Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
I am not a scientist but I am an engineer and what you've just told me is that you don't know squat all.
|
Its simple, Officer. Most of the 3 atom (CO2, H2O, etc.), 4 atom (CH4), and non-diatomic poly-atom components to the atmosphere contribute certain radiative forcings to the atmosphere due to their abilities to absorb energy at certain wavelengths then re-emit them. The "9-25%-ish" are the estimates of the particular radiative forcings of C)2, based upon atmsopheric composition, other components of the atmosphere, etc. A great deal of the uncertaintly is based upon overlapping energy spectra of a component with the spectra of other "re-radiator" GHG components.
But the fact that C02 (among others, including water vapor) is a "radiator" has been known empirically for over a century (look up Arhennius's work, iirc).
Differing concentrations of components lead to differing "radiative profiles", since the occurence of a particular "unit" of radiated longwave energy striking one of these "re-radiators" is governed pretty much by the statistical properties associated with their concentration. Ergo, the specific "forcing", so to speak, of each component seems to be governed by the both the amount of that component and the amounts of components that share overlapping absorption spectra.
So:
"The 9-25-ish % is the "greenhouse %" for all atmospheric CO2"
should be read where the term "greenhouse %" really implies the radiative proportion of the total greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. I thought that this shorthand would be obvious in light of the "back and forth" between Parihka and myself. Since this may not have been obvious to you, I will try to make sure that all of my comments are fully spelt out in full so as not engender such a visceral response from you.
"This may be subject to revision in light of changes to the CO2 levels, of course."
I fully stand by this in light of the explanation above. I thought that the idea that when a radiator has a change in concentration, there would a change in the amount of re-radiated heat would be obvious. Again, apparently from your visceral reponse above, that this concept is not so obvious.
Personally, I have looked over the 4 or 5 posts that I have put up and fail to see how in any way I could have engendered such a response. Or, should I simply expect more ad-homs?
Have a nice day sir.