MURTHA: Unparalleled Perfidy(IBD)

[chefmike]

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

[guyone]

That's a repeat.

[corbomite]

better do everything they say or else the world will end

[trish]

WMC says,

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.

So the theorem you were remembering actually says (if we’ve got it right now) that the Earth’s surface temperature is a logarithmic function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not at all the same as saying the CO2 concentrations are logarithmic in time. Notice, however, the principle (now that we understand it) cannot be cited to argue against temporary exponential rises in the CO2 concentrations. You agree, right? Because the theorem you were remembering says TEMPERATURE (not CO2 ) grows logarithmically with the AMOUNT OF CO2 in the atmosphere (not time). It’s now time to reconsider: the chart that has been our bone of contention, might very well show the exponential portion (from 1800-2000) of a logistic curve. The evidence suggests it, common sense suggests it, and there’s no theoretical obstacle as you once thought there was.

Now logarithmic functions are unbounded above. This means that as more CO2 is put into the atmosphere the temperature rises too. Pick any number, no matter how large, and logarithmic growth guarantees that if we double the amount of CO2 often enough the temperature will get above that number. Right? That’s the way logs work. Thus we see that the logarithmic rule as you’ve cited it above contradicts what we’ve previously agreed on concerning the existence of a saturation point for the concentration of CO2.

Something’s gotta go. My guess is that it’s the saturation rule that is technically wrong. However, it can be fudged in the sense that, the log function eventually grows so slowly that temperature only rises immeasurably if the CO2 concentrations are high enough.

Okay. So far, so good. My guess is you don’t have too many quibbles with the above.

Here’s where we part company. From what you learned, you say 380 ppm (.038%) is a high enough concentration of CO2 to capture nearly all the back radiation of the Earth’s surface and that more CO2 will not cause temperatures to rise appreciably. Perhaps, but then why is it so easy for satellites to discern the surface features of the Earth in infrared? If all that heat radiation were being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted in every direction, satellites would still of course see the radiation re-emitted by the homogeneously distributed CO2 gas. But those emissions would no longer carry any information about the Earth’ surface. Instead, plenty of infrared energy, directly emitted by the warm Earth finds its way into space and can readily be observed with little to no interference from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is energy that would be absorbed if more CO2 were present. Using your metaphor…the window shade is still too thin…in fact, we can see right through it!

[White_Male_Canada]

"Doubling CO2 will not double the amount of globlal warming so the IPCC models utilize +feedbacks to get the results they require." WMC

And what about methane and the other greenhouse gases? More piss poor science and selective presentation from White_Male_Can't do science.

What about it ? Would you ban all cows from the planet, or do what some kooks suggest, install mufflers on their asses?

You`re a raving lunatic who`s mind is closed. If you don`t know the UN`s IPCC is adding +Feddbacks to get the results they desire then you`re a gore-ite.

I`ll get to algore and expose that deceiver a little later.

[trish]

WMC

'just checking in to see if you responded to my last post. guess not...i'll check in later.

[trish]

on the side issue of cow farts. that methane, as is the CO2 in carbonized drinks, is part of the repiratory cycle; i.e. it not like the megatons of carbon that's been buried for eons and only now is being released. i wouldn't be installing those mufflers just yet. still one has to remember the feedback cycles are delicate. after photosynthesis appeared the atmosphere filled with oxygen with high enough concentrations to poison many anerobic life-forms. could cows do the same with methane? could their methane be the needle that breaks the camel's back? Perhaps...but if you want to save the camel, you don't worry about needles. You lighten its load.

[White_Male_Canada]

"Doubling CO2 will not double the amount of globlal warming so the IPCC models utilize +feedbacks to get the results they require." WMC

And what about methane and the other greenhouse gases? More piss poor science and selective presentation from White_Male_Can't do science.

What about it ? Would you ban all cows from the planet, or do what some kooks suggest, install mufflers on their asses?

You`re a raving lunatic who`s mind is closed. If you don`t know the UN`s IPCC is adding +Feddbacks to get the results they desire then you`re a gore-ite.

I`ll get to algore and expose that deceiver a little later.

Missed my point totally, either because you are ignorant of recent science, or as more likely trying to twist things again and avoid the question. Who mentioned cows, I certainly didn't? Another case of you imagining/inventing things again, eh "Prof.". Your line I quoted, and the links I provided, clearly pointed to what I was referring to: increasing global temperatures will cause + feedbacks which we have no control over, thats what the term + feedback means. Look it up! I know this is recent science, and that you've not done any real science for over 10 years, only spin it, but thats no excuse. The IPCC certainly know about + feedbacks, even if you don't, thats why they are now incorporating into their new calculations, and perhaps thats why their arguments are more believed in than yours are. Like I said, more piss poor out-of-date science from the false Prof..

P.S. I bet Al Gore is trembling in his shoes, NOT! They do say that it takes one to know one, so if Al Gore is a deceiver, then your more likely to know than me, eh "Prof."? Like I said, anyone who thinks that nature is simple and that we know it all is a fool, and that is exactly what you are!

You`re looking more and more the zealot with every post.

I notice you`ve abandoned the man-made CO2 will destroy the planet arguement and now shift to methane concentrations due to +Feedbacks that cannot empircally be proven.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC

'just checking in to see if you responded to my last post. guess not...i'll check in later.

the Earth’s surface temperature is a logarithmic function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not at all the same as saying the CO2 concentrations are logarithmic in time. Notice, however, the principle (now that we understand it) cannot be cited to argue against temporary exponential rises in the CO2 concentrations. You agree, right? Because the theorem you were remembering says TEMPERATURE (not CO2 ) grows logarithmically with the AMOUNT OF CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 change and global temperatures global. Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.


A temporary exponential rise in CO2? Perhaps, if mount pinatubo explodes..

We`re getting too deep into the physics of CO2 and I`m not a physice prof. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%. What that translates into C takes a large equation to figure out, I`ll get back to you unless you have the answer right now.

Now logarithmic functions are unbounded above. This means that as more CO2 is put into the atmosphere the temperature rises too.

Not necessarily. The Medieval warming period was hotter than today but CO2 concentrations were less. So the relationship is difficult to ascertain.

why is it so easy for satellites to discern the surface features of the Earth in infrared? If all that heat radiation were being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted in every direction, satellites would still of course see the radiation re-emitted by the homogeneously distributed CO2 gas. But those emissions would no longer carry any information about the Earth’ surface. Instead, plenty of infrared energy, directly emitted by the warm Earth finds its way into space and can readily be observed with little to no interference from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is energy that would be absorbed if more CO2 were present. Using your metaphor…the window shade is still too thin…in fact, we can see right through it!

That is because CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm, CO2 does not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy and CO2 only absorbs a narrow bandwidth(See Wavelength/Absorbtion graph above).
Also , what specific IR measurements are you referring to ?


In the end it CO2 can increase temperatures but only to a very minor extent. Exponential CO2 is somewhat of a fallacy. Doubling CO2 conjecture would only lead to minor increases in temps over a very long period of time simply because doubling CO2 cannot be done overnight and would equate to only about 0.5C. The UN`s IPCC knows this and must add + Feedbacks to achieve their desired results.

[trish]

You’re the one who is claiming temperature is logarithmic in the amount of CO2, you say it here:

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.

I haven’t yet proposed a quantitative model between temperature and CO2 concentrations and certainly not a linear one. The models we’ve been discussing are the ones you’ve brought to the discussion. It’s true that the log model you mention above doesn’t take into account seasonal fluctuations and noise from other factors but many first approximations ignore minor details like that and can still be valuable. So now I need to know: are you sticking to your proposal that temperature is logarithmic in CO2 concentration or abandoning it?

Before we can make any further progress you need to make clear just what it is that logarithmic in what? It’s not deep physics. Just clear communication.

1. Is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere logarithmic in time as you claim here

...CO2 is logarithmic

?

2. Is Radiation absorption logarithmic in time as you claim here…

Radiation absorption is logarithmic.

?

3. Is temperature logarithmic in the concentration of CO2 as you’ve most recently claim?

If you go with (1) there will be a moment in time when the CO2 concentration becomes an absurd two million parts per million…simply because logarithms rise without bound.

If you go with (2) tell me exactly what aspect of radiation absorption you’re measuring so we can all be sure what (2) really claims.

If you go with (3) you are committed to saying temperature always rises with the concentration of CO2 because logarithms are increasing functions.