posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:00 PM
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by die_another_day
- I am including water only in the heat sink equations. If the increase in temperature is coming from carbon dioxide levels, as proposed by
the IPCC, then water would not be applicable to calculate the amount of heat produced by a change on carbon dioxide levels. It would be applicable to
calculate the energy required to change the temperature of the biosphere, as would all matter in that biosphere. The reason I did not include methane,
SO2, etc. in that calculation was that their contribution would be insignificant.
Animal is arguing that I should have included the heating contribution from all greenhouse gases. And I may just take him up on that, although I doubt
he will like the result.
- 0.01& is the same as 0.0001, just as 100% is the same as 1 or 50& is the same as 0.5.
- I multiplied 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K by 1,000,000,000, not 1,000,000. The reason is that the result was in kJ/km³•°K. One km is equal to
1000 m, there fore one km³ is equal to 1000³ m, or 1,000,000,000 m.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
[edit on 12/1/2009 by TheRedneck]
Oh ok, part 3 i just missed the k
I still don't get why you decided to add the ocean... Why not do the ground as well?
Realize this: CO2 is only a small greenhouse gas.
Water vapor is the most significant, but you can't stop that from happening right?
This is from the table that I have:
Contribution to global warming (excluding water):
CO2 50%. (Water can be 0-500% relative to CO2)
CH4, N20, O3, and CFCs can do the other 50%
CFCs are 10000-15000 more effective than CO2, it is 100% manmade, can't be destroyed, but we can stop it from increasing.
#2, I still don't get why you multiplied the amount of energy that reaches the sun by 0.01% which is the increase in CO2 levels.
What does that give you? It doesn't give you the amount of light trapped by CO2.
[edit on 12/1/2009 by die_another_day]