MURTHA: Unparalleled Perfidy(IBD)

[trish]

WMC,

are you claiming

...CO2 is logarithmic

or are you claiming

Radiation absorption is logarithmic.

or both?

though logarithmic growth is slow, it still goes to infinity. Given that there's only a finite amount of CO2 that can be produced on Earth, it cannot be produced nor accumulated logarithmically for an indefinite period of time. A more conservative guess is that human beings will release CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as they can until fossil fuels run out; because of the rapidity of the release CO2 will accumulate at a rate commensurate with the rate at which we release it. Since the supply is finite i'm guessing the accumulation rate will be logistic; i.e exponential until supplies of fossil fuels become stressed, at which point the curve will rise asymptotically toward a ceiling. Not only is this speculation more conservative than your claim of logarithmic growth, it's consistent with the accumulation curve as we now know it.

Radiation absorption is a different matter...if i understand you, the logarithmic model doesn't kick in until there's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to achieve "saturation"; i.e full absorption of all the available energy (in the appropriate CO2 absorption bands) that's being radiated back into the CO2 blanket by the Earth's surface. Honest question: what is the concentration of CO2 required for full absorption? How close is the to 380 ppm?

[muhmuh]

Honest question: what is the concentration of CO2 required for full absorption? How close is the to 380 ppm?

probably very far above it and more like what youd find on venus

[guyone]

Have you ever given a thought that the debated increase in CO2 seeping into our atmosphere could be due to carbonation? A lot of people drink soda...and that's a lot of CO2 drifting into our atmosphere at an alarming rate...is that Coke really worth it?

[White_Male_Canada]

though logarithmic growth is slow, it still goes to infinity. Given that there's only a finite amount of CO2 that can be produced on Earth, it cannot be produced nor accumulated logarithmically for an indefinite period of time. A more conservative guess is that human beings will release CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as they can until fossil fuels run out; because of the rapidity of the release CO2 will accumulate at a rate commensurate with the rate at which we release it.

Perhaps, but only if there were no -Feedbacks.

Since the supply is finite i'm guessing the accumulation rate will be logistic; i.e exponential until supplies of fossil fuels become stressed, at which point the curve will rise asymptotically toward a ceiling. Not only is this speculation more conservative than your claim of logarithmic growth, it's consistent with the accumulation curve as we now know it.

CO2 cannot be exponential merely because it fails to accumulate in the atmosphere due to - feedbacks and undetermined sinks.

Radiation absorption is a different matter...if i understand you, the logarithmic model doesn't kick in until there's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to achieve "saturation"; i.e full absorption of all the available energy (in the appropriate CO2 absorption bands) that's being radiated back into the CO2 blanket by the Earth's surface. Honest question: what is the concentration of CO2 required for full absorption? How close is the to 380 ppm?

It is the CO2 molecule that reaches a saturation point. It is not like a giant balloon that can keep stretching the more water you put into it.CO2 peaks at 14 micrometres. The energy released by a CO2 molecule is omnidirectional. So naturally some of it escapes the atmosphere. Absorbed radiation cannot resurect itself. It either becomes kinetic or potential energy. So there`s probably a chemical reaction , emission or quenching.

IR and energy from the sun is being absorbed and deflected by much more than CO2 alone. What the IPCC is doing is adding +feedbacks to their models in order to receive the results they wish for.

[White_Male_Canada]

Have you ever given a thought that the debated increase in CO2 seeping into our atmosphere could be due to carbonation? A lot of people drink soda...and that's a lot of CO2 drifting into our atmosphere at an alarming rate...is that Coke really worth it?

We`ll have to ban these too :

[guyone]

Oh my God! We'll all be on fire!

[trish]

So you're telling me, WMC, that because there are feedbacks and sinks, CO2 will not accumulate logistically, because the logistic curve begins with an exponential rise. Ok, i'll bite. But the supply of CO2 is never-the-less finite and so the accumulation curve will have to be asymptotically flat, right. logarithms are not asympotically flat...they climb to infinity. So do we agree that the concentration of CO2 is NOT logarithmic in time...or are you sticking to the proposition that it IS logarithmic? Just taking this step by step.

by the way, the CO2 in carbonated drinks and fire extinquishers is taken from the carbon cycle. bottlers don't generally burn fossil fuels for the purpose of extracting the CO2 for their drinks. Most alchoholic beverages are carbonated by organic processes. The CO2 injected into soft drinks is generated by the decomposition of weak carbolic acid, which in turn is produced when water dissolves the CO2 found in the atmosphere. funny joke though, made me laugh.

[trish]

Okay, let's continue.
You say,

It is the CO2 molecule that reaches a saturation point.

This is true. It makes sense to say a single molecule reaches saturation when the electron shell is in its (relatively) highest energy state and can’t absorb any more radiation. But whatever amount of energy (of the appropriate wavelengths) one CO2 molecule can absorb, another will also have that same capacity. Hence two molecules will absorb twice the energy that one will absorb. In the end you see, it’s the concentration of CO2 that determines how much of the back radiation the CO2 gas will absorb. When the concentration is high enough, all of the back radiation is absorbed. At this point your shade analogy kicks in. Concentrations of CO2 beyond this “threshold” will have no more warming effect. So the question remains: what is the threshold concentration? Is it anywhere near 380 ppm?

[White_Male_Canada]

Okay, let's continue.
You say,

It is the CO2 molecule that reaches a saturation point.

This is true. It makes sense to say a single molecule reaches saturation when the electron shell is in its (relatively) highest energy state and can’t absorb any more radiation. But whatever amount of energy (of the appropriate wavelengths) one CO2 molecule can absorb, another will also have that same capacity. Hence two molecules will absorb twice the energy that one will absorb. In the end you see, it’s the concentration of CO2 that determines how much of the back radiation the CO2 gas will absorb. When the concentration is high enough, all of the back radiation is absorbed. At this point your shade analogy kicks in. Concentrations of CO2 beyond this “threshold” will have no more warming effect. So the question remains: what is the threshold concentration? Is it anywhere near 380 ppm?

From what I`ve learned there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.,ergo logarithmic. Added to that are –feedbacks. Doubling CO2 will not double the amount of globlal warming so the IPCC models utilize +feedbacks to get the results they require.

[guyone]

You got to admit this...WMC is pretty smart!