I have travel today, hence this open thread.
Some folks report issues with posting comments, and from what I can tell it seems to be related to wordpress.com. Try clearing your cache and/or using a different browser if this persists today.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What I’m saying is that the the formula for temperature rise for CO2 doubling cannot be true for all possible CO2 concentrations because ln(C1/C0) goes to infinity if C0 =0. So until you get rid of that infinity, you don’t have the correct equation. QED.
Physics Major;
So until you get rid of that infinity, you don’t have the correct equation. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s only so much detail that you can put into any given explanation. If your point is that the relationship cannot possibly hold for very low concentrations of CO2, you are correct. For the range of concentration we are dealing with in the climate discussion, a background level of 280 and current levels of 390, the relationship is valid.
David,
Please give me a link to the calculations that show the the temperature increase that will result from increasing the CO2 concentration from zero to 400 ppm. If you can do that, I will shut up.
Physics Major;
Please give me a link to the calculations that show the the temperature increase that will result from increasing the CO2 concentration from zero to 400 ppm. If you can do that, I will shut up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
Kent Noonan!
“Top Ten Reasons to Ignore Global Warming!”
10. “if they could have proved it they would have proved it already!” But they didn’t.
9. “There are 25-30,000 Polar Bears!” Each one eats a seal every week or two, glad I don’t own stock in Seal Pups Unlimited.
8. “Ice has come and gone for thousands of years!” Glacier Bay in Alaska retreated 45 miles from 1794 to 1865, no SUV’s yet!!!
7. “Ice in Antarctica is at an all-time high!” Why was this not a headline at the New York Times?
6. “NASA ‘Adjusts’ Temperature records from the 1930’s, actually the hottest decade in history!!!”‘ Someone told them to do this, who could it be? Who stands to gain from Global Warming? Whoever it is, who can tell NASA what to do, most likely..
5. “Climate Models on the computer have already been trashed by NASA!” The satellite study known as NVAP-M shows that humidity is not rising, since 1988, even though ALL climate computer models require humidity to rise to amplify CO2 effects!!
4. The Oceans are not heating! The Oceans have almost one-thousand times more heat than the atmosphere, and yet, pretty much the same temperature since 1851 when the British Navy first began taking temperature records!
3. Satellite Temperatures show no trend! Satellites began taking temperatures of the entire Earth in 1979, and show little if any change! Far more accurate than ground thermometers, which only record 1/3 of the Earth.
2. Sea Level is not rising any faster since the 1800’s! Pretty much the same it has always been, maybe 1/8″ to 3-16″ inches a year, mostly due to the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago when the heavy ice pushed the continents down, but it takes them a while to come back up.
And the No. 1 Reason to Ignore Global Warming,
1. Cold Kills People! A warm, CO2-rich planet grows more crops, less people freeze, deserts shrink, costs less to pay the heat, food prices go down, pretty sweet!!!
Latitude says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:06 pm
“speaking of that….does anyone know what the temp would be…if man hadn’t created global warming?
….and exactly what is the temp at that zero line?”
I don’t know, but my marxist indoctrination informs me that it is flat. We marxists believe in a static universe, and “social justice” will not be realized until we have a flat planetary temp.
If private business, or the government, decides to employ fewer lamplighters as time goes by, then the workers of the world are being oppressed, and deserve to slit the throats of the proletariat.
If the average planetary temp changes from 1979 to 2015, then the proletariat deserve to riot in the streets until oil and coal are out of business. Those evil capitalists. Slit throats will simply be de riguer.
David,
So, it doesn’t work for low concentrations, but it must be valid for for
highmedium concentrations? How scientific is that?Martin Hutchinson over at Asia Times joins some dots for us-
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON-01-030413.html
Shiny new Green banner, same old Pol Pot mentality.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=drier-climate-may-spread-diarrhea
If diarrhoea kills 1.5 m per annum – 1.5 m more deaths than has actually been proven to be caused by cAGW – why are we wasting so many $billions on cAGW and not spending more on fighting for clean water and sanitation for the worlds poor?
It seems that, according to a government commission,the Climate Commission no less, that we in Australia are all doomed.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057
Whoops, perhaps not..
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057
Another whoops.
The Climate Commission link is..
http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade/
True cost of “renewables”
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/201991/counting-hidden-costs-energy?utm_source=tec_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&inf_contact_key=be5dd4efe904270cede6177b419dd7e04d2bc6b55c83077e6fbfcd805aec8c15
Physics Major,
The CO2 relationship formula in question is known as a mathematical approximation, valid over a limited domain of values.
I wonder if the actual relationship can be ascertained through empirical investigation.
Physics Major;
So, it doesn’t work for low concentrations, but it must be valid for for high medium concentrations? How scientific is that?
>>>>>>>>>
You are getting tiresome. There is a range of concentrations for which the relationship holds. Outside that range it doesn’t. The concentrations of interest to us for the climate debate are inside the range. F=MA and E=IR and other formulas are no different. There are conditions under which they do not apply. There is nothing wrong with applying them in the range of conditions where they do apply.
Latitude says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:06 pm
“speaking of that….does anyone know what the temp would be…if man hadn’t created
global warming? ….and exactly what is the temp at that zero line?”
Good question, but not answerable. As our climate system exhibits spatio-temporal chaos at all timescales, averaging global temperature to find a base period for comparison is a meaningless task.
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”
–HL Mencken
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of physics based on a “Black Body” must be off a bit when used with a round gray rock.
http://suite101.com/article/apollo-mission-a-giant-leap-to-discredit-greenhouse-gas-theory
It seems the link I had got scrubbed from the web.
Anyway, when NASA used “black body” to figure out the Moon’s surface “temperature” to land Apollo, they off by 20% or so. So NASA used a different formula. So if NASA couldn’t use it for a piece of rock without an atmosphere, what good is it to use “Black Body” to figure surface “temperature” of any rock with an atmosphere?
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 3:33 am
“Anyway, when NASA used “black body” to figure out the Moon’s surface “temperature” to land Apollo, they off by 20% or so. So NASA used a different formula. So if NASA couldn’t use it for a piece of rock without an atmosphere, what good is it to use “Black Body” to figure surface “temperature” of any rock with an atmosphere?”
Oh come on.
“A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm
The logarithmic relationship ultimately is just curve fitting to provide something that’s easy to work into climate models. It doesn’t work for high concentrations either.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Use Modtran or other first principles sources, just like you don’t (I assume) use the approximation of g = 9.8 m/s^2 because gravity isn’t a constant over the surface of Earth.
And don’t forget to include convection and clouds in your model.
Just a note, I had enough of the effing ‘global warming’, here in SW London (UK), outdoor temperature is +2C with cold wind and it is snowing.
The idiocy of Climate Science & Climate Modelling is that at this point NO ONE can even say what all of the variables are, much less measure them, quantify their relative impacts on each of the others, or upon the whole . . . nor does the ‘Community’ DWELL ON THAT REALITY AT ALL!
This is why I find Mosher’s Temperature/Sensitivity/Forcing post, above, very amusing.
Take a variable such as Albedo . . how many subvariables? Cloud/Ice cover, Vegetation type and extent, Volcanic activity . . . . every variable has subvariables! Volcanic activity alone is a Wild card of unknowable implications.
The Mystery train is more than sixteen coaches long.
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 3:33 am
I believe there was a post here about it. IIRC the “paper’s” critique depended on ignoring the thermal mass of the Moon’s surface. It also didn’t include anything from NASA, I just wrote it off as uninformative junk. I might be able to find it with a couple minutes of searching, but I’d rather go eat breakfast.
I’m quite certain that S-B could be readily applied to the Moon if it were at a constant, homogenous temperature.
@Physics Major.
Another thing that makes the 5.35*ln(560/280) equation rather meaningless IMO is the fact that isn’t very non-linear. You get almost the same answer using y = mx + b. For example, assuming a linear increase in temperature of 3.71 degrees from 280 to 560 ppm gives a maximum departure of 0.3 degrees (2.17 deg logarthmic and 1.87 deg linear @420 ppm). In other words if your empirical data extends for only a few hundred ppm and the logarithmic effect over this narrow range is very nearly linear then what evidence do you have that your logarthimic equation is in fact correct? It’s a little bit like trying to prove a sine wave is periodic when you only have 1/16 th of a period.
As an interested, yet non scientific, observer in the AGW (non-debate) for quite a few years now, one question has always bugged me – how is it possible to have a “Global” average or “mean” temperature calculated with accuracy.
Dismissing the UHI effect / debate for this purpose surely the number of possible variants would make this almost impossible.
Do we put all the data / approximations into one large spreadsheet or do we average each country individually then average the averages?
Yours
Seriously curious
Where does the constant 5.35 come from in the equation that shows that the change in heat is proportional to the log of the CO2 concentration change expressed as a ratio?