It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by truthquest
Cannot simple experiments determine with a fair level of accuracy how much heat is absorbed by CO2 by shining an exact amount of light through an exact amount of CO2 and then measuring the temperature change?
This is where the problem comes in. Carbon dioxide absorbs very little light coming from the sun. All of the absorption bands are in the infrared range of the spectrum, which the sun contributes very little to.
Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.
Bright sunlight provides an irradiance of about 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared light, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet light
All of the absorption bands are in the infrared range of the spectrum, which the sun contributes very little to
Originally posted by rnaa
Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
Great Job, indeed. Kudos.
Since the Thought Police are searching for anyone who disagrees with the policies of the Federal Government, I would recommend that everyone Flag and Star this and get it out anyway they can.
Gore and the Rothschilds' milking machine won't like this one bit.
Look up Ian Plimer, Australian Geologist, see how far his press release got.
Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, Ian, heh, heh, Plummer, heh, snort, heh, sorry, snort, heh, heh, Ian Plummer?, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, sorry, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, stop, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, I can't stand it, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh...
Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.
It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.
Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?
A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as emissions from solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels. [RMC]
Some things are beyond an online forum. One of those is the radiative forcing argument. There are only two ways I have found to calculate this: use solutions that have been performed by the IPCC/CRU (which I distrust) or use a statistical model. My present bent is toward the statistical model, but the model has rapidly turned into a massive exercise in potential confusion.
For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations can often be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, the simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide is:
Delta F = 5.35 x ln C/C(0) W m(to the power of -2)
where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate.
The authors express the view that the IPCC estimates "have not necessarily been based on consistent model conditions". They carry out calculations on the spectra of the main greenhouse gases by all three of the recognised radiative transfer schemes, line by line (LBL), narrow-based model (NBM) and broad-based model (BBM). They calculate the Global Mean Instantaneous Clear Sky Radiative Forcing for 1995, for atmospheric carbon dioxide, relative to an assumed "pre-industrial" level of 280ppmv, as 1.759Wm-2 for LBL, 1.790Wm-2 for NBM and 1.800Wm-2 for BBM; a mean of 1.776Wm-2 with BBM 2.3 % greater than LBL.
Originally posted by melatonin
Those sort of experiments were done around 150 years ago. Try looking up Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius for the basics.
We've moved on a bit since then.
Originally posted by budski
But can you expand on that a little please Mel.
Originally posted by melatonin
Not sure what there is to expand on, lol.
Those were greats of science who laid the basis for our physical understanding of climate. Fourier first proposed that atmospheric gases would trap heat in the atmosphere. John Tyndall did something similar to what was proposed above in the 1860s by experimentally observing the radiative properties of various gases. Arrhenius extended this knowledge of greenhouse gases to make the prediction of warming from excessive release of CO2.
Thank you for the tip! Now, since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, do you have any idea where I can get an averaged albedo value for the Earth?
Albedos of typical materials in visible light range from up to 90% for fresh snow, to about 4% for charcoal, one of the darkest substances. Deeply shadowed cavities can achieve an effective albedo approaching the zero of a blackbody. When seen from a distance, the ocean surface has a low albedo, as do most forests, while desert areas have some of the highest albedos among landforms. Most land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4. The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%. This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.
Our data imply an average terrestrial albedo of 0.297±0.005, which agrees with that from simulations based upon both changing snow and ice cover and satellite‐derived cloud cover (0.296±0.002).
The Earth's surface albedo is regularly estimated via Earth observation satellite sensors such as NASA's MODIS instruments onboard the Terra and Aqua satellites. As the total amount of reflected radiation cannot be directly measured by satellite, a mathematical model of the BRDF is used to translate a sample set of satellite reflectance measurements into estimates of directional-hemispherical reflectance and bi-hemispherical reflectance. (e. g., .)
Originally posted by audas
Why are people bothering with this ridiculous thread - this maniac is claiming the earth is receiving heat from the sun on a flat plane - my god - you wouldn't make it past first grade on that assumption.
Have you ever seen a spit roast with only one side cooked ? Thats right the earth is spinning at almost 1700 kilometers an hour - WHERE THE FK IS THAT IN YOUR CALCS....