Is the greenhouse effect already saturated by CO2?

Question

The only research I've found on the subject is skeptics pointing out that AGW from CO2 is implausible because the atmosphere is already apaque to the absorption bands of CO2.

Climate models seem to gloss over this by using a global warming parameter instead of using the measured physical properties of CO2.

Has anyone come up with a theory of AGW that uses the measured physical properties of CO2 to predict warming? This would seem to be an important analysis to me.

Answer 1

Good web page - it should make people think.

You do know greenhouses buy devices to raise CO2 levels to around 1000 ppm to increase plant growth about 40%?

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenh...

If you are worried about CO2 levels - you can purchase an reasonably priced CO2 test kit for $30. It would be good to know.

Three more points:

From left leaning Whakopedia:

Carbon Dioxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_diox...

"There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere." - Some say 90 times and NO ONE knows the amount under the Lithosphere!

This is an Example of "Real" Science ! ? ! ?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbon...

"New ocean flux first guess: The CarbonTracker data assimilation system relies on first guesses of surface fluxes that are then modified to agree with CO2 observations."

Modify the data to agree? ?  Sounds a little like the scientists the Alarmists like to quote?

Note the Changing CO2 levels on this CO2 map:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbon...

What's that big red spot in South America - looks lots worse than USA?!?!

Answer 2

No.  If it was then how could you explain the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus?  Here is the link mentioned by gcnp58.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Answer 3

Ben:

Search for "saturated gassy argument" on realclimate.  The link has been posted here time after time.  That you haven't read it, or read it and ignored it, or read it and not understood the argument is irrelevant.  

The science is out there, from experts.  If you want to continue to talk nonsense and ignore the science, that's up to you.  But it doesn't make people like me, who do understand the science, believe you are approaching this out of any rational belief that man isn't affecting climate.  You're just another little boy, scared some government bogeyman is coming to take your Tonka toys and guns.

Have a nice day.

Answer 4

That's just an example of people interpreting data without any knowledge base.  Like every other compound an element CO2 can absorb over the full range of the spectrum but will emit on only a specific frequency specific to the compound or element.  This is why lasers work.  This is how we can look at a distant star or planet and tell what it is made of.

Each element or compound can absorb energy over the FULL RANGE of the spectrum. It can emit energy only on a single frequency specific to the element or compound. In the case of Carbon the emission frequencies fall in the near infrared range (commonly called "heat"). A Carbon 12 CO2 laser has a wavelength of 10600 nanometers and a Carbon 13 CO2 laser has a wavelength of 11100 nanometers. For this reason carbon compounds like CO2 and Methane have a highly active role in the greenhouse effect. In the atmosphere, water also plays a special role, in that it absorbs well on these frequencies, but emits poorly. Water has extremely high absorption at this wavelength. A 30 micron thin layer of water will absorb 90% of CO2 laser radiation, and only 10% will pass through.

I kind of doubt the the earth's atmosphere is truly opaque to these wavelengths, but if it were these oafs should be alarmed.  It would mean that no heat whatsoever could escape!

Answer 5

No, they have ignored those readings entirely.  Basically, if you read every one of their 'scientific' conclusions, they are absent any other plausible reason.  So, CO2 is simply by deduction and because it is associated with progress and pollution.  However, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food.  The higher the CO2, the more plants grow.

In these forums, I have asked for a vial of air heated, compared to a heated vial of CO2, yet they refuse.  I have asked for a light experiment through a container of CO2 as opposed to any other gases to test its refractory / reflective qualities, but still no one will accept that challenge.

I have also asked why, when the sun goes down, CO2 gets cooler too, how CO2 retains so much heat, in which to contribute to global warming over 10, 20, and even longer...  But still to the response of Wikipedia references and some scientist said so and that it is a consensus....  Which, by the way there is no such thing as a consensus that we are causing global warming.  All of the skeptical scientists are former IPCC members, so I am not sure what consensus they may be referring to.

Anyway, good luck at any attempt to bring common sense to the floor.  It will not be accepted and they will make fun of you, call you foolish and even deny every fact that you bring forth.  

In fact, I just got told that a scientist who had to alter the data, in order for it to conform to alarmists' views, had his report validated four years later.  When in fact, the data was further altered, as to exclude the controversial findings, reinforcing the global warming alarmists' findings.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

It is frustrating how many people are purporting this stuff as factual, with absolutely no factual data whatsoever.

Answer 6

No, the greenhouse effect is not saturated.  Did you honestly think scientists hadn't considered this?  The simplest explanation is here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

"The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)"

That comes from the American Institute of Physics.  Your cite is from a "an independent mushroom scientist". whose specialty is biology, and who has never published anything at all, except on the Internet.

The reason that empirical models are used instead of straight physical models is that the system is complex, and empirical models give better results.  But the physical models are good enough to show that global warming scientists are in the right ballpark.