Quote:
Originally Posted by dalem
It would be more relevant to your argument if you could demonstrate a proof that increasing atmospheric Carbon leads to higher global temperatures, and at what rates, accounting for outgassing, oceanic absorption, cloud cover, cosmic rays, UV, solar variation, wind patterns, orbital mechanics, and other sundry variables.
But if you could do that, to quote Richelieau in "The Four Musketeers", "...you would be a remarkable man. People would remark on it."
-dale |
You somewhat misstate, dalem.
What you are asking for is what are the "superpositions" of each signal. Increasing the level and/or concentration of any non-diatomic component of the atmosphere definitely leads to increased thermal re-emission. That is absolutely known (and has been for over a century).
As an example, just ask any designer, manufacturer, or user of any semiconductor deposition equipment, for just one example of this.
I agree that the superposition of these other signals is absolutely germane to the total question of AGW. But, it is simple, fundamental physics that says "increased concentration" leads to increased thermal re-emission. I cannot see how you can doubt this.
As examples (a simple one): let the AGW "equation" be:
dT = Si * Tc + Oth (dT = change in retained energy, Si = solar input, Tc = the "plant function" of the instantaneous concentration, Oth = other "retained heat" factors)
In your example:
outgassing and oceanic absorption would affect Tc;
cloud cover, cosmic rays, UV, solar variation, and orbital mechanics all affect the "driver" function (Si)
wind patterns would probably be contained within the Oth component. This is an utterly simplistic "model" and is being shown for demonstrative purposes only (which is that there are many "signals" aside and apart from the AGHG signal w/i the total energy balance system....)
You have left out other components like land use issues (which affects albedo, retention of incoming thermal enery (leading to more radiated longwave radiation, and potential change in carbon sequestration via flora)
So there are other components (both inputs and linked effeects) to the "retained heat" question, which I would think would be the more correct way in which your comments would be directed.
Each component can be interlinked with another (you cloud cover, cosmic rays, and orbital mechanics are currently being shown to have interlinkage in the sense that some studies have shown that cosmic rays can be linked to cloud formation, .....)
But, I have to vehemently disagree with your propostion (impliedly made) that changes in CO2 concentration do not lead to corresponding changes in thermal re-emission, holding all other variables constant. If I am over-reading your statement, my apologies in advance.