It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 4
279
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM

Also, CO reforms into CO2 in the air, only remaining in the air for a relatively short time (couple months).

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:17 PM

Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:

1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K

1.012 kJ/kg·°K · 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³·°K

1.2144 kJ/m³·°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³·°K

You are assuming a constant density of 1.2 kg/m^3 for the atmosphere up to 17 km. This is entirely incorrect. At 17 km, atm density is 0.16 kg/m^3. You can find a rough average density by integrating density by height from 0 to 17 km altitude and then dividing by 17 km. So your real value you should be using is roughly:

(1.22 - 0.16) / 2 = 0.53 kg/m^3

Also the atmosphere extends out to roughly 60 km (depending on time/temp/atm conditions), with the density changing as a function of all these things (it gets a lot lower).

To do this properly, you need to use the absorptivities (throughout the optical spectrum) of CO2, and all other greenhouse gases to find heat input for each greenhouse gas.

Integrate over the absorption spectrum/irradiant solar energy like this:

Qtotal=ʃα(λ)Q(λ)dλ

where α is the absorptivity of CO2 at a given wavelength of light, and Q is the irradiant power from the sun as a function of wavelength (you essentially assumed this was a constant based on 1366 W/m^2*Earth cross sectional area).

This is probably the most important issue. You have neglected the fact that excessive CO2 and other greenhouse gases can affect the total absorptivity greatly enough to cause a temperature rise.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by erkokite]

[edit on 1-12-2009 by erkokite]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by Chris McGee

The re-transmitted 50% will then be once again emitted by the earth and 50% of that which is absorbed by greenhouse gases will be transmitted back down to the earth. This will happen over and over with the proportion of the total initial energy decreasing down to nothing (think two mirrors opposite each other with 50% attenuation).

An excellent point! I'll shoot you a star for that question.

I did not specifically address this phenomena, but it is included. Allow me to explain: the energy which comes from the sun in the form of solar irradiance is the source of energy. Carbon dioxide will not be affected by the incoming rays, but rather by the heat reflected as you state. A certain percentage of that heat will be absorbed by any available carbon dioxide, then re-emitted, ideally transmitting 50% of that energy upwards into space and 50% down toward the planet. Of that 50% transmitted down, some will be reflected again, and that may contact another carbon dioxide molecule.

The absorption rate, however, is not 100% even if the heat energy reaches a carbon dioxide molecule. Carbon dioxide only absorbs narrow spectrums of electromagnetic energy. The attenuation would be much higher.

But in the end, the amount of energy that is absorbed by the carbon dioxide cannot at any time exceed the energy initially produced into the system. This, since my calculations assume that the carbon dioxide absorbs 100% of the energy available to it, and does not release any energy, the calculations do indeed not only take this into account, but in a very conservative fashion.

An excellent question, nonetheless!

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by neo5842
This is what we need, though in my simple understanding of the mathematics here, i would like to see, how sunspots would change things when added to the equation, though i understand its not possible to see with any degree of accuracy because of how random they can be from year to year, though i do understand the 11, 80 (and so on) year cycle, but still not predictable. As far as i am aware they contribute the largest amount of energy attributed to the heating and cooling of the planet, and for that reason it can take up to 800 years for the CO2 to follow with its increase. Leading to many to conclude that the earth is in a state of cooling rather than warming as a result of the sun's relative inactivity for the past 9 years or so. Please correct me if i am wrong. However like i said i would like to see how things look after sun spots are taken into consideration.

IT IS NOT CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IT IS CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) !!!!!!

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Also, CO reforms into CO2 in the air, only remaining in the air for a relatively short time (couple months).

Considering such large amounts continually being put into the air;
the levels would be constant or growing......

They are putting more CO into the air then the time it takes CO to convert into CO2

You say it takes a couple months for CO CARBON MONOXIDE to turn into CARBON DIOXIDE CO2?
Well the whole planet is putting CO Carbon Monoxide into the air 24/7

Plus from CO CARBON MONOXIDE stripping oxygen atoms from the air; we would have less air to breath, combined with all the forests being cut down

[edit on 1-12-2009 by DjSharperimage]

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:25 PM

If my purpose were to further my position as a scientist, or to confirm or deny scientific research through normal channels, you would be correct. ATS would not be the preferred venue for such. But that is not my purpose.

I am looking for no prizes, nor for prestige or acclaim by the scientific community. I am looking to inform the public. The public does not read scientific journals, nor does the public understand scientific journals. Thus, I present this information in a venue that does get public attention, and in such a manner as I hope it can be understood by most and yet still be accurate.

In any case, all I have done is take the facts and observations, and apply simple energy calculations to them. This is not some great discovery, just a presentation of what has been carefully concealed from the public.

I hope that makes my choice of venue seem more appropriate.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:27 PM

Originally posted by DjSharperimage

Originally posted by neo5842
This is what we need, though in my simple understanding of the mathematics here, i would like to see, how sunspots would change things when added to the equation, though i understand its not possible to see with any degree of accuracy because of how random they can be from year to year, though i do understand the 11, 80 (and so on) year cycle, but still not predictable. As far as i am aware they contribute the largest amount of energy attributed to the heating and cooling of the planet, and for that reason it can take up to 800 years for the CO2 to follow with its increase. Leading to many to conclude that the earth is in a state of cooling rather than warming as a result of the sun's relative inactivity for the past 9 years or so. Please correct me if i am wrong. However like i said i would like to see how things look after sun spots are taken into consideration.

IT IS NOT CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IT IS CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) !!!!!!

Thank you for pointing that out, however, no need to be so rude, just a simple point in the right direction would have sufficed. :0)

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:28 PM
Oh-Oh. a concepual problem - the sort my physics students have when they haven't studiedfor the final . You multiply Radiant energy times the % increase in CO2 per Wikipedia. That's a big fail. It's like painting a 150 mm thick window with5mm of black paint and saying it's only going to cut down on 3% of the light coming in. It ignores totally the absorption spectrum of the substance. Think about it. The sun warms one=half of the earth 's atmosphere by 15 degrees K in 4 months every spring and summer.
Your post is going to be a good exercise for my class this weekend. I'll let them dissect the wikipedia references and double check the caculations.
Offhand, it appears that you have used a specific heat value for fresh water. That is enough to get you a reject from a refereed journal. You need to use the correct value for the correct salinity. And specific heat also varies with pressure. What Q are you using? ISA? And what values for the albedo from all surfaces?
Yor approach is actually conceptually correct for the first part of the problem = find out the total rnergy budget. But it's only a start. Next look at absorption spectra The absorption spectra must be applied And the specific heat and relevant albedos. Then you look atthe real world and see if it fits your model.

i'm afraid your work is not quite ready for prime time. Or a refereed journal. But keep working. I like the effort.But before your next effort you should study the concept of significant figures and computational accuracy. 8,694,154 km, huh. How sure are you that it's not 8,694,153 or 8,694,155? There is a difference between precision and accuracy. To the layman, the purported exactness seems impressive. To a scientist, it screams poseur. I'm not going to tell my class where this little homework exercise in critical analysis came from. Unless you want me to.
EYou should see some of the crackpot stuff we get at the journals for which I review. Yours is not crackpot, just fatally flawed. For now. Keep working, tho.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Oh-Oh. a concepual problem - the sort my physics students have when they haven't studiedfor the final . You multiply Radiant energy times the % increase in CO2 per Wikipedia. That's a big fail. It's like painting a 150 mm thick window with5mm of black paint and saying it's only going to cut down on 3% of the light coming in. It ignores totally the absorption spectrum of the substance. Think about it. The sun warms one=half of the earth 's atmosphere by 15 degrees K in 4 months every spring and summer.
Your post is going to be a good exercise for my class this weekend. I'll let them dissect the wikipedia references and double check the caculations.
Offhand, it appears that you have used a specific heat value for fresh water. That is enough to get you a reject from a refereed journal. You need to use the correct value for the correct salinity. And specific heat also varies with pressure. What Q are you using? ISA? And what values for the albedo from all surfaces?
Yor approach is actually conceptually correct for the first part of the problem = find out the total rnergy budget. But it's only a start. Next look at absorption spectra The absorption spectra must be applied And the specific heat and relevant albedos. Then you look atthe real world and see if it fits your model.

i'm afraid your work is not quite ready for prime time. Or a refereed journal. But keep working. I like the effort.But before your next effort you should study the concept of significant figures and computational accuracy. 8,694,154 km, huh. How sure are you that it's not 8,694,153 or 8,694,155? There is a difference between precision and accuracy. To the layman, the purported exactness seems impressive. To a scientist, it screams poseur. I'm not going to tell my class where this little homework exercise in critical analysis came from. Unless you want me to.
EYou should see some of the crackpot stuff we get at the journals for which I review. Yours is not crackpot, just fatally flawed. For now. Keep working, tho.

You should also FAIL everyone for using Carbon Dioxide CO2 instead of Carbon Monoxide CO

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:37 PM
Far more accurate than the rubbish the governments have taken as their model, and now using to try to get some more money. I think it would be far more useful if anyone with knowledge to even consider picking this apart should be the ones trying to show the world leaders the real calculations instead of the lies they have. :0)

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:40 PM

That is the truth. What the governments are using for their basis is all the stuff that makes the calculation look how they want them too, then at the end of the paper it says, "Hey guys/gals just trust us, we are 'scientist' after all *wink, wink*".

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:42 PM

I still don't get why you decided to add the ocean... Why not do the ground as well?

Laziness.

In all honesty, the composition of the land masses are so varied that it is practically impossible to get accurate values for an average specific heat capacity. So, since the numbers already showed there wasn't enough heat available to cause predicted warming, even when excluding energy required to heat the land (and the upper atmosphere as well), I decided to let that be. Not including the land masses means that the energy needed to heat the planet is even larger than what was calculated, meaning the true results would be even less total heating would occur.

Water vapor is the most significant, but you can't stop that from happening right?

I wouldn't recommend doing so even if we could.

But you are right; water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever be. Not only is it extant in the atmosphere in much larger amounts, but it is more effective at absorbing heat. The other chemicals you mentioned seem, without researching, to be pretty accurate. And as I have stated many many times, I stand firmly on the side of reducing these as much as possible. In the case of these 'artificial' substances, reduction is not only possible, but moderately easy and painless to the public.

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.

The difference between CO2 levels pre-industrial era and now is the supposed problem according to the IPCC. That difference amounts to 0.01% of the atmosphere. Therefore, if the problem that is causing Global Warming is 0.01% of the atmosphere, energy coming into the planet would only encounter that supposed problem 0.01% of the time.

Carbon dioxide must exist in the atmosphere in order for life to survive. Without some CO2, there can be no photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis, there will be no food and no oxygen. Since the pre-industrial levels are reported to be at 280 ppmv and present concentrations are reported to be at 380 ppmv, that difference between the two extremes must be the problem. That difference is 100 ppmv, or 0.01%.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:59 PM

very interesting math. If you want to try a bit of a mind twist, google volcanic affect on co2. You will get a huge amount of information, but if you actually look at the information, it's all the same paper, spammed to thousands of sites. In order to hide any contrary data. genius. I wish I had thought of it.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:07 PM
An interesting report i found oh they use the term CO2 because its CO2 that is being force as the main issue to Joe public, who dont know any different . Still the report is interesting to say the least. www.examiner.com...

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:11 PM
ooh boy... first let me say that i am not disagreeing with your conclusions, as i am a proponent that the earth is warming outside of human and industrial influence. the issue that i have here is some flaws in your thinking and such that i would like to point out to help strengthen your case and remove holes.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It has been theorized that the use of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv, of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.

ok sounds good so far, although i am not sure where the 0.01% is coming from. is this a ratio to the whole volume of the troposphere or a ratio of initial ppmv to current ppmv, which would be an increase of nearly 36%. be clear here what you are saying.

All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heat reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations.

Again, this is not entirely true. You have to talk about the interaction with the solar radiation and the earth/atmosphere. a large portion of the suns energy is actually filtered in the thermosphere. The earth is considered to be a black body, and for all intensive purposes will emit all of the energy that is absorbed. The heating is due to the absorption of the shorter wave energies coming in and the emitting of the longer wave terrestrial radiation. It is the longer wave energy that is emitted that is absorbed by the atmosphere which is NOT a black body and has absorption windows cause them to trap certain wavelengths.

Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m². The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km, with a troposphere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height, which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Woah woah! Slow down! Important note here! You are calculating for a flat disk. Not to mention you are not taking into consideration the VOLUME of the troposphere, or the atmosphere’s above it. The earth is a spherical shape, and the angle of incidence of incoming solar radiation has a HUGE impact on the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Why do you think it can be daylight for 6 months at the poles and be cold as all get out? Any figure that you propose to be the quantified amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the earth at this point is about as accurate as me throwing a dart at a board blind folded and dizzy! It is not as simple as you try to make it seem.

That result is in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:

100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s

We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will receive from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:

175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s • 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr

again you forget to correctly unit your statistic in volume, so now you have an inaccurate and debatable value that is not given in the proper units. You need to be dealing with joules per kilogram or per meters squared and then per second. Atmospheric energy is unitized in j/kg, or j/m^3.

Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:

552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr • 0.0001 =
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2

you are now assuming a homogenous atmosphere with a homogenous ppm for co2. this is not the case. Co2 levels vary, and greatly, depending on where in the globe you are. And then you have to take into consideration how much energy that part of the globe is receiving, what the surface coverage type is and its albedo, then find out the average amount of water vapor is available and the average height of the tropopause and the average volume of the column of atmosphere you are looking into. You cannot simplify such a complicated process!

Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself.

There are multiple layers of the troposphere and each one is heated differently. For instance the molecular boundary layer (that being the point where the air “touches” the ground, is heated through convection, while the planetary boundary layer is heated mostly by mixing (that is the “dirty” layer that interacts with all the terrain and what not) and the free atmosphere is heated through radiation. Each process requires different circumstances and cannot be married so simply as you state.

Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g•°K and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km and a troposphere extending 17 km above the surface). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:

V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π • 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³

V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π • 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³

V = V(tot) - V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ - 1,083,206,917 km³
= 8,694,154 km³

Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:
[align=center]1.012 J/g•°K = 1.012 kJ/kg•°K

1.012 kJ/kg•°K • 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K

1.2144 kJ/m³•°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³•°K

again, not area… but volume. The volume of the troposphere is what you calculated, but that still does not take into effect that the troposphere is denser at the poles, despite being a thinner layer there.

While I give you a star and flag for effort and overall importance of the message, there as you can see many many holes that under scientific scrutiny would be torn to shreds.

Regards-

Wx4cAsTeR

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:15 PM

You are assuming a constant density of 1.2 kg/m^3 for the atmosphere up to 17 km. This is entirely incorrect.

I am using an assumed atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere. Yes, this is incorrect when one moves up in altitude from sea level. I do not believe this can account for the massive difference in the results from the predictions of 5° or 6° rises per century, however. Even if the entire atmosphere were excluded from the energy required, it is approximately 0.0002% as much as the energy required to warm the oceans. Feel free to recalculate based on decreasing pressures and prove me wrong.

Also the atmosphere extends out to roughly 60 km

That was a conservative move, explained in the OP. I only included the troposphere.

Then again, this is assuming that all intercepted energy affects only CO2, which is very conservative. To do this properly, you need to use the absorptivities (throughout the optical spectrum) of CO2, and all other greenhouse gases to find heat input for each greenhouse gas.

This is about CO2. It is not about any other gas. We have the ability to remove one particular gas without affecting others, i.e. a filter that removes SO2 does not have to inherently remove CO2 as well.

I have no qualms about removing or regulating any of the other man-made gases. I support such movements.

Integrate over the absorption spectrum/irradiant solar energy like this:

I considered that. I decided to stay simple so more people could understand the mathematics. Not everyone has the benefit of understanding the higher mathematics.

And anyway, since my assumption was that all energy encountered by carbon dioxide was absorbed, such a precise calculation could not change the outcome, except to make any temperature rise predicted less than the final result of 0.1°K per century.

And what I am proposing is a simple analysis compared to climate models out there.

...and still complex compared to my OP. Read on:

Basically what it comes down to is that this is not a problem well suited to back of the envelope calculation at all. This is not an engineering problem where you can assume certain things to make the problem easier and have it come out to anywhere near the correct answer. It is far too nonlinear, and there are far more variables than you have specified.

All that means is that the climate models are producing results that can easily be refuted using only simple energy equations. Complexity means more chances of inaccuracy (KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid).

Which was my point. CO2 cannot be having the effect claimed by the media and the IPCC.

I applaud your use of math and physics on ATS, certainly ATS could stand some more rationality now and then.
But, you have to remember to make sure your assumptions are reasonable, and that your math makes sense. Cheers.

I thank you for the kind words. I hope you understand more of my reasoning behind your concerns. I do not care if the temperature change due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide is 0.1°K or 0.0573°K - it is enough for my purposes that it is far less than a single degree.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:18 PM
So sorry about this, but here is some very revealing information on how climate change or global warming is a fraud www.greenworldtrust.org.uk...

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

"They've got bigger computers and they're smarter"?

Come on, at least try to rebut the calcs. Just saying "I don't believe it" isn't much of a rebuttal...

TheRedneck

Yes, I'm not a climatologist, I don't know all the variables and neither do you, as you conceded and many others have pointed out.

You're saying it's illogical to conclude that if the most powerful supercomputers on the planet, running hundreds of thousands of cores around the clock, crunching trillions of calculations and dealing in innumerable variables, isn't as likely to come up with a solution which is closer to reality than the scribbles you just did by hand?

That's like trying to convince me that someone doesn't have brain cancer, when a neurologist says they do, and you're not a doctor. I don't need to goto university for 10+ years to become a neurologist to prove you're wrong.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:35 PM

That is IF the models are programmed right, and all the data is correct. If the model is coded incorrectly and the data is wrong, then it could be a quadrillion core super computer and it's still going to get it wrong.

Computers are only as correct as the people programming them. As I also mentioned earlier they don't know the effect of clouds on the environment so before they can eve think of getting a correct model coded they need to know if the clouds produce a negative or positive feedback.

As I also mentioned if clouds produce a negative feedback then that means the climate is negative feedback, which means it doesn't matter what we put into the environment the earth will right it self.

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

That is IF the models are programmed right, and all the data is correct. If the model is coded incorrectly and the data is wrong, then it could be a quadrillion core super computer and it's still going to get it wrong.

Computers are only as correct as the people programming them. As I also mentioned earlier they don't know the effect of clouds on the environment so before they can eve think of getting a correct model coded they need to know if the clouds produce a negative or positive feedback.

As I also mentioned if clouds produce a negative feedback then that means the climate is negative feedback, which means it doesn't matter what we put into the environment the earth will right it self.

ummm... positive negative feedback? i have never heard these terms in relation to clouds ever in my meteorology career. please explain further what you are trying to describe by negative feedback ??

new topics

top topics

279