northwest Physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Wednesday January 25 2017 10:20:48 AEDT AM
Home Help Login Register
News: forum firewall bad behaviour Cloudflare Bot scout
Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Total forum Topics:8,582 Total forum Posts:40,072  Members: 612 Total page views:7,258,084 Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any links. Guest cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.Anyone known to have any past or present association with Codan/ML or acting on their behalf as a proxy or intermediary  will not have their registration approved. All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.
QED coming soon!
Goldsearch Australia has been appointed the Australian Distributor for the QED.Check their website after  Wed 7th Dec 2016.
Global temperature goes from heat record to heat record, yet the sun is at its dimmest for half a century.
What is empirical  evidence?
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. Why is everything posted on climate by Inhere always horseshit?
Poor old  Inhere on finders still does not know the difference between weather and climate!The silly old goat seems to think because some places have recently had very cold weather that this brings into question  AGW!  Only right wing rabble rubbish climate deniers like horseshit Inhere don't  seem to understand  that AGW will mean that some regions of the earth will become colder!
Why is  onehalfgram :1/2 wit always wrong  on the QED?

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Off topic  |  Off topic  |  Climate change  |  Topic: Physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere  (Read 210 times)
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« on: Monday January 2 2017 22:56:05 AEDT PM »

Physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
This was posted  by Inhere on finders and is incorrect!
“---reveals disappointingly that they cannot produce one single paper which demonstrates the physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, emitting and absorbing radiation.”
Here are 2 experts  from a  peer reviewed paper in Physics today Jan 2011.Look at the reference list and you will see the peer reviewed  papers and the books  on climate published by the author.
As you will note that in 2nd excerpt that satellites have confirmed the physics of C02 in the  atmosphere!
doug smile


* IR1.jpg (63.58 KB, 666x293 - viewed 64 times.)

* IR2.jpg (64.04 KB, 339x612 - viewed 62 times.)
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« Reply #1 on: Tuesday January 3 2017 15:35:39 AEDT PM »

More empirical evidence of the  physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, emitting and absorbing radiation.
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn,, E. J. Mlawer & T. R. Shippert
Nature 2015
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.8260.19Wm22 . However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-skyCO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmosphericCO2.The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2Wm22 per decade (with respective uncertainties of 60.06Wm22 per decade and 60.07Wm22 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2Wm22. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in down welling long wave radiation. These results confirm the theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
When is easy beat Inhere going to stop posting horseshit on climate  change , global warming and the anthropogenic greenhouse effect?
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
Davent
Newbie

Online Online

Posts: 35


« Reply #2 on: Tuesday January 3 2017 17:54:06 AEDT PM »

How is it incorrect Doug?
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« Reply #3 on: Tuesday January 3 2017 18:54:41 AEDT PM »

  
How is it incorrect Doug?
"reveals disappointingly that they cannot produce one single paper which demonstrates the physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, emitting and absorbing radiation.”
The 2  peer reviewed papers i have posted show that the above statement is incorrect for a start!
And here is another peer reviewed paper  proving the above statement to be wrong.

And
Increasing atmosphericCO2 concentrations between 2000 and 2010 have led to increases in clear-sky surface radiative forcing of over
0.2Wm22 at mid- and high-latitudes. Fossil fuel emissions and fires contributed substantially to the observed increase20. The climate perturbation
from this surface forcing will be larger than the observed effect, since it has been found that the water-vapour feedback enhances greenhouse
gas forcing at the surface by a factor of three  and will increase,largely owing to thermodynamic constraints. The evolving roles of
atmospheric constituents, including water vapour andCO2  in their radiative contributions to the surface energy balance can be tracked
with surface spectroscopic measurements from stand-alone (or networks of)AERI instruments. If CO2 concentrations continue to increase at the
current mean annual rate of 2.1 ppm per year, these spectroscopic measurements will continue to provide robust evidence of radiative perturbations
to the Earth’s surface energy budget due to anthropogenic climate change, but mediated by annual variations in photosynthetic activity.
These perturbations will probably influence other energy fluxes and key properties of the Earth’s surface and should be explored further
  
As well  a lot of other *evidence shows beyond all doubt that Co2 acts as an atmospheric greenhouse gas(ie  physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere)
*eg upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming.
As well the guy who makes this statement paper has not been accepted for publication in any recognized peer reviewed journal and would not be because its so full of errors, unproven assumptions etc. He is not a climate scientist nor has any experience or skills in atmospheric physics
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« Reply #4 on: Tuesday January 3 2017 19:02:13 AEDT PM »

  
  
How is it incorrect Doug?
"reveals disappointingly that they cannot produce one single paper which demonstrates the physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, emitting and absorbing radiation.”
The 2  peer reviewed papers i have posted show that the above statement is incorrect for a start!
And here is another peer reviewed paper  proving the above statement to be wrong.

And
Increasing atmosphericCO2 concentrations between 2000 and 2010 have led to increases in clear-sky surface radiative forcing of over
0.2Wm22 at mid- and high-latitudes. Fossil fuel emissions and fires contributed substantially to the observed increase20. The climate perturbation
from this surface forcing will be larger than the observed effect, since it has been found that the water-vapour feedback enhances greenhouse
gas forcing at the surface by a factor of three  and will increase,largely owing to thermodynamic constraints. The evolving roles of
atmospheric constituents, including water vapour andCO2  in their radiative contributions to the surface energy balance can be tracked
with surface spectroscopic measurements from stand-alone (or networks of)AERI instruments. If CO2 concentrations continue to increase at the
current mean annual rate of 2.1 ppm per year, these spectroscopic measurements will continue to provide robust evidence of radiative perturbations
to the Earth’s surface energy budget due to anthropogenic climate change, but mediated by annual variations in photosynthetic activity.
These perturbations will probably influence other energy fluxes and key properties of the Earth’s surface and should be explored further
  
As well  a lot of other *evidence shows beyond all doubt that Co2 acts as an atmospheric greenhouse gas(ie  physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere)
*eg upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming.
As well the guy who makes this statement paper has not been accepted for publication in any recognized peer reviewed journal and would not be because its so full of errors, unproven assumptions etc. He is not a climate scientist nor has any experience or skills in atmospheric physics
doug smile

here is the abstract of the above paper
 Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges   Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Abstract
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« Reply #5 on: Tuesday January 3 2017 19:14:16 AEDT PM »

Here are the main reasons as to why this person is wrong and his paper should not be taken seriously as it fails in many areas
Calculations of radiation through the atmosphere do require consideration of absorption AND emission. The formal radiative transfer equations for the atmosphere are not innovative or in question – they are in all the textbooks and well-known to scientists in the field.
Experimental results closely match theory – both in total flux values and in spectral analysis. This demonstrates that radiative transfer is correctly explained by the standard theory.
New and innovative approaches to the subject are to be welcomed. However, just because someone with a physics degree, or a doctorate in physics, produces lots of equations and writes a conclusion doesn’t mean they have overturned standard theory.
New approaches need to demonstrate exactly what is wrong with the standard approach as found in all the textbooks and formative papers on this subject. They also need to explain, if they reach different conclusions, why the existing solutions match the results so closely.
Dr. Nicol’s paper doesn’t explain what’s wrong with existing theory and it is almost as if he is unaware of it!
A scientific fail!!!!!
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
Davent
Newbie

Online Online

Posts: 35


« Reply #6 on: Tuesday January 3 2017 21:08:41 AEDT PM »

OK, so assuming its all true and correct? What do we do about it? Reduce Australia's emmisions from 1.3% of the worlds total emmisions to 1%? And then achieve what?
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« Reply #7 on: Tuesday January 3 2017 23:01:01 AEDT PM »

  
OK, so assuming its all true and correct? What do we do about it? Reduce Australia's emmisions from 1.3% of the worlds total emmisions to 1%? And then achieve what?

Yes Australia emissions are very small (but per capita very high) but we do "export" more than we emit in coal  and gas exports. The point is that unless developed countries like Australia, USA etc  set the example and make meaningful cuts in emissions then we cannot expect developing countries  and China  to  reduce emissions. Australian is in a fortunate position to have potentially very  large, non carbon  renewable energy resources like wind, solar and possibly geothermal (hot rocks) for the generation of electricity.More money and research is urgently required to develop these and  to overcome the problem  of providing non carbon base load power.
We need to remember that Australia will be one of the countries that climate modelling predicts will be very adversary effected by Global warming eg the Barrier Reef and sharply declining rainfall in s Australia including the wheat belts and the Murray darling basin.Rainfall records just in area I live show that rainfall has decreased over the last 40 years by nearly 20% just as some climate models predict. So as well as reducing emissions (which we  are failing to do) we must also develop strategies  for the more efficient use of electricity by mandatory design regulations for houses and other building to make them more energy efficient.
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
Davent
Newbie

Online Online

Posts: 35


« Reply #8 on: Wednesday January 4 2017 23:01:03 AEDT PM »

Look, I get it. But, even if the entire world went 50% renewable energy, it wouldn't make a difference. Yes man contributes to green house gasses, but nature does too, volcano,s, earthquakes etc. The governments are using it as an excuse to introduce carbon taxes, that won,t reduce emmisions to any meaningful effect.
Our western economies revolve around fossil fuels, the US $ is based against oil, oil is traded with the US dollar, only countries that don't, trade in US dollars for oil are Russia,China, North Korea,Syria and Iran. In 1991, Iraq tried to to change to the Euro....see a pattern Doug?
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« Reply #9 on: Wednesday January 4 2017 23:12:02 AEDT PM »

  
Look, I get it. But, even if the entire world went 50% renewable energy, it wouldn't make a difference. Yes man contributes to green house gasses, but nature does too, volcano,s, earthquakes etc.
This is not true.Geological sources only contribute a very small amount of C02  compared to mans activities.This is why atmospheric  C02  C12/C13 is becoming each year more enriched enriched in C12.The change in isotopic ratio correlates very well with the rise in atmospheric concentrations of C02.
Volcanoes emit about 200-300 million tons of C02 annually as estimated by the USGS.
C02 from the burning of fossil fuels amounts globally to about 31  billion tons annually and rising!
doug smile
Edited:Wednesday January 4 2017 23:30:58 AEDT PM

Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
6666
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #10 on: Wednesday January 4 2017 23:54:17 AEDT PM »

How do you measure one ton of gas ?
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 14927



« Reply #11 on: Thursday January 5 2017 00:07:29 AEDT AM »

  
How do you measure one ton of gas ?

You don't! happy face Its known approx how much coal, oil and gas is burned each year and from this one can calculate from C+02=C02 how much C02 this will produce.
About 50% of emitted C02 is absorbed in the oceans  and the rest contributes to tha current annual rise of about  3ppm/year in atmospheric concentration.Ice core data shows that over the last 800,000 years the C02 concentration was 160ppm (ice age)-260ppm (warmer more temperate climate).So since the industrial revolution  we have added 140 ppm of C02 ie increased the concentration by 40% and if we continue business as usual then we will have doubled the atmospheric concentration of C02 before the end of this century!
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Off topic  |  Off topic  |  Climate change  |  Topic: Physics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

BisdakworldClassic design by JV PACO-IN
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!