Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

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.

Does this help?

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.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_atmosphere

The source author's email is available on this page if you wanted ask any questions...rain.aos.wisc.edu...

How much Infrared radiation does the sun produce?

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

First Source
en.wikipedia.org...-1
Original Source
rredc.nrel.gov...

All of the absorption bands are in the infrared range of the spectrum, which the sun contributes very little to

At my estimate it is about 52% of the light the sun emits...hardly "very little"...

Here's hoping that you follow the math and science wherever it leads you....


[edit on 9-12-2009 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11

It may indeed help, thank you.

The problem is not just how much infrared light is coming form the sun, but how much of that light is in the three 'bands' that carbon dioxide absorbs. It is invisible to the rest of the wavelengths, even the infrared ones. So far I have not been able to determine precisely the width of these bands, so any calculations I would do would still be very rough approximations.

Thus my explanation that carbon dioxide absorbs very little of the incoming radiation. It doesn't absorb much even of just the infrared spectrum.

TheRedneck

reply to post by maybereal11


You not only have to calculate the amount of IR from the Sun, but you also have calculate the light rebounding off the ground.

Light from the Sun passes through the CO2 and then hits Earth. Once it hits Earth it's wavelength changes and reflects back to the sky, and then CO2 absorbs it. The key is when the light hits the Earth and other objects, it changes to a wavelength that can't pass through CO2.

That is why TheRednecks calculations are off,, he didn't include the rebound, and other things.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by TheRedneck


As I explained previously the sun heats the surface of the eath which re-emits at much longer wavelength as blackbody radiation. CO2 doesnt absorb radiation below about 2 microns which makes up the majority of the energy coming from the Sun. Other gases do absorb below 2 micron however.

CO2 absorbs approx 20% of this radiation from approx 2 micron up to 15 micron wavelength in 3 distinct bands. When it re-emits the energy gained a large proportion of this goes back to the surface of the planet.

So in effect CO2 acts as a heat reflector. As concentrations increase the heat retention effect increases roughly logarithmically.

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....

reply to post by audas


When somebody makes mistakes the sensible route is to assist them in gaining knowledge and point out where they have gone wrong not ridicule them.

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...

I got slapped on the wrist for this "1 line post", so I will try to make amends.

First, I misspelled his name, and I apologize to him for that. It's Plimer not Plummer. My bad.

Second, I wasn't really trying to denigrate Dr. Plimer, he does well enough doing that for himself. Dr. Plimer is a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. His published papers include none having anything to do with Climate, Weather, or anything to do with anything other than rocks and mining. He is also an outspoken critic of the Creationist viewpoint and has had controversial debates with their spokepeople (his tactics were deplored by his fellow skeptics) and even sued them (the Creationists that is, unsuccessfully) for false marketing claims.

I was really laughing at mcguyvermanolo for assigning credibility on this topic to Plimer. Sorry, but I snorted my Pepsi through my nose when I read his post.

He is however, a Scientist, and should know how science works. His foray into the human caused climate change debate was, however, particularly unfortunate. His book 'Heaven and Earth' is filled with page after page of bad science, and illogical arguments.

That his specialty is not Climate Science is not damning though Plimer claims his critics are climate elitists. His book is reviewed here by an Astronomer who is quite capable of seeing the fallacies being pushed, so it just isn't a case of elitists rejecting an outsider's view - it is a case of Scientists calling him to task for embarrassing himself.

Notice that in the review, the Astronomer relates one of Dr. Plimer's more brilliant efforts:

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.

And he gets all the science surrounding CO2 completely wrong too. As a scientist, Dr. Plimer is remarkably anti-science. Using him as a reliable source for information about Climate Science is the text book case of LOL. Now if you want to know about "Manganoan garnet rocks associated with the Broken Hill Pb-Zn-Ag orebody" and "Kasolite from the British Empire Mine", I expect Dr. Ian Plimer is just the man you want to see.

[edit on 10/12/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 10/12/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 10/12/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thanks for clarifying that...

Here is some very relevant discussion to your OP and CO2/Infrared radiation and various models.
wiki.answers.com...

Ditto here..
cdiac.ornl.gov...
cdiac.ornl.gov...

I am an intuitive thinker, average at math, reasonable with junior physics, great with general systems/correlations....I often have a strong "intuitive" grasp on how a system works before understanding the exact mechanisms.

Anyways...this passage spoke to me concerning CO2...

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]

I am going to make a series of odd statements...

I believe that Man-Made CO2 emissions are detrimental to the well being of our current civilization. (Human Beings)

I believe that man-made "industrial" CO2 is also a "natural" byproduct of our current course of civilization. Along with everything else we produce.

Otherwise...we may view ourselves as "outside" of nature, but to an omnipotent viewer our civilization is no more complex or unnatural than an ant colony is to us...all of our "pollution", nuclear weapons etc. stem from an evolutionary process that falls entirely within the scope of "Natural"...We are not distinct from the rest of the natural world.

The distinction we make between ourselves and the rest of nature and evolution on this planet is a nothing more than a grand conceit.

Within the scheme of "nature" our species was afforded an interest in technological innovation...like a crow that collects shiny objects for it's nest...as well as the ability to reason and make decisions as a community that will determine the quality of life and span of time that our species flourishes. Bee colonies, wolf packs etc..on a huge scale.

who knows, maybe our natural system has self-regulating mechanisms to decrease populations of a given species when they are overly successful and widespread as ourselves...who is to say that global warming, even war, is nothing more than the natural systems programmed strategy for population control when a given species grows too fast.

Anyways...we are part of the natural system...not outside of it...and that includes pollution and every technology we pride ourselves on...to an omnipotent viewer, our travels to space might not be any more grand or trivial than perhaps a an ovary swelling for the first time until an egg bursts forth etc...

..that same natural system also affords us the ability to change our survival strategy. Our debates are part of the natural system.

Carbon exchange is a closed cycle. What we do by sourcing "fossil" fuels is add to the closed loop equation. Carbon that is reserved from the past and for the future is being sourced by us and put into the system in a sudden gush...is this natural? Well, yes in a world with humans..we are conceited animals within the system, so yes...

but because it is “natural” doesn't mean our species will not suffer from it..nature isn't always thinking about us first...we need to get past that conceit...our unusual additions to the carbon cycle will likely cause nature to respond in a similarly natural way and natures response plan ...unusual warming..will likely have dire consequences for us Humans...nature will be just fine though..it always is...that is the nature of nature

In short...we are injecting unusual amounts of carbon into the system…fossil fuels from the distant past. It is a natural occurrence on a planet where humans have chosen to live this way. But “natural” does not equate to our survival...ask a tsunami or hurricane survivor how much nature favors humans...conceit…we are not God’s favorites in the universe…we are but one expression of life in a universe filled with it.

Nature also afforded us the ability to reason and ability to change and the world will still be 100% "natural" with or without us

If we are to survive we need to abandon our conceit that we are outside the natural system...and then abandon the conceit that we are God's favorites...and then return to the well reasoned perspective of our ancestors who examined the natural world and developed strategies that both greatly respected the natural system and capitalized on it….with an instinctual understanding they were part of the natural order, not outside of it.

You can pretend you are not part of the natural system…you just cannot be successful in the natural system with that mindset…in fact it is the quickest route to extinction.

What we are doing with the Carbon Cycle is reckless and dumb to me...for humans...nature doesn't care... nature/physics/the universe is always an infinite amount of steps ahead of us.....and it has some nonnegotiable "control mechanisms" that we should be respectful of. We are a conceited bunch.

a bit of a ramble, but this is it for while. I don't intend on engaging in the GW - AGW anymore...I will ride it out with the rest of my species whichever way we go.


[edit on 10-12-2009 by maybereal11]

I posted a formula on the other thread in response to Redneck...but will include it here as well for discussion...

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[2]. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

Hopefully this equation will be of use to you….it does not originate from the IPCC/CRU, and it’s source goes as far to say…

The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate.

Source here
www.agu.org...

the equation is available with original context as a graphic on this page.
en.wikipedia.org...-1

Also see here...www.john-daly.com...
the formula predicts 15% less temperature increase than the IPCC model you distrust.

Now you can incorporate it into your calculations?

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.

reply to post by maybereal11


The links provided are certainly interesting but don't really explain why experimentation cannot show what effect CO2 has as an "insulating blanket". Here would be a possible experiment:

Seal two different glass tubes: one with ordinary air and the other with extra CO2. Shine infrared light through both... the exact same amount of light through both tubes in a controlled environment. Then, measure the temperature difference. That should tell the exact effect of CO2 at each level.

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 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.

Starred.

But can you expand on that a little please Mel.

Originally posted by budski
Starred.

But can you expand on that a little please Mel.

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.

Asking for these experiments to be done is like proposing the use of a kite to examine the properties of lightning.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by melatonin]

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.

What mel is afraid to 'expand on,' is that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the adding layers of window shade), rather than exponential.

2X CO2 does not generate a 2X temperature response.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Absolutely amazing work!!! So the only thing that can truly raise the temp of the earth is the sun itself.

S&F for you!!

To the OP, How does trapped radiation affect all this? With greenhouse condition is it not the trapped radiation that creates the increase temperatures? We also see that reflected radiation cools the planet, such as in the case of the last little ice age. As something, and in this case I think volcanic eruptions, reduced the radiation to the planet for a short time it provided the lower temperatures for ice fields to increase exponentially, and since ice reflects radiation it further added to the cooling effect of the planet. We then entered a small ice age that took a very long time to get rid of since the lower temperatures created reflecting ice that just continued to add to the problem.

With a greenhouse condition we see the opposite with LESS radiation than what is normal being reflected back into space and so temperatures increase along with gasses that prevent even more of the normal reflection and we enter a very hot time period.

So I think the calculations should be based off reflected radiation since absorption and production are somewhat constant and deviation from earth’s normal radiation reflection is what increases or decreases temperatures from what would be considered an average range.

So how much reflection of all the sun’s radiation creates the temperatures we considered average? Also I see this as a sliding scale in the more is reflected the faster we cool and the more retained the faster we heat up while your math is based on constants.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by Xtrozero]

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?

TheRedneck

Albedo...

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.[6] The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%.[7] This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.

Great link here with associated formulas
en.wikipedia.org...

The average earth albedo number of 30%...
Primary source used in Wikipedia is from 2001...so 9 years less population increase, CO2, and asphalt, deforestation etc. But still a century of industrialization, so slightly biased to your favor, but a fair number to use in my estimation.

Here is the original source fro the 30% from 2001...non IPCC
www.agu.org...

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., [8].)

Also here is a useful link to the MODIS sattelite that monitors earths Albedo...

en.wikipedia.org...

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....

Come with the appropriate formula to account for the rotation of the earth...Or Shut the Ef up.

Mind you...I am in your camp of beliefs, but can't understand that kind of attitude.

I have found the formula that incorporates your concern, but I'd rather you hunt it down and post it...otherwise you are wasting space here.

Redneck is building a climate model specific to CO2 from scratch. If you are not looking to contribute, go someplace else.

FYI ....The world of Science does not care what degree you have, or even how old you are
...
Teen Builds Basement Nuclear Reactor
www.popsci.com...
Cost: $3,500
Time: 2 Years
Itching for a challenging science project, two years ago Thiago Olson decided to build a small nuclear reactor. He had limited funds, limited space in his garage, and little engineering know-how. After all, he was only 15.
With a year of research and another of building, Olson pulled it off, joining a club of fewer than 20 amateurs in the world

Bravo and yet another bump. It's calculations like this that make it clear.

Great work and thank you big big.

I'll read some of the rufuting posts after this but I just had to say great work first.

I cannot grasp the calculations that you laid out so well. I would end up in the loony bin if I tried. The responses are what I had to go by, and from all that I can gather. Bravo! Awesome piece of work here my friend. I tried to express my opinion on the matter on a few threads, but I certainly couldn't have devised such an incredible way to make my point as this!