reply to post by wx4caster
Whoa, sorry there wx4caster... I did miss this post, so thank you for bringing it to my attention! And anyone else whose posts I may have missed (this
thread grew faster than I could read at one point), please post a reminder.
No I mean to say that the upper atmosphere changes the wavelength of certain incoming radiations. Either way, it is of no real consequence as
you say you are ony making a general statement. Perhaps you should make that clear. By giving calculations that have some accuracies down to the
10x10^-3 you are suggesting accuracy via the very nature of your proposed calcs.
You have a valid point; another poster has already called me out on that, and I will admit I have this bad tendency to use too many unnecessary
The area of a circle is less than the area of a half of a sphere...
You're still missing my point here. let me try to explain it from scratch:
If we were to place a hollow sphere around the sun, one where the surface occupied the same position as the Earth's orbit, every portion of that
sphere would receive the same amount of radiation as every other portion (not allowing for local variances such as sunspots of course). Now, if we
place the Earth in it's orbit as well, the intersection between the Earth, a sphere, and our original sphere is what? A circle the same diameter of
the Earth. If we know the size of that circle, then we know the area it occupies receives the same amount of irradiation as any other area of that
We can then calculate how much solar irradiation will be hitting that area, and thus how much total
solar irradiation will be hitting the
Now this will work for a total Earth calculation, but not when calculating solar irradiance over sections of the Earth. That is where you are correct.
The energy of one unit of that disk at the equator will produce the same energy as the same size area of the disk covering the poles; but the
irradiance measured on the surface of the Earth will be different. At the equator, both areas are essentially the same, as the equator is normal to
the sun. At the poles, there is a tremendous difference between the area of our imaginary disk and the actual land area, because the land is not
normal to the sun. The same energy that covered one unit area at the equator now covers many units of area due to this angle. That is why the solar
irradiation is less at the poles.
Using the disk calculation means we do not need to take the angles into consideration to calculate the total energy, because the very use of the
imaginary disk does it automatically.
Another way to think about this: look at a ball. What do you see? A sphere? No, you see a circle. It is a sphere; you may believe it to be a sphere,
maybe based on shadows, but the shape you see is actually two dimensional, not three dimensional. It's the same principle. The sun 'sees' a two
dimensional earth, not a three dimensional one. Therefore it 'sees' a circle.
No. there is much more attenuation through the poles than the equator because of the angle of incidence.
There would be some deviation, but since we are using the disk mentioned above, it would be much less than an area with, say, cloud cover.
But the upper atmosphere such as the stratosphere contains mostly 02 and 03, which absorbs smaller wavelengths very well. You used total solar
incoming radiation in your calculations, but only considered partial reasons for absorption.
So are you saying that there is less energy coming into the system? That would translate to less of a temperature increase, correct?
Drastic changes of atmospheric content wrt not only co2 but also water vapor, density, atmospheric heights and so on can happen very rapidly
over very short distances, and it is these boundaries that give us wind and weather and so on.
That is the definition of an average. Yes, there will be some places with less carbon dioxide than others, and some with more water vapor than others.
Yes, that does indeed cause the chaos we call weather. But overall, excess water vapor in one area cancels out dry air in another; 390 ppmv carbon
dioxide in one area cancels out 370 ppmv in another. The average is maintained, even though there be deviations in local areas.
You hope. But you cannot be certain. And that is not the type of wager that a scientific individual looking to build credibility and support a
hypothesis should be taking.
No, I cannot say that in 100 years, the temperature will rise by only 0.1°K. I wasn't trying to say that. What I am saying is that over a period
of 100 years, the maximum rise that could possibly be attributed to present carbon dioxide levels is 0.1°K
. That's the only question the
And you proceed from a false assumption if you believe I wrote this to get fame or accolades. I desire neither. Never have I made any attempt to
elicit accolades from other members or staff at ATS. I do understand I have somewhat of a following here (which I will admit is flattering, if
surprising), but I assure you it is not by my design. If truth be known, fame is the thing I probably fear the most. I am a hermit at heart, happy to
watch society stumble on its merry way as opposed to being a part of it. Unfortunately, I was not born into situations that allow me to live out that
I wrote this to expose truth about the carbon dioxide Cap & Trade scam. Nothing else.
What type of heating method are you considering FOR your anthropogenic co2? The gas itself can be heated by several different
The only heating considered is what originally comes form solar irradiation. That can include black-body radiation from the Earth, but does not
include any geothermal effects. If those are included, they will of course change the calculations.
But not the result.
Some parts of the troposphere are behaving differently than others based upon the amount of mixing, radiation, and source region that the air
mass is in place over. This is another dangerous generalization that threatens the credibility of your calculations.
Again, any true average would include these effects. But perhaps more importantly, I ask how closely you would like to see this calculated? There can
be variations from one cm³ to the next; would you break the entire atmosphere into cm³ sections and individually analyze each? What would benefit
from such a monumental task? And more importantly, who would be able to perform such a task without some serious financial support... perhaps
government support? Even the IPCC doesn't break things down that far... probably because they can't, even with their supercomputers.
Be careful when seeking over-accurate results... too much unnecessary detail can make any rebuttal out of the reach of all but the most powerful, when
the result can still be obtained with averages.
But to your target audience it may appear as if you are making a hypothesis based upon scientific data and analyzed with accuracy and presented
to them for review and comment.
Yes, and that is exactly what Global Warming propagandists have done. The numbers are unwieldy and cumbersome, but that cannot be helped when
calculating on a global scale. I suppose I could have used a more obscure unit such as a teraJoule, but what would that mean to the readers? I am sure
both of us know a tera is a trillion, but would the majority of the readers?
It is a difficult line to draw, agreed. And while I cannot say I drew it correctly (only each reader can determine that for themselves), I stand by my
choices, although I am happy to further explain my reasoning should it not be clear to a reader.
Sorry again for missing the posts. I may not agree with your comments, but I do welcome them.