Science > Physics > Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"asdf" |
| Date: |
07 May 2007 01:45:16 PM |
| Object: |
Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
Here is a question I have:
Suppose every variable on the earth ( solar radiation, plant life
etc ) stays as it is right now except for Co2.
How many tonnes of CO2 would have to be added to the system to raise
the earths mean temp by 1 C ?
Now how many tonnes of co2 would have be needed to raise the mean temp
another 1 C ?
Would it need to be the same/more or less. And how much more or
less ?
Thanks !
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
07 May 2007 07:15:48 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 11:45 am, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a question I have:
Suppose every variable on the earth ( solar radiation, plant life
etc ) stays as it is right now except for Co2.
How many tonnes of CO2 would have to be added to the system to raise
the earths mean temp by 1 C ?
Now how many tonnes of co2 would have be needed to raise the mean temp
another 1 C ?
Would it need to be the same/more or less. And how much more or
less ?
Thanks !
It's supposed to be roughly proportional to the Log of the
increase.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million in
1900. This has increased to 380 parts per million now. The log of
380/280 is 0.1326.
The warming has been about 0.6 degrees C over the century. If all of
this is due to CO2, and there are no offsetting cooling effects from
other sources, then a 0.1326 log increase is equivalent to a 0.6 C
increase. To increase a further 0.4 C to 1 degree C would be an
increase of an additional 2/3 of 0.6 C= 0.4 C. An additional 2/3 * .
1326 = 0.0884. 0.0884 + 0.1326 = 0.2210
10^ 0.2210 is about 1.66. 1.66* 280 ppm = 464.8 so if the full
warming is due to CO2, the world will be warmed 1 C over 1900 when
our CO2 level reaches 464.8
For a 2 C increase, the increas in CO2 would have to be about 1.66
squared = 2.7556 times the 1900 fraction if the effect is indeed
logarithmic.
A 3 C increase would require an increase in CO2 from 1900 levels by a
factor of
1.66 cubed =4.57 times the 1900 fraction, etc.
- A. McIntire
.
|
|
|
| User: "asdf" |
|
| Title: Re: Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
07 May 2007 07:42:50 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 8:15 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On May 7, 11:45 am, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a question I have:
Suppose every variable on the earth ( solar radiation, plant life
etc ) stays as it is right now except for Co2.
How many tonnes of CO2 would have to be added to the system to raise
the earths mean temp by 1 C ?
Now how many tonnes of co2 would have be needed to raise the mean temp
another 1 C ?
Would it need to be the same/more or less. And how much more or
less ?
Thanks !
It's supposed to be roughly proportional to the Log of the
increase.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million in
1900. This has increased to 380 parts per million now. The log of
380/280 is 0.1326.
The warming has been about 0.6 degrees C over the century. If all of
this is due to CO2, and there are no offsetting cooling effects from
other sources, then a 0.1326 log increase is equivalent to a 0.6 C
increase. To increase a further 0.4 C to 1 degree C would be an
increase of an additional 2/3 of 0.6 C= 0.4 C. An additional 2/3 * .
1326 = 0.0884. 0.0884 + 0.1326 = 0.2210
10^ 0.2210 is about 1.66. 1.66* 280 ppm = 464.8 so if the full
warming is due to CO2, the world will be warmed 1 C over 1900 when
our CO2 level reaches 464.8
For a 2 C increase, the increas in CO2 would have to be about 1.66
squared = 2.7556 times the 1900 fraction if the effect is indeed
logarithmic.
A 3 C increase would require an increase in CO2 from 1900 levels by a
factor of
1.66 cubed =4.57 times the 1900 fraction, etc.
- A. McIntire
Thanks. What is the primary reason for needing a bigger increase in
co2 ? Is it because
the earth is getting hotter so we need more insulation than before to
hold in the
higher heat or some other reason ?
many thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
08 May 2007 11:45:22 AM |
|
|
On May 7, 5:42 pm, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 7, 8:15 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On May 7, 11:45 am, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a question I have:
Suppose every variable on the earth ( solar radiation, plant life
etc ) stays as it is right now except for Co2.
How many tonnes of CO2 would have to be added to the system to raise
the earths mean temp by 1 C ?
Now how many tonnes of co2 would have be needed to raise the mean temp
another 1 C ?
Would it need to be the same/more or less. And how much more or
less ?
Thanks !
It's supposed to be roughly proportional to the Log of the
increase.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million in
1900. This has increased to 380 parts per million now. The log of
380/280 is 0.1326.
The warming has been about 0.6 degrees C over the century. If all of
this is due to CO2, and there are no offsetting cooling effects from
other sources, then a 0.1326 log increase is equivalent to a 0.6 C
increase. To increase a further 0.4 C to 1 degree C would be an
increase of an additional 2/3 of 0.6 C= 0.4 C. An additional 2/3 * .
1326 = 0.0884. 0.0884 + 0.1326 = 0.2210
10^ 0.2210 is about 1.66. 1.66* 280 ppm = 464.8 so if the full
warming is due to CO2, the world will be warmed 1 C over 1900 when
our CO2 level reaches 464.8
For a 2 C increase, the increas in CO2 would have to be about 1.66
squared = 2.7556 times the 1900 fraction if the effect is indeed
logarithmic.
A 3 C increase would require an increase in CO2 from 1900 levels by a
factor of
1.66 cubed =4.57 times the 1900 fraction, etc.
- A. McIntire
Thanks. What is the primary reason for needing a bigger increase in
co2 ? Is it because
the earth is getting hotter so we need more insulation than before to
hold in the
higher heat or some other reason ?
many thanks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Think of the analogy of little baseballs (photons) being reflected
from the
earth and bouncing back into space. The CO2 molecules have catchers'
mitts and some of those baseballs are caught by the CO2 molecules,
resulting in a warming factor. Increase the number of catchers'
mitts, and after a while the number of baseballs caught will be much
less than the increase in catchers, because the catchers are
interfering with each other.
For small fractions, the
formula T = ( 1 - 1/e^(CO2 fraction now/CO2 fraction original))
works.
Of course for extremely small amounts of CO2, say 0.1% of the
current value, there wouldn't be enough molecules to interfer with
each other, and the increase would be almost linear. - A. McIntire
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
08 May 2007 12:07:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Think of the analogy of little baseballs (photons) being reflected
from the
earth and bouncing back into space. The CO2 molecules have catchers'
mitts and some of those baseballs are caught by the CO2 molecules,
resulting in a warming factor. Increase the number of catchers'
mitts, and after a while the number of baseballs caught will be much
less than the increase in catchers, because the catchers are
interfering with each other.
Wow, really kool kook analogy!
You really have outkooked yourself here.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
08 May 2007 03:16:30 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 10:07 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
alanmc95...@yahoo.com wrote:
Think of the analogy of little baseballs (photons) being reflected
from the
earth and bouncing back into space. The CO2 molecules have catchers'
mitts and some of those baseballs are caught by the CO2 molecules,
resulting in a warming factor. Increase the number of catchers'
mitts, and after a while the number of baseballs caught will be much
less than the increase in catchers, because the catchers are
interfering with each other.
Wow, really kool kook analogy!
You really have outkooked yourself here.
So lets hear YOUR explanation as to why the effect of CO2 on
temperature is logarithmic. I wait with 'bated breath- A. McIntire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
09 May 2007 01:39:11 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 11:45 am, asdf <qjohnny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a question I have:
Suppose every variable on the earth ( solar radiation, plant life
etc ) stays as it is right now except for Co2.
How many tonnes of CO2 would have to be added to the system to raise
the earths mean temp by 1 C ?
Now how many tonnes of co2 would have be needed to raise the mean temp
another 1 C ?
Would it need to be the same/more or less. And how much more or
less ?
Thanks !
CO2 level has no detectable effect on global temperature.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 is too small to be significant.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Open Question to Physicists/Climatologists on Global Warming |
09 May 2007 01:41:12 PM |
|
|
Paul Cardinale wrote:
CO2 level has no detectable effect on global temperature.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 is too small to be significant.
Paul Cardinale
Minority Report
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
