Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,889
11,885
54
USA
✟298,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No what I mean is the IPCC did not discuss Milankovitch cycles or the Maunder cycles.

That would be really weird if they did. The Milankovitch cycles are so long they don't matter to the issues the IPCC addresses. The Maunder minimum was in the past, and the only reference I found to a "Maunder cycle" that was claimed to be periodic was this article in Nature:

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale

Note the first two words.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,619
9,593
✟239,994.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No what I mean is the IPCC did not discuss Milankovitch cycles or the Maunder cycles.
@Hans Blaster and @Subduction Zone have already pointed out why that this is irrelevant. I just want to make an observation.

If you meant to talk of a specific aspect of solar activity you should have stated that, not made an absolute statement that the IPCC made no mention of the role of the sun. (Especially since the absolute statement was incorrect.) If you have a scientific qualification and are making a scientific argument then you can reasonably be expected to write with precision and clarity. When you fail to do so it calls into question the quality of the qualification and undermines the argument.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,911
3,964
✟276,969.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
lordjeff said:
The Sun is the prime driver of climate, not a simple gas that occupies 0.038% of the atmosphere.

This is a typical argument from incredulity on how CO₂ at concentrations of around 400 ppm can have a effect on temperature.
The answer lies in a combination of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics.

As discussed here CO₂ absorbs IR at 15μm wavelength.
When this occurs CO₂ molecules go into an excited transition state before returning to the ground (unexcited) state by emitting IR.
This IR radiation when directed to the surface and heats it is the mechanism for the greenhouse effect.

A secondary mechanism for heating is the collision of excited CO₂ molecules in the atmosphere.
According to the energy time version of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle;
ΔEΔt ≈ h/2 where h is Planck’s constant.
ΔE is the uncertainty in the energy measurement obtained by measuring the FWHM (full width half maximum) of the 15μm peak which is the right hand side peak of the CO₂ IR absorption spectrum.
The spectrum is obtained at low CO₂ pressure and temperature to minimize peak broadening affects due to molecular collisions.

co2.png


The excited transition state is found to be Δt = 6μs or a radiative decay rate of
R₁ = 1/Δt = 1.7 x 10⁵ s⁻¹.

Using statistical mechanics at a temperature of 288K (= 15⁰C) which is the blackbody temperature at which IR is radiated around 15μm and at 1 atm pressure (at sea level), with a CO₂ concentration of 400 ppm, a CO₂ molecule travels an average time of around 0.0001μs before colliding with dominant air molecules such as N₂ or O₂.
This is equivalent to a collision rate of R₂ = 28 x 10⁵ s⁻¹.

The probability an excited CO₂ molecule will return to the ground state without colliding into an air molecule is R₁/(R₁ +R₂) ≈ 0.06.
When an excited CO₂ molecule collides into air molecules, part of the excitation energy is converted into extra kinetic energy for the air molecules.
Since the average kinetic energy of the air molecules is now higher, the temperature of the atmosphere also increases.

Since 94% of collisions between a CO₂ molecule and air molecules occur with the CO₂ molecule in the excited state, a single excited CO₂ molecule engages in about 0.96 x 28 x 10⁵ ≈ 2,700,000 collisions every second.
Hence even at concentrations of 400 ppm, CO₂ affects temperature.
In fact if there was no CO₂ the average temperatures would drop around 7⁰C.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In fact if there was no CO₂ the average temperatures would drop around 7⁰C.
Probably even more. Without CO2 the temperatures would drop at least the 7C that you mentioned, but then the ability of the atmosphere to carry water vapor would also decrease. Without any greenhouse gases the temperature of the Earth would be on average -18 C. It would sort of be a backwards runaway greenhouse warming.

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

We want some CO2 obviously, but not too much or too little.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,889
11,885
54
USA
✟298,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
400 ppm is what's needed to get a good crop of plants. At 150 they won't get off the ground. Having grown up with some actual greenhouse experience I can understand how my grandfather set up shop.

Then explain agriculture before the 21st century. It didn't even reach 400 ppm until 5 years ago.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: sjastro
Upvote 0

lordjeff

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2019
407
95
63
Cromwell
✟16,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I had read that 150 won't even get plants off the ground & that those in the wholesale greenhouse biz artificially enhance the CO2 in the greenhouse so it stays high. So let me see there is some horticulturist or scientist that recorded their observations in 1900 in some book.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I had read that 150 won't even get plants off the ground & that those in the wholesale greenhouse biz artificially enhance the CO2 in the greenhouse so it stays high. So let me see there is some horticulturist or scientist that recorded their observations in 1900 in some book.
Here is a suggestion. You may have forgotten the details of what you remember. Always try to support specific claims with reliable links.

The rule in internet debates is "Links or it didn't happen".
 
Upvote 0

lordjeff

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2019
407
95
63
Cromwell
✟16,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I spend lots of hours on the internet but i don't necessarily bookmark every single thing b/c it does take space but I have spent a lot of time in the earth sciences & did come across this 150 number as being wholly inadequate to a horticulturist.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I spend lots of hours on the internet but i don't necessarily bookmark every single thing b/c it does take space but I have spent a lot of time in the earth sciences & did come across this 150 number as being wholly inadequate to a horticulturist.
It doesn't take too long to look up facts. It is quite likely that you either misrememberer or possibly saw it on a bogus site.

Links or it didn't happen.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,911
3,964
✟276,969.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While we are at it, if 400 ppm of CO₂ seems to be a ridiculously low amount to affect temperature, even more incredulous is the photo-disassociation of ozone
(O₃) at concentrations of 2-8 ppm in the stratosphere which not only inverts the altitude temperature profile but protects us from being sterilised out of existence by UVC.

hdmlmZw7jYUZZDND-lxl4KeTC6rcLuBpCYddmXmMc3HDCbwWDRaZjaOWUQOeILhW82HKVh6lN39HLBq3AZxZHKiZCqm_aNAXRmAXVtHi3D6zZbjz4GYSL4EzTVK7oO-un9wCz4TVOxTYtFTiVdMgM6mMr4E
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If the atmosphere has the same concentration of CO2 all the way up and one managed to separate all of that carbon dioxide and concentrate it in a tube at one atmosphere of pressure that would make a tube roughly 11 feet long or tall if you prefer filled with CO2 at one atmosphere. So what does that look like in real life? In the following experiment a candle is viewed through what looks like a one meter or a three foot tube that is filled with CO2. Almost certainly before the tube is filled one can no longer see the candle with an infrared camera. Our atmosphere would make a tube three times as long. Do the doubters still think that could not slow down heat significantly?

 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,889
11,885
54
USA
✟298,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I spend lots of hours on the internet but i don't necessarily bookmark every single thing b/c it does take space but I have spent a lot of time in the earth sciences & did come across this 150 number as being wholly inadequate to a horticulturist.

LMGTFY
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,889
11,885
54
USA
✟298,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well what ever the link is I won't believe we have a runaway greenhouse effect based on earth science 101 principles. The earth simply lacks the makeup to be Venus.

It's a google search for "Carbon dioxide level in 1900". If you'd like to engage then we can continue, but if you have no willingness to bother with facts then you are free to leave the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Well what ever the link is I won't believe we have a runaway greenhouse effect based on earth science 101 principles. The earth simply lacks the makeup to be Venus.
No one is suggesting anything even close to what happened on Venus. It has been a while since I read up on it, but from what I remember runaway global warming could occur when large resources of methane are released into the atmosphere caused by AGW.

Okay, quick search. Runaway global warming on Earth would be quite less severe than it has been on Venus. But there are several tipping points, each one would make the next point more likely to occur and could warm the Earth by as much as 5 C:

Hothouse Earth: Runaway global warming threatens 'habitability of the planet'
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,911
3,964
✟276,969.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well what ever the link is I won't believe we have a runaway greenhouse effect based on earth science 101 principles. The earth simply lacks the makeup to be Venus.
It's ironic that you should bring Venus into the discussion given that while no one is considering the Earth will end up as Venus; a signature of increasing greenhouse gases, stratospheric cooling, is even more apparent on Venus than on Earth.
In 1989, scientists predicted that more greenhouse gases would cool the stratosphere. Indeed, Venus, which many say has a "runaway" greenhouse effect — its atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide and temperatures at its surface can reach 900 F. — has a stratosphere that's four to five times cooler than ours.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

greatcloudlives

Active Member
Dec 28, 2019
347
39
63
Oregon City
✟26,155.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
CO2 is a trace gas with a trace effect on the IR of heat wavelength affecting the teamperture of the earth. Most of the heat radiates out into space.

Nature produces much more co2 then mankind produces. CO2 dose not control climate and cannot be stopped from producing CO2. The theroy of AGW is wrong and more and more scientist are speaking out against it. I the geological record found in the Vostok ice cores co2 never leads temperatures it is always the other way around. Temperatures come first and then CO2 levels follow.

Temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and plants and animals have thrived. If you magically burned up all the oil and coal and other fules the co2 levels would only be 1200ppm and the ocean and plants would lower those levels back down.

Progressive socialist are behind the global warming theroy in order to destroy free Enterprise. That's why it is so dangerous.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.