for sure; as they can be clearly demonstrated, in a replicable way.
-
you think you can sell me some gold?
For a start, I think I can sell Alan some "gold".
He doesn't understand that "The acid test" was used to distinguish real gold from pyrites.
It uses nitric acid (not hydrochloric).
And it might be better if he stuck to physics.
But the glitch in his joke hardly matters.
You want me to take that on trust ?
No, you don't need to take it on trust.
You can buy the kit on eBay and check it yourself.
Or you could consider the fact that, if it wasn't true, people would have noticed before now.
So I'm not expecting you to trust me; I expect you to trust the scientific consensus.
At, or below, -77.8C CO2 absorbs IR. Above that temperature it emits IR.
That's just not really the way it works.
So it looks to me that the equilibrium position (w.r.t. temperature) for this CO2 'absorption band' is to emit.
Again, that's based on your misunderstanding.
Other people, say that CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR. Can anyone show me a citation from the people who measured that?
Messers Beer and Lambert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law
Doesn't it trouble you that you are unaware of science that has been known for about 300 years?
-
So the question is, what is the mean free path of a 15 µm photon in an atmosphere with 400 ppm of CO2 vs that with only 350 ppm? And how does that translate into time required to exit the atmosphere? (according to the paper linked below, the mean free path is on the order of a meter at 300 ppm, which means that the photon would have to be absorbed an re-emitted at least 50,000 times before getting from the ground to an altitude of 50 km--and this small number would only occur if every re-emission were up (highly unlikely)
What sort of time scale though is this ? I amp retty sure that it goes cold at night (average 12 hours). The heat (residual) is stored in deep ground sources and water, remembering newtons law of cooling, everything seeks to be the same temperature, at night the heat is drawn from hot sources, and the hotter they are the faster thay cool. In waters case it would rather liberate itsel from its earthly bonds and become gaseous that emit radiation, thus leading to greater inter gaseous radiation during the day.
Basically the atmosphere becomes denser and thicker (higher) meaning greater energy content and greater gaseous interaparticle emmisivity, meaning 5he temperature at ground level increaces.
-
He doesn't understand that "The acid test" was used to distinguish real gold from pyrites.
None of the components I tested was likely to be plated with FeS2, but porous gold plating showed up pretty quickly as the underlying copper or steel bubbled away. Whilst pure gold won't dissolve in HNO3, several perfectly acceptable alloys will, so we didn't use it.
-
None of the components I tested was likely to be plated with FeS2, but porous gold plating showed up pretty quickly as the underlying copper or steel bubbled away. Whilst pure gold won't dissolve in HNO3, several perfectly acceptable alloys will, so we didn't use it.
Fine, I'm delighted to know that you had a test that suited your purposes. Not sure how the copper bubbled away in HCl since they don't react but... whatever.
But that's not "The acid test" to which the phrase refers- which relates to gold mining where "Fools gold" was a big deal.
In waters case it would rather liberate itsel from its earthly bonds and become gaseous that emit radiation,
No
Ice still emits IR.
But the fundamental point is that the timescale doesn't matter- sure it get's cold at night.
But only here.
On the other side of the world, it's daytime and getting warm.
The essence of it is that CO2 acts as a better "insulator" in one direction than it does in the other.
It does better job of retarding loss of heat from the (cool) Earth than of retarding heating from the (hot) Sun because the Sun's emitted radiation is largely at wavelengths where CO2 is transparent. but the Earth's emitted radiation is in the IR where CO2 isn't transparent.
-
When radiosonde data (atmospheric balloons), is analysed from the point of view of density, the lower atmosphere can be explained by up to 3 equations of state (only 2 at night & early morning; 3rd one merges into 2nd) corresponding to 3 regions:
- Tropopause/Stratosphere
- Troposphere
- Boundary Layer (water dominated). Nearest surface.
When we compare this reality with the radiative model of Manabe and Strickler, we see one is real. The other is fantasy.
(https://i.ibb.co/C0r7g8b/Manabe-Strickler-vs-Radiosonde-derived.png) (https://ibb.co/f0cpfFk)
Balloons in the Air: Understanding weather and climate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY), Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly; CERES.
The moral of this tale is Do not confuse your model of the world with reality - if in doubt - look at the data.
-
the lower atmosphere can be explained by up to 3 equations of state
What do you consider the phrase "equation of state" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state
-
You can find their equations here (http://oprj.net/articles/atmospheric-science/19) at the Open Peer Review Journal - where you can submit your peer review of their article.
-
The model inversion at 10 km actually corresponds to the balloon data graph - 20 kPa being around 10,000 m pressure altitude. However it does seem absurd to create a theoretical model of something which is observed in great detail every day, and the fact that the curvature of the model below 10km is in the opposite sense to the observed behaviour suggests that the model falls into the category of "crap". This is further supported by the sea level temperature point of 340K, way above any recorded surface temperature on this planet. The International Standard Atmosphere is 288 K at sea level.
It comes as no surprise to see a less ridiculous "adjusted" graph. This is typical of all climate models. But it still shows the wrong curvature.
-
Immediately after 9/11 there was an absence of vapor trails over the USA
None of the components I tested was likely to be plated with FeS2
Would you consider changing your name to Naked Science Forum TROLL!, or perhaps Naked Science Forum Red Herring merchant?
I posted this to discuss climate models. Every post you make is designed to derail the thread with pointless red herrings. Please stop acting like a child.
-
I proposed the acid test way back. Use the model to back-cast and match it to ice core data, and see if it explains the regular superimposed ripple on the recent Mauna Loa data. You have produced a good test of the validity of underlying assumptions by comparing their predicted tephigram with reality.
-
Immediately after 9/11 there was an absence of vapor trails over the USA
None of the components I tested was likely to be plated with FeS2
Would you consider changing your name to Naked Science Forum TROLL!, or perhaps Naked Science Forum Red Herring merchant?
I posted this to discuss climate models. Every post you make is designed to derail the thread with pointless red herrings. Please stop acting like a child.
I proposed the acid test way back. Use the model to back-cast and match it to ice core data, and see if it explains the regular superimposed ripple on the recent Mauna Loa data. You have produced a good test of the validity of underlying assumptions by comparing their predicted tephigram with reality.
What is your acid test proposal or hypothesis or question, what are you testing precisely?
I think that the contralis is the 2nd best acid test suggested, volcanic eruptions have too many variables, co2 into the higher atmosphere out but so are screening particles. Co2 in the upper atmosphere is more likely to cool the planet, due to the curvature of the earth having alarger aperture back into space than toward earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Or we could pump co2 into the atmosphere and acid test that way.
-
The quickest test of (almost) any model is whether, starting from "now", it can generate an accurate picture of the past. Or whether, starting from a known point in the past, it accurately predicts the status quo.
Given the panic caused by climate change, it's unlikely that anyone will be impressed by a forecast based on "business as usual" that will take some years to validate, but the historic record of the last 400,000 years is sound.
-
You can find their equations here (http://oprj.net/articles/atmospheric-science/19) at the Open Peer Review Journal - where you can submit your peer review of their article.
OK, so they are just misusing the phrase in an attempt to sound "sciencey".
-
I posted this to discuss climate models. Every post you make is designed to derail the thread with pointless red herrings. Please stop acting like a child.
It might have been better if you hadn't included a reference to a totally irrelevant bit of historical chemistry.
-
So here's an experimental test of the underlying assumptions of a CO2-forcing model.
Atmospheric pressure at sea level is 10,500 kg/sq m. Of this, about 400 ppm is carbon dioxide, i.e. 4.2 kg/m2.
Density of CO2 is about 1.8 kg/m3. So if we add a 2.3 m tall column of CO2 to the existing atmosphere, the effect at the bottom of the column will be the same as doubling the concentration throughout the entire atmosphere.
Place two large transparent plastic hemispheres of about 3 m radius, on dry sand, in a shadowless environment ( any flat desert). Fill one hemisphere with carbon dioxide, and measure the ground surface temperature of both. The difference is what would be caused by a doubling of the overall CO2 concentration in the short term. The longterm effect, and specifically in non-desert regions, is not predictable as increased CO2 produces increased plant growth, with a consequent reduction in atmospheric water. But you might get some indicative data by reproducing the experiment over water or ice.
-
The longterm effect, and specifically in non-desert regions, is not predictable as increased CO2 produces increased plant growth, with a consequent reduction in atmospheric water.
Increased plant growth does not simply lead to a reduction in atmospheric water... often plants *increase* water concentrations in the atmosphere through transpiration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration). https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-deforestation-affecting-global-water-cycles-climate-change
It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
-
Presumably you would get a result a bit like this one.
-
the effect at the bottom of the column will be the same as doubling the concentration throughout the entire atmosphere.
No, because ... science.
-
It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
There are a lot of tomato growers in the Lea Valley who are wasting their time, then. Not to mention tropical agronomists.
-
The longterm effect, and specifically in non-desert regions, is not predictable as increased CO2 produces increased plant growth, with a consequent reduction in atmospheric water.
Increased plant growth does not simply lead to a reduction in atmospheric water... often plants *increase* water concentrations in the atmosphere through transpiration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration). https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-deforestation-affecting-global-water-cycles-climate-change
It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
Water content (absolute molecular content)is limited by the gaseous laws not addition-subtraction unless there is no moisture in the vecinity. Water will evapourate if the gaseous laws dictate, cooling the medium in the process. Jungles are very hot but due to 100 percent humidity evapouration is lacking .
-
It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
There are a lot of tomato growers in the Lea Valley who are wasting their time, then. Not to mention tropical agronomists.
I have no doubt that increased CO2 concentrations help plants grow in otherwise tightly controlled circumstances. However, due to things like... CO2-driven climate change... it is possible that disruptions in local ecosystems may cause a net drag on biomass accumulation for a while, until the new equilibrium is established, which could take a very long time in civilization timescales, even if it is very brief on a geological timescale.
-
The longterm effect, and specifically in non-desert regions, is not predictable as increased CO2 produces increased plant growth, with a consequent reduction in atmospheric water.
Increased plant growth does not simply lead to a reduction in atmospheric water... often plants *increase* water concentrations in the atmosphere through transpiration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration). https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-deforestation-affecting-global-water-cycles-climate-change
It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
Water content (absolute molecular content)is limited by the gaseous laws not addition-subtraction unless there is no moisture in the vecinity. Water will evapourate if the gaseous laws dictate, cooling the medium in the process. Jungles are very hot but due to 100 percent humidity evapouration is lacking .
Yes.
But typically the water content of air is not at equilibrium (if there is liquid water, then at equilibrium, air would be saturated with water... ie 100% humidity).
As you point out, jungles often achieve 100% humidity, while we don't typically observe this over bodies of water (where presumably evaporation would be quite swift).
This is because transpiration causes much faster rates of water evaporation on a per acre basis.
-
The longterm effect, and specifically in non-desert regions, is not predictable as increased CO2 produces increased plant growth, with a consequent reduction in atmospheric water.
Increased plant growth does not simply lead to a reduction in atmospheric water... often plants *increase* water concentrations in the atmosphere through transpiration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration). https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-deforestation-affecting-global-water-cycles-climate-change
It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
Water content (absolute molecular content)is limited by the gaseous laws not addition-subtraction unless there is no moisture in the vecinity. Water will evapourate if the gaseous laws dictate, cooling the medium in the process. Jungles are very hot but due to 100 percent humidity evapouration is lacking .
Yes.
But typically the water content of air is not at equilibrium (if there is liquid water, then at equilibrium, air would be saturated with water... ie 100% humidity).
As you point out, jungles often achieve 100% humidity, while we don't typically observe this over bodies of water (where presumably evaporation would be quite swift).
This is because transpiration causes much faster rates of water evaporation on a per acre basis.
I should say that a jungle provides exellent evapouration mediums, soil absorbs light, air becomes heated, where as the ocean is transparent to light thus it penetrates the water surface without heating, the wave circulation of the water, the problem of water density suddenly peaking at about 5C all keep the air cool , thus the gaseous laws lower the evapouration rates. And with evapouration comes cooling which ensures everything stays cool.
-
It also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
There are a lot of tomato growers in the Lea Valley who are wasting their time, then. Not to mention tropical agronomists.
So, you don't understand the word "necessarily" means.
-
Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?
The "acid test" of climate models is happening right now, in our oceans, lakes and rivers.
Increased atmospheric CO2 results in higher dissolved CO2 (more of our emissions are dissolved in the oceans than are held in the atmosphere).
- Higher dissolved CO2 results in more acidic water (lower pH)
- More acidic water means that invertebrates like corals, shellfish, crabs, plankton, etc have to expend more energy to build and maintain their shells - or try to survive with weaker shells
- plankton is the base of the marine food web; undermine the base, and the edifice collapses...
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00537-8
So, you don't understand the word "necessarily" means.
I generally try to eschew subjective adjectives when discussing matters of science, but
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00537-8
suggests that scientists agree with my statement.
Admittedly, that's only from observation, not prejudice or computer model, and is therefore somewhat unfashionable.
What Evan says is almost certainly true. But it is an effect of rising CO2, not a predictive model of climate change. I do still worry about southern England, however. Vast rolling hills of chalk, all made from the shells of long-dead plankton. Whence came all that carbon dioxide? Not from the friendly, CO2-free pre-industrial atmosphere, surely?
-
I generally try to eschew subjective adjectives w
Either it is necessarily true or it is not.
That's not subjective.
On the other hand, your use of "subjective" is debatable (at best) which means it's subjective and perhaps you should have eschewed it.
Do you accept that, in an atmosphere of pure CO2 the plants would die ?
-
I generally try to eschew subjective adjectives when discussing matters of science, but
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00537-8
suggests that scientists agree with my statement.
And here's what they say on that page
Globally, rising carbon dioxide concentrations also seem to be playing a part, but that part is probably smaller than previously assumed, the scientists say. They add that although greening farmlands are becoming more productive, the gains do not make up for environmental damage resulting from tropical deforestation.
So, the net effect is a reduction of plant growth.
-
I generally try to eschew subjective adjectives w
Either it is necessarily true or it is not.
So the word "necessarily", like "existential", adds nothing to the sentence.
Do you accept that, in an atmosphere of pure CO2 the plants would die ?
If it is true, I'll accept it. Is it [citation needed!]?
More to the point, is it relevant? Some people drown, some die of thirst. Animals die in an atmosphere of pure oxygen at 1 bar. Mammalian respiration is impaired in the absence of CO2, or at a 100% concentration. So what?
What we do know, from observations ranging from laboratories via commercial growers to satellite images of the entire planet, is that more CO2 than the atmospheric concentration of 50 years ago, promotes plant growth. This is consistent with everything we learned about biology at primary school: plants convert carbon dioxide and water into all sorts of useful stuff.
None of which has anything to do with climate modelling, at least to the first order. It does however suggest that there is a longterm equilibrating mechanism. Consider just fossil fuels: every carbon atom in oil or coal was extracted by plants from the atmosphere, so at some time there must have been more carbon in the sky than there is now, because there is no natural mechanism for returning fossil carbon to the atmosphere. This fact must feature in any valid climate model that treats CO2 as a significant cause or effect.
No question that tropical deforestation is a Bad Thing. So is starvation. But as long as we continue to breed humans that like to eat meat and waste palm oil, it will continue, so it needs to be taken into consideration in a climate model.
-
"necessarily" is an important qualifier. It is used to signify that there is additional complexity, not a pure cause-effect relationship ("if X then Y" means X necessarily produces Y; while "if X and W and V and U then Y," then X is not necessarily producing Y).
As in: for plants in settings in which they have enough water and light and available nitrogen and reasonable temperatures and pollinators respond positively to increased levels of carbon dioxide. BUT... this does not necessarily mean that increased carbon dioxide levels on a global scale, because it may interfere with the other resources that the plants need (especially water and pollinators).
And this doesn't mean that plants are incapable of thriving in high CO2 environments... obviously something photosynthetic fixed those fossil fuels.... but that also doesn't mean that the plants that have evolved for our current climate would do well if the weather turned a bit Permian over the next 150 years (within a single lifetime of a tree.)
-
So the word "necessarily", like "existential", adds nothing to the sentence.
So, you don't understand the word "necessarily" means.
-
More to the point, is it relevant?
Yes.
If plants die in 100% CO2 then the statement thatIt also isn't entirely clear that more atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to more plant growth.
is true and you shouldn't have wasted time trying to pretend that it wasn't.
-
Fact is, that it does. But don't let the facts spoilt a good argument, chaps!
And for those unfamiliar with maths and English, if you start with (an existential) 0.04%, "more" doesn't (necessarily) mean 100%. Crop yields generally peak at around 0.1 - 0.12% CO2.
-
And for those unfamiliar with maths and English, if you start with (an existential) 0.04%, "more" doesn't (necessarily) mean 100%.
No. For a start, nobody said that it did.
Go on- try to post a quote that says that anyone said that.
You got it the wrong way round- presumably deliberately.
If you start with 400 ppm then 100% is necessarily more.
Crop yields generally peak at around 0.1 - 0.12% CO2.
Did you check on the effect of CO2 on other factors?
If, for example, that extra CO2 made the world hotter, melted the ice and flooded much of the land while leaving the rest too hot for crops, that wouldn't be optimal, would it?
You can't look at just one thing in isolation.
-
It's the magic "if" that needs to be investigated. And maybe not optimal for the present distribution of humans, but Europe wasn't such a bad place before it got cold in the 11th century.
-
It's the magic "if" that needs to be investigated.
Yes.
And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.
So, we are left with modeling the Earth.
And the models- from the simplest qualitative one (we put more CO2 in the air and CO2 absorbs IR more than it absorbs visible (and near UV) light), to the most complex quantitative ones- as used by the international panels of scientists- all say the same thing.
More CO2 makes the planet warmer.
And that's consistent with the observation- it's generally getting warmer.
The temperature change since WWII is already bigger (and, obviously faster) than the "dip" in the 11th C
https://xkcd.com/1732/
There isn't any "if" about it, the question is "how much?".
-
What do you consider the phrase "equation of state" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state
Presumably you left that as a comment at their "Open Peer Review Journal" page. More likely you never watched the video I linked to nor read their demolition of pseudoscience of the greenhouse gas effect.
You are probably still ignorant now regarding the how and why of greenhouse gas pseudoscience <- I guess you just don't care to learn how earth's climate really works?
-
I proposed the acid test way back. Use the model to back-cast and match it to ice core data, and see if it explains the regular superimposed ripple on the recent Mauna Loa data. You have produced a good test of the validity of underlying assumptions by comparing their predicted tephigram with reality.
Not good enough. To really test a model one needs to try to falsify it, by looking at its all its predictions, under all circumstances. Then comparing model assumptions, projections to reality. Man-made global warming fans never did this. They call people who do it "science deniers".
British science establishment support this demonization of actual skeptical scientists by promoting notion that people interested in testing all aspects of a model are "science deniers". Beyond mindless leftism, naked careerism, or obsequious conformism, I can't really fathom the motive behind this attitude.
Mauna Loa CO2 atmospheric data has nothing to do with this. If, as we claim, greenhouse gas effect is mere pseudoscience, then it will not matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is just more plant food.
-
And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.
So, we are left with modeling the Earth.
Using scientists' preferred models which enable them to tweak for worst case scenarios, AKA climate crisis and catastrophe. Many scientists did just that - proposing models with climate sensitivities as high as 10C.
Meanwhile, away from their armchair modeling, ivory tower musings, and computers, the real behaviour of the mid-atmosphere is now known (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY), and the greenhouse gas effect shown to have no influence or what's really going on.
XR, Al Gore, so-called environment journalists do the real job of scaring little children out of their minds, and sometimes out of their lives. But they are just repeating what climate scientists told them - based on the scientist's made up science and prejudice. We really need to praise climate scientists more for originating this anti-human junk which passes for settled science. They should be given their due for spate of suicides among adolescents. (https://i.ibb.co/YcJ2HSZ/suicide-ages-13-17-combined-starting-2000.png) (https://ibb.co/48CWhLd)
-
OK, so they are just misusing the phrase in an attempt to sound "sciencey".
Presumably you left that as a comment at their "Open Peer Review Journal" page. More likely you never watched the video I linked to nor read their demolition of pseudoscience of the greenhouse gas effect.
You are probably still ignorant now regarding the how and why of greenhouse gas pseudoscience <- I guess you just don't care to learn how earth's climate really works?
Well, I'm not likely to find out how the climate works from a bunch of folks who just make up stuff, am I?
-
And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.
So, we are left with modeling the Earth.
Using scientists' preferred models which enable them to tweak for worst case scenarios, AKA climate crisis and catastrophe. Many scientists did just that - proposing models with climate sensitivities as high as 10C.
Meanwhile, away from their armchair modeling, ivory tower musings, and computers, the real behaviour of the mid-atmosphere is now known (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY), and the greenhouse gas effect shown to have no influence or what's really going on.
XR, Al Gore, so-called environment journalists do the real job of scaring little children out of their minds, and sometimes out of their lives. But they are just repeating what climate scientists told them - based on the scientist's made up science and prejudice. We really need to praise climate scientists more for originating this anti-human junk which passes for settled science. They should be given their due for spate of suicides among adolescents. (https://i.ibb.co/YcJ2HSZ/suicide-ages-13-17-combined-starting-2000.png) (https://ibb.co/48CWhLd)
Yeah... I'm sure Al Gore personally coaxes teens into suicide. (\sarcasm)
Or... maybe there are other factors at play. What else has changed in the last decade might cause teens to become despondent?
Maybe the rise of social media, which at worst facilitates cyber bullying (there wasn't even a term for this when I was growing up), and at best allows teens to project an 'amazing' fictionalized version of their lives to their peers, while secretly worrying why all of their peers are having so much fun while they are at home alone doctoring images of themselves.
Maybe (at least in the US), teen students are stressed by the now more than annual occurrence of mass shootings at schools.
Maybe (again in the US), the rise of opiate addiction is disrupting families, while simultaneously providing easy access to lethal dosages of pain-numbing drugs.
Sure, I'll grant that there are probably a lot of teens out there, living in anguish because of their perception of climate change. But my guess is that more suffering is caused them by seeing adults not caring about the plight of their generation with respect to climate change, than the threats of climate change itself.
-
But this is a science forum, so let's stick to science.
You asked for a citation of a single paper that summarizes theoretical underpinnings of climate change, and also experimentally proves that CO2 causes climate change, and also experimentally proves that it is as bad as it is predicted to be.
Unfortunately, science doesn't work that way (and I think you already know this). There is a body of scientific literature, in which each paper takes a very small part of this large and complex issues, and dissects it. If you want one document that does all of them look at the IPCC reports: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ also provides a good summary of where the data come from, and how they are analyzed
~~~
For example, here is a paper that defines the theories used in modeling greenhouse gas influences:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
And here are some papers that establish that carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD094iD06p08533
(also useful: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html)
And here are some papers that establish the source of the carbon dioxide:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusb.v51i2.16269
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/256/5053/74
And here are some papers that aim to predict how increased carbon dioxide will influence ecosystems:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/eaam8328.abstract
And here are some papers that aim to measure the rise of sea levels:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ami_Hassan_Md_Din/publication/295010891_SEA_LEVEL_RISE_QUANTIFICATION_USING_MULTI-MISSION_SATELLITE_ALTIMETER_OVER_MALAYSIAN_SEAS/links/56c6620108ae408dfe4d31d2.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022
And here are some papers that aim to measure increased global temperatures:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.5264
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076327
Take your pick!
-
oh, and btw Mark... I've done my research, and it appears that your name pops up quite frequently on discussions of climate science... if these are all you (and it is a striking coincidence if not), then it seems you have already gotten answers to your "questions" many times, from many people, at many levels, and with may references. I will no longer cut you any slack when you appear to play ignorant...
As a forum mod, let me be clear: don't troll here
-
To really test a model one needs to try to falsify it, by looking at its all its predictions, under all circumstances. Then comparing model assumptions, projections to reality.
Nonsense. You can't test the model under all circumstances because we only have one circumstance - history. Fortunately we have superbly detailed history going back half a million years, which isn't adequately explained by a CO2-forcing model. Little point in comparing a model with future performance because its function is surely to predict the future to allow us to control it, so you need to validate it historically before taking any action.
Beware: if you paddle in the shallows of science, your sharpest and best-informed critics are often those who agree with your motive.
-
Einstein ... in 1919, showed that if a gas was in thermodynamic equilibrium the rate of adsorption by an infrared gas ... was equal to the rate of emission. In other words, if you increase the amount of infrared active gases in the atmosphere you will increase the rate of absorption but at the exact same time you will increase the rate of emission. So if the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium you won't get a greenhouse effect. It won't store the energy, and what we have shown, by our data, is yes ... the air is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate models have decided to ignore Einstein.
Einstein said ... the infrared active gases will aid the transfer of energy from a hot area to a cold area but it won't store the energy
-- Time: 48:38 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY#t=2912)
-
So if the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium you won't get a greenhouse effect. It won't store the energy, and what we have shown, by our data, is yes ... the air is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate models have decided to ignore Einstein.
The air is most definitely NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium... at any given time there are local temperature variations (gradients), and temperatures change in any given location throughout the day. Wind, storms, rain, evaporation, and all other aspects of weather are direct results of the atmosphere NOT being in thermodynamic equilibrium.
If we average over enough space and time (looking at climate rather than weather), there is a kind of steady state equilibrium, but this should not be confused with actual thermodynamic equilibrium.
Furthermore, even if we assumed that an actual thermodynamic equilibrium existed at some point, this still doesn't change the fact that the equilibrium point would be different for atmospheres of different compositions. By changing the composition of our atmosphere, we have changed where the equilibrium will be.
Finally, please see my earlier post in this thread (reply 9), where I explain how absorption and reemission of photons of the same energy can slow the rate of radiative heat transfer (radiative cooling).
The surface emits thermal energy with a power roughly proportional to its temperature raised to the 4th power (P = A×T4 where A is a constant). Because added carbon dioxide slows down the rate of radiative cooling much, much more than it slows down the rate of incoming radiant energy (mostly visible light), it effectively decreases the constant A, and a higher surface temperature is required to return to the steady state of Ein = Eout.
-
For example, here is a paper that defines the theories used in modeling greenhouse gas influences:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
But it doesn't mention the most important one of all - water. If you ignore the weight of the elephant you can convince yourself that the mahout weighs 5 tons, and start all sorts of ridiculous scare stories.
And here are some papers that aim to measure increased global temperatures:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.5264
...….the time series of global surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies from 1860 to 2014...…
Fascinating. The period begins 40 years before anyone had reached the north pole, let alone made any temperature measurements there, and 50 years before anyone had reached the south pole. As for making representative measurements of the surface temperature of the oceans (which account for about 70% of the surface) or the deserts (20%), there is no reliable data before 1970. The only temperature data of any scientific validity before then, comes from the demands of aviation and is limited to airfields which, from 1910 to 1970, gradually changed from grass to concrete.
So whilst it is entirely conceivable that global mean air temperature has increased rapidly in the last 100 years, that statement is based on "evidence" that would not stand up in a court of law, being mostly assumptions, extrapolations, and interpretation of models based on the very hypotheses they set out to prove.
Back to the acid test. There is no need even to go back to 500,000 year ice cores. A valid model will explain why it was warmer in Canada 500 years ago than it is now. I don't think anthropogenic CO2 fits the bill.
-
For example, here is a paper that defines the theories used in modeling greenhouse gas influences:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
But it doesn't mention the most important one of all - water. If you ignore the weight of the elephant you can convince yourself that the mahout weighs 5 tons, and start all sorts of ridiculous scare stories.
well... not quite
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/person/Andrew_Dessler
-
You can't test the model under all circumstances because we only have one circumstance - history.
You can generally test individual aspects of the model- for example, it's easy enough to test the idea that CO2 absorbs IR.
Obviously, for the reason I gave earlier that's not proof that the whole model is true but it is supporting evidence.
And, we can check if the broad conclusion of the model is correct.
Thus, we can predict that more CO2 makes it warmer and we can observe that we have more CO2, and it's warmer.
Einstein ... in 1919, showed that if a gas was in thermodynamic equilibrium
It's not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
The Sun's hot, the Earth's cool.
The Earth's surface is cool, the outer atmosphere is cold.
Now, anyone with any level of competence will know that.
So, the question is were you incompetent (due to ignorance of basic science), in which case you should probably keep out of the discussion on a science forum. or was it a deliberate lie?
But it doesn't mention the most important one of all - water. If you ignore the weight of the elephant you can convince yourself that the mahout weighs 5 tons, and start all sorts of ridiculous scare stories.
That's not much of an analogy; but let's run with it.
I used to measure dust concentrations in air by drawing a known volume of air through a (pre-weighed) filter and re-weighing it.
The mass of the filter was typically about 20 mg. The weight of the dust was typically 0.2 mg.
It is perfectly simple to determine the mass of the dust
BECAUSE THE WEIGHT OF THE FILTER- LIKE THE IR ABSORPTION OF WATER VAPOUR IN THE AIR- DOES NOT CHANGE MUCH.
I thought I'd put that in big letters because you seemed to miss it when I pointed it out earlier.
We haven't added a third as much water again into the atmosphere like we have with CO2.
-
We haven't added a third as much water again into the atmosphere like we have with CO2.
I'm impressed. Nobody else knows how to measure it, let alone how much has been added, in what state, or at what level, to the atmosphere in the last 100 years. Citation, please? Then we can get on with looking at the relative absorption spectra of water and CO2 and the effect of clouds.
Thus, we can predict that more CO2 makes it warmer and we can observe that we have more CO2, and it's warmer.
Which would be interesting were it not for the fact that it was warmer 500 years ago when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. Meanwhile salmon have reappeared in the Thames since I stopped smoking. Correlation does not prove causality.
-
Nobody else knows how to measure it,
" Leonardo da Vinci built the first crude hygrometer in the 1400s. "
from
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-hygrometer-1991669
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygrometer#Chilled_mirror_dew_point_hygrometer
-
And the first balloon radiosonde measurements of humidity were made in 1936. The presence of water as gas, liquid and solid in the atmosphere turns meteorology from science to art at the best of times.
-
And art has been recording atmospheric water for a long time
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/constable-cloud-study-n06065
The funny thing is that they look like modern clouds.
This is all very entertaining.
The problem is that you seem to have forgotten who is making the extraordinary claim and thus whose job it is to offer proof.Correlation does not prove causality.
How fortunate that nobody said it did.
Which would be interesting were it not for the fact that it was warmer 500 years ago when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere.
Please stop trying to pretend that anyone ever said that CO2 was the only factor.
Also, re "it was warmer 500 years ago"
No it wasn't.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
And
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
And it also wasn't warmer during the mediaeval warm period (which I guess might be what you meant).
-
You probably won't be interested in https://fullspectrumbiology.blogspot.com/2013/06/bryophytes-recolonization-of-polar.html (https://fullspectrumbiology.blogspot.com/2013/06/bryophytes-recolonization-of-polar.html) but anyone who thinks facts are more important than cartoons will realise that this is clear evidence that a glacier which has recently retreated, was even smaller 400 years ago. Others may see this as a reason to stop London's traffic and glue themselves to trains, or maybe not, but my interest is simply in finding a climate model that explains it, and clearly a CO2 forcing function doesn't.
Constable's cloud studies were indeed excellent renditions of the classic forms, but if you want to base your numerical analyses on his paintings, you will quickly come to the conclusion that there are only four cows in Suffolk, and Salisbury Cathedral is permanently in the midst of a thunderstorm. The determinant of global mean temperature is principally the distribution of clouds and water vapour in 4 dimensions over the entire planet, and only satellite mapping can provide that data, so we have nothing worth using as model inputs before about 1970.
-
Still waiting for the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that we have raised the amount of water in the air by a third.
but if you want to base your numerical analyses on his paintings, you will quickly come to the conclusion that there are only four cows in Suffolk,
Strawman.
a glacier which has recently retreated, was even smaller 400 years ago.
That's a quarter as many glaciers as cows, by your arithmetic.
-
anyone who thinks facts are more important than cartoons
Do you really not understand that you can convey facts by cartoon?
-
Ive got it, this is a trick question,
Carbon dioxide produces acidic atmospheres !
What do i win ?
Mars and venus have similar percentages of co2 yet venus is far denser and has larger ammounts therefore. Venus is heated by this greenhouse effect yet mars with this low ammount of co2 is cool. I know venus is closer, but mars recieves 50 % of earths radiation and its atmosphere us not screened of visuble solar radiation in any way (exept long wave IR) One can only summise that low densities of co2 have a negligable effect.
-
Carbon dioxide produces acidic atmospheres !
What do i win ?
A chance to say which definition of "acid" you are using.
-
That's a quarter as many glaciers as cows, by your arithmetic.
Einstein was asked to comment on a paper signed by 100 Nazi professors denouncing his work. He replied "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient."
Anyway, you can't compare Suffolk (where the glaciers may never have reached) with Canada (where they still are).
-
Do you really not understand that you can convey facts by cartoon?
And a fair amount of bullshit too. I wouldn't recommend the biophysics of anvil impact, as demonstrated by Tom and Jerry, as a basis for factory safety.
-
I wouldn't recommend the biophysics of anvil impact, as demonstrated by Tom and Jerry, as a basis for factory safety.
And once again, that's a strawman, isn't it?
Why persist in using logical fallacies?
Is it because you have nothing better to offer?
Einstein was asked to comment on a paper signed by 100 Nazi professors denouncing his work. He replied "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient."
It is true that, if I had said that no glacier was doing well, you would (sort of) have a point.
But neither I , nor anyone else, did.
So, it's another strawman.
BTW, it was you who suggested that counting the 4 while ignoring all the other cows in the world was a problem.
Why didn't you realise the same issue applies to glaciers?
-
I haven't discounted any glaciers. The particular one in question is not "doing well", if by that you mean growing.
Whilst Constable certainly studied meteorology (as far as was possible at the time) his cloudscapes cannot be considered representative of East Anglian skies, any more than Holbein's portrait of Henry VIII represents the effects of alcoholism and syphilis. Art is not science.
-
Still waiting for the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that we have raised the amount of water in the air by a third.
-
One thing that everyone seems to be missing is, CO2 is not mono-directional in terms of IR. In other words, if CO2 and other greenhouse gases can trap heat from the earth, they should also be able to trap heat from the sun; block solar heating. The earth gets its the majority of its heat from the sun each day. If this is absorbed and deflected by CO2, there is less to heat to escape from the earth at night. CO2 does not care where the IR comes from.
As an analogy, cloud cover, caused by water, works as a two way valve. If it is cloudy during the day, less solar heat reaches the surface during the day. While at night, a cloud cover can prevent excessive cooling compared to a clear night. A good example is the desert where less daily cloud cover causes extremes between night and day. CO2 should be a thermal moderator.
This two way valve affect could explain why the models are always higher than reality; exaggerated. A model that assumes a one way CO2 valve, could lead to that an overly ambitious conclusion.
The CO2 cover should also act like a sponge in the sense that at thermal saturation, adding more water'CO2 to the sponge, will cause water;CO2 to leak out the other side. The CO2 should have a saturation point, where all energy levels are full, and the CO2 starts to drip IR from the other side. CO2 cannot absorb and deflect infinite energy. Since the sun is the big dog, it will hand off a saturated CO2 sponge to the earth at night, more so than the earth hands off a saturated sponge to the sun, the next morning. I hope the models take this into account or else they will be too high.
-
The thermal moderator concept is worth studying as we do have reasonably good day and night temperature records for hot deserts for the last 100 years or so. Whatever the mean, a significant influence of CO2 should reduce the range.
Even so, you would have a problem separating the data from water content. Clouds do appear over deserts, they just don't precipitate. But the hottest and coldest temperatures occur in the absence of clouds, so just plotting range against date should show some underlying correlation with CO2 concentration.
-
One thing that everyone seems to be missing is, CO2 is not mono-directional in terms of IR. In other words, if CO2 and other greenhouse gases can trap heat from the earth, they should also be able to trap heat from the sun; block solar heating. The earth gets its the majority of its heat from the sun each day. If this is absorbed and deflected by CO2, there is less to heat to escape from the earth at night. CO2 does not care where the IR comes from.
True that CO2 doesn't care where the IR comes from, but it still matters.
Most of the energy that comes from the sun is in the visible region of the EM spectrum (to which CO2 is transparent). Most of the energy that radiates from the Earth is in the IR spectrum (some of which the CO2 absorbs).
Here is a diagram that I found online that shows this (CO2 absorbs at about 3 µM, 4 µM, and 15 µM)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
I did a web search for "solar IR output" to get some numbers, and this quote came up from Wikipedia
In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth's surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).
The amount of solar IR in sunlight is considerable. My guess are sun spots will black body radiate at higher wavelength than solar flairs. Sun spot activity might play a role in this.
I got this idea of the two wave CO2 IR valve from insulated windows. They can keep the heat in during the winter and the heat out doing the summer. They work in the direction of the thermal gradient which flips each day on the earth.
My guess is the Sun will saturate the green house gas IR sponge during the day; all the possible energy levels are full. This will allow early evening IR to leak out faster, than it will later in the evening. In the morning, the IR sponge is no longer saturated. This blocks the solar IR for s short time in the early morning, but the IR sponge quickly becomes saturated.
Since the earth is rotating, we have a moving IR green house gas sponge affect to complicate the two way valve.analysis. I am not sure how lateral affects can be modeled or the degree of leaking neat the edges.
-
One thing that everyone seems to be missing is, CO2 is not mono-directional in terms of IR.
No, we aren't missing it.
The Sun emits light, to which CO2 is transparent.
The Earth emits IR to which CO2 is not transparent.
That makes CO2 act as a (sort of) one way valve.
If you really haven't understood that point, it could easily explain why you are not on the side of the consensus.
If, on the other hand, you do understand it, but choose to ignore it, you are trolling.
Which is it?
-
My guess is the Sun will saturate the green house gas IR sponge
That's just not how it works.