Re: OT: Post Turtle

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

> > > > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:00:05 +0100, Martin Brown > > >> wrote: > >> >John Lark> >> >> > > >> >>> John Lark> > >> >>>>> On Jun 19, 11:00 am, John Larkin > >> The issue is whether pressure broadening adds some upward nonlinearity > >> to the effect of CO2 concentration on temperature. If we've always had > >> PB, and always will, and the pressure isn't changing, then it has no > >> important positive-feedback effects on warming. It's not as if PB is > >> some evil human modern invention. > > >> So bringing it up as a contributor to GW was just a way for Sloman to > >> show us, once again, how smart he is. And it worked about as well as > >> usual. > > >You mean you don't get it, as usual? > > >Or you refuse to recognize it, as usual? > > >Or you drop yourself deeper into anti-intellectual foolishness, as > >usual? > > Don't get what? The effects of pressure broadening on AGW? I sure > don't get it. Is the atmospheric pressure increasing, or not?

At the risk of being repetitive, what you don't get is that "pressure broadening" reflects the effects of molecular collisions on the spectrum of the molecule under consideration. Different molecules have different effects - non-polar molecules like oxygen and nitrogen have less effect, and different effects, than polar molecules like CO2 and H2O so that as the concentrations of these polar molecules in the atmosphere rises, pressure broadening gets bigger, even though the total pressure doesn't change.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but in Sydney at the moment)

Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

More weaseling, no numbers.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

ty

ad

o

Come now John, you are being ever-so-slightly childish.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.