Wood Romances

Even though there is no theoretical basis for the Beer-Lambert formula, ∆RF = αln(C/Co), it has been accepted by the scientific community as a reasonable approximation. In this paper we propose an improved mathematical approximation that... has no theoretical basis. ~ H. Douglas Lightfoot A paper was published in Energy & Environment by Lightfoot & Mamer back in 2014 (LM14)[1] arguing that we should toss out decades of research establishing a theoretical basis for and quantifying the logarithmic relationship between changes in CO2 ( ∆CO2) and radiative forcing ( ∆RF ) for no good reason. In it's place, they sought to replace it with the results of a curve fitting exercise for no good reason except to generate an equation that would conform with a climate myth that was conclusively refuted in the 1950s. A theoretical basis for the near-logarithmic relationship between  ∆CO2 and  ∆RF was established beginning in 1896 with Arrhenius' landmark paper. Arrhenius quantified ...

Update (12/29/2024):  The paper I discuss below was retracted a couple days ago, citing failures in the peer-review process. "Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigor and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science . After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract." A paper published earlier this year is the latest in the long history of attempts to show that CO2 is already "saturated" in the atmosphere, and therefore increased CO2 cannot cause any more warming. The latest in a series of these kinds of papers from Kubicki et al 2024[1] attempts to make this point by modeling the atmosphere in a couple different experiments. The result of their experiments suggested to them that we should question whether "additionally emitted CO2 in the atmosp...

The CO2 Coalition claims to exist "for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policymakers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. The Coalition seeks to engage in an informed and dispassionate discussion of climate change, humans’ role in the climate system, the limitations of climate models, and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emission." And if you think there's even a grain of truth in that, we can dispel with that right here.  On their website, they have what they consider educational resources, including a series  of "facts" that ostensibly would help us get past media propaganda to the scientific evidence about AGW. Their second "fact" has the following title: "The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases." As is typical in these "facts," the title is superficially true; the disinformation comes in the way it...

It's well-established physics that the Earth's surface is ~33K warmer than its effective temperature, and the relationship between increasing CO2 and radiative forcing can be approximated by the following logarithmic equation: ΔF = 5.35*ln (C/Co) where, Co is an initial concentration of CO2 (preindustrial CO2 is generally regarded as 280 ppm).  C is the concentration of CO2 at any given time (currently 420 ppm). The equation shows the change in the outgoing flux at the top of the atmosphere caused by a change in CO2 concentrations. Since CO2 concentrations have increased by 50%, we can say CO2 has caused a decrease in the outgoing flux of 5.35*ln (1.5) = 2.2 W/m^2. As a result of this decrease in outgoing flux, more energy enters the climate system than escapes into space, and so the planet's surface must warm until the outgoing flux equals incoming again. The relationship between a change in radiative forcing and temperature is linear, so ΔT = λ*ΔF So essentially the relat...

A very common objection to climate science goes something like this - CO2 already absorbs all the IR radiation it can possibly absorb, so the greenhouse effect is saturated and adding more CO2 will not cause any more warming. Sometimes this objection is accompanied by an analogy. If you apply translucent tape to a clear window, you obstruct some but not all light passing through the window, but the more tape you add, the more lite is obstructed, and eventually you reach a thickness of tape beyond which no light can pass through. The tape has made the window opaque, and so adding more tape can't do anything more. Of course, if this were true, and if we are either at or near that saturation point, there would be no need to stop emitting carbon, since any additional carbon we add to the atmosphere won't change the Earth's temperature (it would continue to cause ocean acidification, though, but let's leave that for another day). The reasoning behind this objection is flawed...

I sometimes hear that increasing CO2 concentrations cannot cause any more warming because the atmosphere is already saturated with CO2. The idea being promoted is that the CO2 in the atmosphere already traps all the heat it can possibly trap, so adding more CO2 can't trap any more heat. The thought appears to be that the atmosphere is like a saturated sponge. Pouring more water onto the sponge can't add more water too the sponge; water must leave the sponge at the same rate water is added. But this analogy has little do do with the actual physics of how increasing CO2 warms the surface . CO2 warms the Earth's surface because solar energy entering the earth's climate system is absorbed by the earth's surfaced and is radiated back as IR light (heat). CO2 absorbs IR light at 15 μm and then emits it in all directions. Some of that IR light is sent back to the earth. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more IR light is absorbed and emitted towards the surface of the eart...