reply to post by TheRedneck
Here is why you are totally wrong - enjoy.
The temperature rise is a gradual process, not isolated points of scale. Hence the calculations do not take into account the accumulative heat
process. Which in itself means that the hotter something is - the less energy required to raise it to a higher degree. How this of course drops off at
higher degrees - and of course is different for all materials.
You have calculated the increased temperature based on the absorptive capacity of the increased in Co2 - what happened to everything else ? Did it
just suddenly stop absorbing ? What happened to the stuff already there ? Is this no longer absorbing either ?!! Fail.
You then subtract the earth from the troposphere - sorry - but all this does is decrease the size of the absorptive area of the earth - which in
itself is an inverse exponential deductive equation - EPIC FAIL!! Although you kindly add back in the absorptive impact of the oceans.
You also decided to simply calculate radial calculation as though only a static face of the earth were facing the sun - it rotates and accumulates.
Hence the entire surface area of the extremity of the earth is an absorptive area - So recalculate based on the absorptive impact of the entire cubic
circumference of the earth -
If you were to calculate CORRECTLY and without a predetermined bias (thats how i KNOW you have no idea about science) then you would have a very
different result - in fact - according to your premise we would have all been boiled alive in about two seconds flat - your desperate attempts to
distort the facts have just made a mockery of all science.
The reality is far, far different. Only a TINY fraction of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth - there is a REASON why things are COLDER at
the POLES and hotter at the EQUATOR - where is this in your calculations - in other words the VAST majority of the heat from the sun is deflected
from the earth --
AND A HUGE QUANTITY IS RADIATED BACK INTO SPACE WHICH IS THE POINT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND THE POINT YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS ENTIRELY --!!!!!
Hence with a relatively steady sun the earth has fluctuated in temperature range fairly predictably over the millennium - so the the thing which you
NEED TO CALCULATE is in fact what this standard temperature fluctuation is - what are its trends and what is the trend we are in now - then assess the
impact of the .01% increase in fossil fuels on that temperature range because it is NOT the absorptive capacity of the earth from solar radiation
which has changed (we can keep on absorbing till we boil) rather it is our capacity to RETAIN HEAT - got that !!!!! How much more heat is being
retained in the earth by the increased GREEN HOUSE GASSES (ever worked why they are called green house gases and not solar panel gases ?!!)
In other words what you have calculated is simply the effect on
a pot of water by adding a pinch of salt - moronic - what you should be calculating is the rate of temperature rise on the pot of water when you place
a LID ON THE POT - as it is an accumulative, retained heat problem we are looking at - not merely the impact of increasing the heat absorbing capacity
of the atmosphere -
Hence you need to calculate how much faster will a pot of water (the earth) boil with a lid on it. Hence your calculations need to cover the following
With a steady pot temperature fluctuating within the realms of ice age - non - ice age- the current temperature fluctation which is outside this
normal range is due to the LID or .01% c02 increase.
However this still does not reflect the calculation because the lid (Co2) is accumulative, so we are slowly filling in the lid, and the more we fill
it in the faster it raises the temperature NOT a steady curve. (Consider the opposite such as pouring water out of a hole, the larger the hole the
faster the rate of loss - pure logic). Hence we need to calculate what the RATIO of Co2 accumulation is on heat trapping - and i think you will find
that this has been done AD NAUSEUM by some of the most powerful computers available to humanity - calculations so complex they run in the quadrillions
of terraflops per microsecond - CHAMP!
Having now pointed out how far off your thinking is I would also like to point out that you have IN FACT POINTED TO ANOTHER SOURCE OF AGWE - well done
- I am not aware that anyone has in fact calculated the increased absorptive impact of a denser atmosphere on AGW - so although you have absolutely no
idea what you are talking about - you have bya serendipitous miracle proven exactly the opposite of what you set out to prove and provided a new line
I must say though - I liked your spurious use of numbers - especially the random division of the volume by a factor of 10000 ??!!
Cheers - and keep on punching (even if it is waaaaaaay above your weight).
Here is a little test for you to help you UNDERSTAND - if Venus is 1.4 times closer to the sun, and the majority of the radiation and heat travels via
spectrum's which traverse the vacuum of space relatively easily at this short distance (earth included) - hence the inverse square law would imply
that it receiving twice the amount of radiation - (not withstanding the fact that it is significantly smaller in volume - your premise not mine -)
then it should have an average surface temperature of around 80 degrees but it does not - it is 500 - attributable to its carbon atmosphere - green
In fact earth without its atmosphere would stabilize out at about 25 degrees below its current average. (Roughly ) the point here is that the
atmosphere is our blanket - our lid - it is the ability of the earth to retain heat which is in question - rather its ability to release heat which is
of paramount importance - NOT - its ability to absorb heat.
[edit on 7-12-2009 by audas]
[edit on 7-12-2009 by audas]