Truth To Power wrote:But it [insulting others here] helps clarify the situation.
If a 1% increase is not insignificant, would a 0.1% increase be insignificant? How about a 0.01% increase? A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because the temperature difference between ice ages and interglacials is ~10C, and that is associated with a change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas. A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006, or enough to increase temperatures by ~0.1C, which is less than the typical year-to-year fluctuation. And remember: Angstrom showed the actual effect of doubling CO2 was a ~0.5% increase in IR absorption, not 1%.
No it wasn't. You are merely about to prove, yet again, your total lack of scientific acumen. Watch:
Or convertibles, or conventions, or convexity. Because all four are irrelevant to the experiment.
See? You have no knowledge of science. None.
No, it made no such assumption. You simply made that up.
See? You proved again that you have no understanding of science, let alone atmospheric physics. There is no reason whatever to assume that convection would be measurably affected by increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm UNLESS it significantly affected IR absorption and thus heating. Which Angstrom proved it can't.
I'm replying to just the part I highlighted.
1] Lurkers, did you follow how TtP got from a "change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas" to "A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006"? I could see no connection between those 2 statements that are back-to-back in his reply.
2] Lurkers, TtP seems to totally fail to grok that changes in IR absorption cause a tiny amount in cooling or heating each day for centuries. This goes on until a new equilibrium temp is reached. So, a tiny change can cause a large temp change over many decades.
3] Lurkers, TtP above wrote, "A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because". I have not seen any attempt by TtP to support his claim that a 1% change in absorption is insignificant.
. . . This is my attempt to show that he is wrong using his own words. TtP asserts that the 280 ppm (IIRC) of CO2 in the air in 1850, will absorb all the IR light/heat in a few hundred meters. This is a lot of absorption. Yet TtP admits that IR light/heat still escapes into space, when he says energy in = energy out. Then he asserts that a 1% increase in the absorption of IR light/heat is insignificant.
. . . Well, remember we are not talking about an amount of a 'thing', we are talking about a rate of change of a 'thing'. Here the 'thing' is the amount of heat energy retained in a sample of air near the surface. We see this amount of heat energy retained as the temp of the air.
. . . An analogy might be wealth, income, and spending. Here wealth = the energy in the air measured as its temp. Income is the rate at which the IR energy is absorbed. And spending = the rate at which the energy of that sample of air loses its energy by reradiating IR light/heat. OK, here we are talking about what effect changing the rate of change in the income has on wealth. That is, does a 1% increase in the rate of change in income have a significant effect on the accumulated wealth of the person? We know that there is a time lag between increasing the CO2 ppm and the temp of the air. That is the air takes time to increase its temp. You know this because when you cook and boil water, turning up the fire under the pot does not immediately make it boil. This means that the temp of our air below slowly heats up, and because the amount of IR being reradiated depends on the temp of the air the amount of IT reradiated lags behind the amount of IR absorbed. We need to assume that she was spending the same as her income, because before in 1850 the temp was not increasing much due to the CO2 in the air.
. . . Suppose, the person's income was $100K/yr. Her wealth was $0, and her spending was $100K. this means her wealth was not changing because she spent all her income. [In 1850 we are assuming that the temp was constant. We do this because we need to eliminate all other reasons why the temp will change to see the effect a 1% change will have if all other factors are equal.]
. . . OK, her income was $100K. A 1% increase would make her earn $101K/yr. There is a lag in her increased spending. I'll assume for illustration here, that her spending increases by 0.06%, so 1.006 x 100k = $100.6k.
. . . Now, in the 1st year her wealth will increase by $101K - 100.6K = $0.4K. If her wealth is assumed to be 0 just for simplicity, then her wealth is now $0.4K.
. . . In the next year her income was $101K and it again increases by 1% so now her income is 101 x 1.01 = $102.01k. This year we'll illustrate by assuming her spending also increases by 0.06%, so she spends 1.006 x 100.6k = 101.20K. So, her wealth is now 0.4K + 102.01k - 101.20k = 1.21k
In each following year we multiply by the same 1% income increase and the same .6% spending increase, we get her wealth increased to $2.426k. After 7 years her wealth is now $11.564k. If we extend this to 100 years we can see that it is significant.
I redid the spread sheet and assumed that all her increased income was spent, but with a 1 year lag. In this case her wealth after 7 years was $12.365k. So, it was larger.
We all know that TtP will reject this analogy. I hope the Lurkers can grok the point, that is "changing the rate of something is never insignificant if the time is long enough.
Before, I have shown that adding just 0.0001 deg.C each day over 3 decades adds just about 1 deg.C to the temp. Obviously, adding more per day makes the 1 deg.C increase happen sooner.
TtP might have thought that adding just 0.0001 deg.C to the temp per day was insignificant. But, you can see that it isn't.
Also, because of the time lag of temp increase, if we stopped adding CO2 to the air today, by removing all of what we add, the temp would keep increasing. And worse, this would add more water vapor to the air, which is a much stronger GHG, so it would heat the Earth more & faster. In this wonderfully rosy case, it would take decades for the temp to reach the new equilibrium temp, and it might be a 2 or 3 deg.C increase on top of our current 1.15 deg.C increase from 1850 temps. This will be very bad. Even a 1 deg.C increase from now is very bad.