reply to post by wx4caster
ok sounds good so far, although i am not sure where the 0.01% is coming from.
380 ppmv at present levels minus 280 ppmv at pre-industrial levels equals 100 ppmv anthropogenic carbon dioxide. 100 ppmv = 0.0001 or 0.01%.
I must not have made that clear enough; if so, I apologize to the readers. The 0.01% value represents only the 'excess' CO2 above what is generally
considered to be a safe level. If the industrial revolution had not occurred we would have 280ppmv carbon dioxide as we did before it occurred; we
actually have 380 ppmv. That difference is what is being blamed for Global warming, not the total amount.
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.
Yes, if 100% accuracy was needed; it wasn't. If some of that solar irradiance energy is blocked by the upper atmosphere, that means the resulting
irradiance that can be affected by carbon dioxide is less, meaning again that the calculations are conservative.
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
Yes, no, yes.
I am calculating for a flat disk, because I am not calculating the volume of the earth, but the area of the earth as presented to the sun. solar
irradiance does not come from all directions, but from what can be considered as a single point. The area which will receive solar irradiation, normal
to that irradiation, is a circle, not a sphere. Your concern about surface area is included in this. Each area presented to the sun will receive the
same amount of energy based on a plane normal to the sun. the area of the planet that will receive this energy, in contrast, varies greatly based on
its angkle to that normal plane.
I did include the volume of the troposphere in calculating carbon dioxide amounts and in calculating the needed energy to warm it; in this case the
above paragraph applies, as the troposphere itself will also be seen as a disk on a plane normal to the sun.
I did NOT take into account the atmosphere above the troposphere, because it contains almost no carbon dioxide and is irrelevant in that respect to
incoming energy levels as as far as such may be trapped by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. I also purposely omitted the volume of the upper atmosphere
in my calculations, to conservatively allow for the pressure gradient through the troposphere.
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
The values given are already multiplied by the area normal to the sun which encompasses the planet and the troposphere. This is the total for the
planet, not the total for a unit area.
you are now assuming a homogenous atmosphere with a homogenous ppm for co2.
Yes I am. As the earth is being considered as a whole, not as a group of individual areas, average values may be used.
Simplified? Maybe. But the differences will cancel out, as long as proper averages are used.
There are multiple layers of the troposphere and each one is heated differently.
I do not consider any heating methods other than anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Any other heating is not considered to be the cause of Global Warming,
and thus must be initially discounted to disprove the exaggerated warming effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
I find it interesting, though, that we have experienced some warming from 1950-1998. As it clearly is not based on a rise in carbon dioxide, then it
must have another source.
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.
Denser yet thinner would still yield a similar mass. Mass of the troposphere is what is important... how much there is of it.
there as you can see many many holes that under scientific scrutiny would be torn to shreds.
And a truly scientific analysis would be so involved that this would have gotten no notice on ATS. I write for my audience. Another poster mentioned
that I needed to integrate the absorption of carbon dioxide over the entire spectrum. He's right. But had I done so, I would be getting posts like
" instead of analysis. I vastly prefer analysis.
Thank you for your comments. They show you are thinking.