Fossrme--For a lack of a better name owing to unsigned posts pennedIn the long run, I don't see how the global temperatures can do anything but continue to go up as the amount of CO2 increases. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation - it can be easily demonstrated in the lab by shining a beam through a CO2-filled container and measuring how much of the infrared passes through. It is established science. So the question for me has always been, how can the atmosphere not heat up as CO2 levels rise?CO2 is both an IR(infra-red) absorber and re-emitter redirecting a band of IR wavelength photons in all directions such that, statistically, in each cycle something like 1/8th gets directed back to the ground where it is absorbed and heats the ground and the atmosphere where a portion of it in the next cycle gets redirected to the ground and so on. Angles and latitudes effect the sum total of the effect and this is overly simplistic but one can get the drift. What is important to take away is that CO2 gives a second and third pass at the same IR photon getting absorbed by the surface.
Some of the spectrum of wavelengths( IR,Red-Far Red, Visible, UV) reaching the surface are absorbed and re-emitted via photon radiation, some is reflected outright, some is absorbed with excess over heat transfer rates heating the surface and the atmosphere by convection. Much is converted to non-CO2 absorbable IR wavelengths so CO2 is moot for that portion of solar radiation cycle. More on this below:
Of the IR radiation reaching the ground without CO2/GHGs( Green House Gases) a certain amount is absorbed and a certain amount is reflected according to the "albedo ratio"-- whatever that value is for Earth. Now, without GHGs, the Earth would be about 60°F cooler on the whole and would see swings in temperature like the moon has (about 400-500°F?).
The problem with the "lab experiment"- and for which the example of "global warming" has been debunked --is that non-thorium/clear glass blocks all IR photons so nothing escapes-- it is a CLOSED system ( Note certain visible wavelengths pass into the jar where CO2 converts them to IR wavelengths--same principle on Ultra Violet(UV) fluorescence and being IR energy can't pass back out). In the lab you don't see the mix of conditions and components that this open can play out in a manner closer to the real world.
Whereas the atmosphere is an OPEN system, those other components effect the outcome. Through a chain of reactions with other gases, the wavelength of the IR emitted by CO2 is shifted into shorter IR wavelengths which is directed into space. As those aren't the wavelength CO2 absorbs, CO2 is no longer a part of that dynamic. Some of the CO2 emitter IR is absorbed by water vapor.
Ergo at present there is no "constant( as in mathematical value)" which can be "fit" to a curve of simple temperature vs CO2 level values. Once again, the interaction of forcers and feedback aren't accounted for in a way that we can make predictions. For one thing, as atmospheric temperature goes up, so does water vapor and so does albedo and more solar radiation is reflected back into space and the temperature moved down: this IS established science and is an example of a "feedback loop". Generally loops--of which there are many in climattology do not come into play in the lab. Hence my previous statement that simple CO2 in the lab/closed experiments does not yield the same outcome in the atmosphere. I don't think I can be any more emphatic that one can't just jump to that assumption with any validity. An important concept to understand is "climate sensitivity" We are working on it but as of today we still haven't determined CO2 concentration's climate sensitivity or rather vice versa when we look at the whole system's behavior.
One of the measurement problems and hence the conflict is that early satellite sensors were not "full IR spectrum" so all the input and output energy wasn't being measured. As I understand it there was a mix of sensors generating different sets of data which even failed to match each other on common wavelengths. Each side looking at a different set of values to make their point. I believe lots of folks are trying to resolve standards for future arrays.
I realize having said this many ways before that it is getting old but focusing on CO2 alone is akin to treating a patient by looking at blood gases or x-rays alone and a Doctor cities away proclaiming they he knows everything possibly there is to know about the patient's health status.
As to Fossrme's other conclusion of fact--I can easily see how the Northern Hemisphere can reenter a full blown ice age in a few decades regardless of the CO2 levels-- so as to "knowing" which direction and how much the climate will migrate we'll have to disagree. Lets get our holograms together in 50 years and see how things played out, Shall we?
Eman
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment