Kinexity t1_ixebwlc wrote on November 22, 2022 at 8:14 PM

Reply to comment by Davidrussell22 in Is the future of carbon-capture technology electrochemistry? | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder by ProFoxxxx

Idk which part of your comment causes it to get deleted so I'm not going to cite any of it.

ppms are not important for interpretation of the total energy imbalance. The actual number I can find quickly is 0.47+-0.1 W/m^2. That's the energy flux of the surface of the Earth on average. It clearly indicates that the climate is warming. It's also a known fact that CO2 largely is responsible for that imbalance. I have no clue why you brought up bunch of loosely related numbers. Where even did "2 ppm yearly increase === 1W/M2" come from? That's ridicoulous rate of change.

Heat flows easily near the ground. It's not a proof that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

Then you did not understand the point I made - it wasn't about the effect of said phenomenon on global warming but rather that atmosphere is more complex than some air over a spring.

Sources for CO2 vs intelligence:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1510037
https://www.gwern.net/docs/co2/2015-stafford.pdf
Video explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA&ab_channel=TomScott
Now imagine schoolroom effect but global.

Davidrussell22 t1_ixetuny wrote on November 22, 2022 at 10:16 PM

I got 2ppm per year from Feldman (2015) as I specified: 22 ppm increase from 2000 to 2010 is about 2 ppm per year. I got the 1 W/M2 per year from you. I asked if it was TOA or surface, presuming you meant TOA as this forcings are usually quoted that way. Surface forcings relate to TOA forcings in the ratio of 1.46 to 1 (the ratio of the 5.5 W/M2 it takes in extra surface energy to heat the surface from 288K to 289K using Stefan-Boltzmann compared to 3.7W/M2 at TOA to move 255K to 256K).

Your new 0.47 W/M2 is still ridiculously wrong even making the new calculations. Since your number is wrong, your conclusions are wrong too.

If your point was that the atmosphere is complex, you actually had no point.

What is clear to me from CERES satellite data is that the GHE is not operating as advertised. As it turns out in a rebuttal to Feldman (2015) Okulaer in 2015 points out that DWIR (the back-radiation that is putatively what causes AGW) actually declined from 2000 to 2014 by 0.63 W/M2. That rather disproves AGW for the 21st century.