Create A Forum Installed

Recent Posts

Pages: [1]
I notice that the calculator does not account for the saturation/logarithmic influence of CO2 concentration.
The calculator gives increasing impact for the doubling of CO2 as the concentration increases.
E.g. A=100, B=200 gives 1.49 W/m2
A=200, B=400 gives 1.75 W/m2
A=400, B=800 gives 2.37 W/m2
A=800, B=1600 gives 3.30 W/m2

The current consensus says (incorrectly) that power change should be logarithmic (i.e. the same for each doubling of CO2).

The actual function is actually a logistics function, where CO2 absorbs all available 15um IR and then distributes it through kinetic collisions, leaving nearly all CO2 unsaturated and available to absorb more radiation as it is generated.

This is my calculation on the ability of CO2 to absorb photons.
CO2 Absorbs between 14.2 and 15.8 Micron (550-800cm-1) = 2 micron range
At 20 degrees Celsius, a CO2 molecule has an average kinetic energy of approximately 6.0410−21 Joules
15 um wave is Energy is 1.3e-20 joule = 8KJ/mol)
15 Micron rad generated from earth surface = 25w/m2=25j/s/m2 x 2micron wide = 50j/s/m2
Photons generated  = 50/1.3E-20=3.8E21 photons/s/m2
Moles of Photons per second/m2  = 3.8E21/6E23=0.0063
Atmospheric Molar density at STP 1 mole per 22.4L =>  1000L/22.4=44.6429 moles/m3
Moles of CO2/m3 at STP => 44 Moles/m3 *0.04% CO2 = 0.0176 Moles of CO2/m3
Ratio of CO2/Photons +> 0.0176 moles CO2/0.0063 photons =2.8 more CO2 per m3

From Happer
 - CO2 has the ability to dissipate radiation through collisions
 - CO2 Time to re-emit IR = 0.2s to 1 s
 - Mean time between collisions 1ns - 1 billion collisions per second
 - Energised CO2 is almost none - 0.000001%

Based on these calculations CO2 will continually absorb nearly all photons within 1m.

Dr Yong Zhong seems to have the best take on this as can be found here especially around 9mins.

Functionality overview:  Climate Bell's calculator computes the power of the photons redirected back to (retained by) Earth's system when intercepted by GHGs in the atmosphere as illustrated in the diagram above.

Can I suggest a better explanation is that
"the calculator computes the power of photons absorbed by GHG and retained in the atmosphere as illustrated in the diagram above."

This removes the suggestion that photons and back radiation do any real warming when it is nearly always kinetic collisions that do the warming.
The GHGs only hold the stored energy from those absorbed photons for a brief period before releasing that energy back in uniformly random directions through photon emissions or redistributing the energy during collisions.  From an energy point of view, it can be thought of as an isotropic "scattering" of the energy

This explanation seems to focus on photon emissions being the major mechanism of GHG distributing their energy when according to William Happer that close to the surface the energy be will distributed through collisions in 99.999% of cases. This is also supported by experiment with the Pirani Gauge if you refer to Tome Nelson's Podcast #98 with Tom Shula.

It seems that photon re-emission is almost zero until you get to the stratosphere.

I know none of this invalidates the spreadsheet calculations, but it might be good to de-emphasise the role that radiation plays in the atmosphere.
Climate Bell's
Forum Rules and Guidelines

These rules and guidelines are to promote a healthy focused discussion and avoid unnecessary clutter in the comments.  Please respect them if you wish to participate in this forum.  We want anyone to come here no matter their climate change views and not wade into extraneous debates.  Should you wish to debate the consequences from the conclusions of the science, please do so elsewhere on the web.  You can always cite the Climate Bell there if you need to reference Climate Bell's analysis.

Keeping the Comments Simple Guidelines:
- Your goal for all technical comments and replies is when possible to write your comments at a level ideally understandable by anyone, or at least understandable by a person with a high school physics competency, as this will give you more engagement with others.
- If you are writing a critical comment, don't just say a specific thing is wrong, state what you think is the correction, and if you have a reference, cite it.  This will give people a focus for more efficient feedback by eliminating ambiguity.
- Few will be impressed with scientific bafflegab or gobbledygook in posts, so please do your best to avoid it.
- Be excellent and awesome if you post.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
...Albert Einstein
General Rules:
- Anyone can be a forum member so long as they follow the rules here and are not excessively posting.
- To join please register on CreateAForum and agree to their rules and policies.
- This forum will be moderated from time to time and violation of the rules will result in removal.
- Do NOT include such things as email addresses and phone numbers as this is an open forum. 
- Do NOT impersonate anyone - that also may be a violation of CreateAForum's rules.
- Do NOT post on behalf of anyone even with their permission - we only want direct participation.
- Do NOT criticize any person or entity other than critiquing Climate Bell and for technical merit - more details in next sections.
- The language of English is the only language supported for moderation.  Please use English if you wish to participate.
- Poorly worded comments including tersely ambiguous ones or ones deemed by a moderator to be confusingly complex will be removed to not waste the time of the moderators, participating members, or the viewers.

NOT a Soapbox Rules:
This is NOT a soapbox for any comments outside of the scope of Climate Bell's foundational photon physics focus. Please put off-topic comments elsewhere on the Internet where they may be willing to entertain them. This rule does not imply your comment is invalid, we just don't want it here.

- Citing Related References - You can cite reference(s) when you are making a point so long as they are findable on the Internet by anyone without a subscription service and so long as you preempt it by making your point in clear and simple language in your comment.  Do NOT just point to a website, a paper, or make any other reference without first properly articulating your point.  Nobody participating in this forum is interested in studying your reference to try and infer from it what your point is from an inadequately explained point. References should only be used to support your point.
- Citing Unrelated References - Do NOT use this forum to promote anything else even if it has something to do with manmade climate change.
- Citing Unrelated Work - Do NOT reference other people's work either positively or negatively regarding climate change models, measurements, weather events or anything outside of the foundational physics that is Climate Bell's focus, even if it is related to manmade climate change. 
- Political or Societal Comments - Do NOT use this forum to make such comments even if you think that it ties into Climate Bell's results; there are other places on the Internet that may entertain your comments.  People can always come back to get a crisp picture at Climate Bell if you feel the need to mention Climate Bell results elsewhere.

Commenting on Climate Bell's Work Rules:
- Your Point at the Top of Your Comment Please - Make sure your point is at the top of the post within the first 1-3 sentences so people who aren't interested can ignore the rest of your comment. Long posts that don't start this way may also be removed by moderators.
- Single Point Comments Please - Please refrain from long posts with multiple points in the one post.  You can have multiple supporting evidences but it should all be under a single point in the comment.  This will help people follow the thread of your point and either agree or disagree with minimal confusion because you have only 1 point in your post.
- Post length - Posts are limited to 2500 characters.  Please no continuation posts (part 1, 2,...).
- Non-Peer Comments - For those without a scientific (physics) understanding, you can make a polite positive or negative comment if you wish in the Other Comments board but keep it focused on only Climate Bell content and not other things related to manmade climate change.
- Positive PEER REVIEW - For those with a physics understanding, supportive comments are appreciated and should be placed in the Peer Review Comments board only.
- Negative PEER REVIEW - For those with a physics understanding, if you have a technical issue with Climate Bell's science, be clear in your criticism and this should be placed in the Peer Review Comments board only.  Write it in terminology that will be the most understandable to a wider audience (ideally at a high school level of physics if possible) and backup any differing claim with a reference that forum participants can use to explore your claim.
- Enhanced Credibility - Please consider that your comment may have more weight if you use your name with credentials and/or organization but this is not a requirement to post. 
- Declaration of Biases - Whether you are making a positive or negative comment, if you have biases, stating them is appreciated so long as your statement doesn't violate other rules in this forum such as promoting something outside the scope of the photon physics focus of earth's IR radiation as it relates to GHGs.  An example of a bias would be "I am funded by the government to explore manmade climate change" and stating that wouldn't be a problem.

Questions and Suggestions Guidance:
The rules are probably self-evident, but if you have a question about a rule or a Climate Bell suggestion, you may make it in the Other Comments board in this forum. We don't guarantee that will answer every question or answer promptly. 

Rules May Change without Notice:
Climate Bell reserves the right to change these rules at anytime in the future should it be necessary to keep the forum focused and healthy or for any other reason we see fit.
Pages: [1]