[Truth To Power]

Edward Teller, "father of the H-bomb"

. . . was one of the first prominent people to raise the danger of climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels. At an address to the membership of the American Chemical Society in December 1957, Teller warned that the large amount of carbon-based fuel that had been burnt since the mid-19th century was increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would "act in the same way as a greenhouse and will raise the temperature at the surface"

- Per Wikipedia

No one ever called Teller a Marxist or a tree-hugging liberal.

But he was apparently unaware of Angstrom's experiment that showed adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air had no measurable effect on its infrared transmission properties.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is not an accurate depiction of Angstrom’s experiment.

From what I recall, he found that the effect if adding CO2 was significant and measurable, but that it did not last very long; i.e. there was a saturation effect.

It is not applicable to atmospheric events since Angstrom did not allow for convection, which would then bring in more air that was not as saturated with CO2 or infrared energy, thereby allowing for a more or less continuous absorption of CO2, which Angstrom did not replicate in the lab.

[Truth To Power]

That is not an accurate depiction of Angstrom’s experiment.

Yes it is, and the results can be replicated by any competent physics undergrad with access to a university physics lab.

From what I recall, he found that the effect if adding CO2 was significant and measurable, but that it did not last very long; i.e. there was a saturation effect.

You recall wrong. The effect was barely detectable.

It is not applicable to atmospheric events since Angstrom did not allow for convection,

Wrong, as CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.

which would then bring in more air that was not as saturated with CO2

"Saturated with CO2"?? What nonscience. You indisputably have no idea what you are talking about.

or infrared energy,

"Infrared energy"?? "Saturated" therewith?? What nonscience.

thereby allowing for a more or less continuous absorption of CO2,

"Absorption of CO2"?? What nonscience.

which Angstrom did not replicate in the lab.

Because it is nonscience.

Stick to topics you know at least enough about to write sensible sentences.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Then provide a link to the experiment, and show how it refutes anthropogenic climate change.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Then provide a link to the experiment, and show how it refutes anthropogenic climate change.

Here's an English translation of Angstrom's original German paper:

https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Paper ... nglish.pdf

It's not mainly about CO2, but it does explain why Arrhenius was wrong. And it doesn't refute any theory of anthropogenic climate change except the notion that CO2 would be the main causative factor. It doesn't say anything about urbanization, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, methane, etc. being causes of anthropogenic climate change.

As I have noted before, any competent physics undergraduate can demonstrate that CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels cannot have a significant effect on global surface temperature, using equipment in any decent university physics lab. The reason is simple and irrefutable: there is already so much water vapor and CO2 in ordinary atmospheric air near the earth's surface that adding -- even doubling or tripling -- CO2 has almost no effect on the air's infrared absorption properties. The only time CO2's infrared absorption is significant is at very low temperature (high latitude in winter, or high altitude) because water vapor condenses out. But precisely because there is so little incident sunlight at high latitude in winter, the "greenhouse effect" is virtually eliminated, and although CO2 absorption is important at high altitude where the air is very dry, no measurable infrared effect can propagate back down to the surface because it runs into so much water vapor in the warmer air near the surface.

[Pants-of-dog]

…. it doesn't refute any theory of anthropogenic climate change except the notion that CO2 would be the main causative factor.

How does it refute the the notion that CO2 is the main causative factor of anthropogenic climate change?

Be clear and specific.

…. there is already so much water vapor and CO2 in ordinary atmospheric air near the earth's surface that adding -- even doubling or tripling -- CO2 has almost no effect on the air's infrared absorption properties.

This does not refute co2’s role in anthropogenic climate change.

This is because the air hear the surface of the Earth can move and be replaced by air that has less water vapour and CO2, thereby allowing for more absorption of CO2 and H2O and thereby more infrared absorption.

This is due to a process called convection. Would you like me to explain how it works?

[Truth To Power]

How does it refute the the notion that CO2 is the main causative factor of anthropogenic climate change?

Be clear and specific.

It shows that the claimed mechanism -- enhanced IR absorption -- cannot operate as claimed.

This does not refute co2’s role in anthropogenic climate change.

Yes it does.

This is because the air hear the surface of the Earth can move and be replaced by air that has less water vapour and CO2, thereby allowing for more absorption of CO2 and H2O and thereby more infrared absorption.

That is nothing but gobbledegook with no relation to fact. How can less water vapor and CO2 lead to more IR absorption?? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

This is due to a process called convection. Would you like me to explain how it works?

I have forgotten more about convection than you will ever know. You are bloviating because you don't know anything about the subject. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, and its concentration is not affected by convection. Water vapor concentration is only affected near land/water boundaries, and has nothing to do with CO2. You have no idea what you are talking about. None.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

What keeps the Earth warm enough to be habitable, if not CO2?

[Pants-of-dog]

That is nothing but gobbledegook with no relation to fact. How can less water vapor and CO2 lead to more IR absorption??

You misunderstood.

Getting back to the lab experiment, how exactly does it show that “the claimed mechanism -- enhanced IR absorption -- cannot operate as claimed”.

Be clear and specific.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

What keeps the Earth warm enough to be habitable, if not CO2?

The sun, obviously.

But there are actually three main atmospheric factors that keep the earth warmer than the moon, which is -- again, obviously -- at the same distance from the sun as the earth:

1. Most importantly, the density of the earth's atmosphere makes the surface much warmer than the temperature of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere where outward infrared radiation balances the incident solar energy. Atmospheric density is why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being a lot farther from the sun and having a much higher albedo, and the surface of Mars is much colder than the surface of the earth, despite the fact that Mars has more CO2 in its atmosphere and a lower albedo.

2. Next most important, the water vapor in the earth's atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation from the surface, acting as an insulating blanket ("greenhouse" gas is a misnomer, as greenhouses work by blocking loss of solar heat by convection, not radiation). The magnitude of this effect is determined by the infrared absorption properties of the water molecules and the number of molecules present in the atmosphere, not the mass of gas, which is how concentration is measured. Water vapor is a much more effective infrared absorber than CO2, and the total number of water molecules in the atmosphere is about eight times the number of CO2 molecules, so water vapor is a far more important "greenhouse" gas than CO2. Moreover, water vapor is much more plentiful near the earth's surface and at the lower latitudes that get more sun, because it is warmer; so in terms of actually warming the earth's surface, water vapor is probably about 100 times as important as CO2.

3. Third in importance is CO2, but its effect is theoretically greatest at very low concentrations -- much lower than have ever actually occurred on earth. The lowest concentration of CO2 is believed to have been ~180ppm during the depths of the Ice Ages, which occurred because sea water dissolves more CO2 at lower temperatures -- and the oceans hold about 50x as much CO2 as the atmosphere. We are now at ~420ppm, and in the distant past the concentration was far higher: ~4,000ppm in the Cambrian Era, and as much as 300,000ppm before the emergence of photosynthetic plants. However, if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would enter a positive ice-albedo feedback loop, and probably freeze completely. Some people claim this theoretical possibility shows CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas; but even a very small amount of CO2 -- maybe 1ppm -- would be enough to reverse the feedback loop, releasing enough water vapor to melt some ice, release more water vapor, etc., and once the initial positive water vapor feedback is established, additional CO2 is almost irrelevant.

You may now consider yourself at least minimally informed on the subject.

[Truth To Power]

You misunderstood.

No, you spewed uninformed gobbledegook that proved you have no idea what you are talking about.

Getting back to the lab experiment, how exactly does it show that “the claimed mechanism -- enhanced IR absorption -- cannot operate as claimed”.

Be clear and specific.

I am always clear and specific. Angstrom's experiment -- which can be replicated by any competent physics undergrad with access to ordinary university lab equipment, remember -- showed that the increase in IR absorption caused by adding CO2 to typical sea-level atmospheric air is far too small to have the claimed effect on surface temperature. The results of experiments comparing the IR absorption of pure CO2, dry air, etc., which anti-CO2 scaremongers sometimes cite, do not replicate conditions in the actual surface atmosphere, and are therefore irrelevant.

[ingliz]

Angstrom's experiment

What Ångström didn’t know.

[Pants-of-dog]

Angstrom's experiment -- ... -- showed that the increase in IR absorption caused by adding CO2 to typical sea-level atmospheric air is far too small to have the claimed effect on surface temperature.

How did it show that?

[Truth To Power]

What Ångström didn’t know.

Like most of Realclimate's dishonest scaremongering nonscience, that is an exercise in propaganda that does not actually refute Angstrom's results, but just pretends they mean something different from what they clearly say.

Disgraceful.

[Truth To Power]

How did it show that?

By showing that adding more CO2 did not result in any significant increase in IR absorption.

Again, I don't understand what you think you can achieve by questioning Angstrom's experiment when any competent physics undergrad can do the same experiment in his university's physics lab and get the same results.

[Pants-of-dog]

By showing that adding more CO2 did not result in any significant increase in IR absorption.

And why did it not result in any significant increase in IR absorption?

[Godstud]

So, @Pants-of-dog, what is the level of CO2 that we are supposed to be at?

Millions of years ago, the CO2 levels were 10 times what they are now and it was 20C warmer. Just on math you can see that raising the temperature even a degree would mean raising the CO2 levels by 200ppm. The rate at which we are increasing is about 2ppm per year, and so it would take a 100 years to raise it even a degree. Math, however, isn't a science to which the climate activists seem to care about, however.

CO2, therefore, cannot be the prime factor behind AGW. Carbon footprint is nonsense and the Carbon taxes are just cash grabs by government. The climate change activists/"scientists"( it has been politicized) continue to say this is the cause, when it's quite clearly NOT.

The climate change doomsaying is at full power, now.

The end is nigh!

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You are assuming a linear arithmetic progression of CO2 and temperature.

This is unrealistic. Climate is a chaotic system with tipping points, feedbacks (both positive and negative), et cetera.

[Godstud]

So @Pants-of-dog At what point does the temperature level out in relation to CO2, or is that something you don't know and make assumptions about?

So what level of CO2 is ideal for the Earth? You seem to know everything. Do tell.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

There may be no point where temperature levels out.

And Earth has no ideal temperature.