0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Not too happy about this conclusion. "if, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models."
I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas. We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically. If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat. If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened. Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.
I suggest you read the examples that I quoted. When UV and IR light hits water it is converted to heat because water absorbs in the UV and IR region and is converted to heat because there is MASS in the oceans.In the case of gas there is little mass, so it has to re-radiate, mainly. There is too little mass to take in the heat...
How else do you explain the paper that I quoted showing you that radiation specific to the CO2 absorption spectrum bounces back from the moon the earth?(meaning cooling of the atmosphere by the CO2)
perhaps it will help if you read and quote my whole post... and come up with the balance sheet that I have been asking everyone about.
JP saysThat includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.henry saysthere are no such remarks from meplease clarify?
damocles says I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.henry@damoclesNevermind, you completely fail to understand the argument that I make. I will try to explain it again to you from another angle. Check this graph:...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINThe red is what you get on your head. The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it as it bounced back to earth from the moon. That is the what the "technical" paper was about. All these gases are GHG's, agreed?Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling. Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas. The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments - by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 2 and 4 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming. Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare... If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?
Damocles says ....the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position..........be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.....henry@damoclesSo, do you not agree with me that if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness? quite literally, at night, I think!
Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus.
Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory. Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring) facts.
Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
As to your 2nd statement: you seem to want to claim that I have not provided good evidence to the contrary of the current theory I put it to you that I did provide this evidence.1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this forum - if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.2) In my first post on the first page, I have shown to you what my own results show: it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle. I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again, ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINit is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950. I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes...please. Have a happy cooling off time.
I thought you were the clever one hereperhaps damocles is the clever guy:he remains silent if he does not know the answers....