....
observed that the atmosphere, that is prodominantly nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and water vapour with traces of other gases like carbon dioxide, has not been letting much heat out. CO2 does not have the correct wavelengths to close most of the current window. Increasing its concentration will not retain much more energy. Looking at Canuck's graph, only the right hand edge of the blue section will be affected. Looking at the "area graph" there has to be a doubling of CO2 for a small increase and only half of it matters to warming (the left edge).
Yep, all a good assessment (except CO2's absorption wavelengths are close enough to matter). There aren't many windows (plural) left for heat to escape; and GHG's are slowly closing what is left. As I said earlier, roughly, it's a small effect, ...only a few degrees....
....
Which is still valid in the simplified expression by Myhre et al. (1998).
Arrhenius linked temperature and CO2 concentration... and that basic relationship still held until 1998?
Finally,
a National Academy of Sciences site suggests that W*m-2 can
be converted to temperature when it reads, "... 4 W/m2 (the forcing for a doubled atmospheric CO2) would be an increase of
about 1.2°C (about 2.2°F)."
Is this related to Canuck's logarithmic graph?
I see they use the 1.2 degree figure speaking about CO2's "direct effect;" but then add, "Well-documented climate changes during the history of Earth, especially the changes between the last major ice age (20,000 years ago) and the current warm period, imply that the climate sensitivity is near the 3°C value."
But I know that's open to lots of debate (as they also acknowledge).
Oh, "natural logs" ...are something I used to have a neat insight about, but alas I'd have to study that again.
This "Myhre expression" is
not the equation that I'm challenging, but it is a good response about the relationship between temperature and concentration. I can't believe I never read that link before; thanks.
Natural logarithms don't decay as steeply as do the base 10 logs; but...
Yes, still a good point.
So you're not disputing this well-established climate science (although I realize there are refinements happening occasionally). I thought this logarithmic temperature thing was a new "discovery."
Canuck first brought up this logarithmic/extinction subject as relating to the temperature change; and I still maintain that it is "junk science" based on a copied and altered graph circulating only in the blogosphere.
The steep logarithmic Extinction Coeff. is not the parameter that correlates with, or affects temperature.
I'm going to continue to rely on the long established graphs relating GHG concentration and temperature, until I see some scientific vetting and acceptance of any new interpretations of these parameters.
Or was I mistaken? Wasn't this about some new logarithmic way of calculating CO2's warming effect?
.
.
.
...and yes, those last three posts of mine are not up to the standards displayed on the rest of this thread. As you noticed, the replies didn't even focus on the points you made.
Posting stuff written "in anticipation" is not a good strategy.
The P=T/V comment wasn't meant to say anything about greenhouse warming; it was only meant to suggest the linear character of gas behaviours in general.
...and I knew when I wrote that about the Newtonian stuff, I was opening myself up to some obvious challenges;
but isn't Boltzman-type "statistical mechanics" about the same as Newtonian mechanics?
I recently reread the first page of this thread and found two mistakes I'd made (such as saying shorter wavelength when I meant longer [groan]), but that should be an obvious mistake. I still think this thread is a good (mostly accurate) view of the P.Chem. involved with this process. At least first year students, after reading this thread, would know why they were learning the stuff Physical Chemists teach.
~Cheers
