- 28 Nov 2021 19:47
#15200173
But it 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.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Insulting me is also not an intelligent rebuttal.
But it helps clarify the situation.
If you cannot support your claim that 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant, then there is no reaason for others to assume your arguments are true.
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%.
Angstrom’s experiment was wrong in several ways:
No it wasn't. You are merely about to prove, yet again, your total lack of scientific acumen. Watch:
For example, his experiment did not look at convection at all,
Or convertibles, or conventions, or convexity. Because all four are irrelevant to the experiment.
See? You have no knowledge of science. None.
and assumed the only heat transfer was through heat radiation.
No, it made no such assumption. You simply made that up.
This is, of course, wrong. Especially when we look at climate or weather. Wind happens.
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.