Re: OT : excellent article on global warming
- From: bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 07:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
On May 3, 5:21 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.
And another.
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
" There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This
means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then
humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of
absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in
temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance
for distance.
That's a really old fallacy.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_0241
Around 1900 "Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage
of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The
assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in
rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air
reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the
amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he
cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a
trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands
of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly
that more gas could make little difference.(7*)"
Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by
claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they
claim involves unsaturation. The difference due to height is that the
absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other.
Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially
overlap the absorption peaks for CO2. Supposedly, in some obfuscated way,
separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no real logic to that
claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda
through obfuscation of complexities .....................
Which is to say, the author doesn't know enough to understand what is
actually going on, any more than Eeyore does.
The AIP web-site goes on to say
"These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had
reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more
than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows
that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a
researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of
precision.(8a) But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would
have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to
understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of
radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's
temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does
escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change
the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would
make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The
logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of
looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in
Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of
interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple
Models).
The subtle difference did not occur to anyone for many decades, if
only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth
their attention. For after Ångström published his conclusions in 1900,
the few scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded
that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong. Theoretical work on
the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(9)"
Trust Eeyore to find and tout a long-exploded proposition.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.
- References:
- Re: OT : excellent article on global warming
- From: Eeyore
- Re: OT : excellent article on global warming
- Prev by Date: Re: The end is in sight
- Next by Date: Re: My Tea Party Starts at 3:00pm
- Previous by thread: Re: OT : excellent article on global warming
- Next by thread: Re: OT : excellent article on global warming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
