WE DON'T NEED YOUR FEELTHY ABSORPTION INTEGRALS

Climatic Distortions Due to Diminutive Denominators

WUWT Guest Blogger / 2 hours ago 

Guest essay by Thomas P. Sheahen

We all learned in elementary school that “you can’t divide by zero.”  But what happens when you divide by a number very close to zero, a small fraction?  The quotient shoots way up to a very large value.

Pick any number.  If you divide 27 by 1, you get 27.  If you divide 27 by 1/10, you get 270. Divide 27 by 1/1000 and you get 27,000.  And so on.  Any such division exercise blows up to a huge result as the denominator gets closer and closer to zero.

There are several indices being cited these days that get people’s attention, because of the big numbers displayed.  But the reality is that those big numbers come entirely from having very small denominators...prominent examples of this mathematical artifact [include] the feedback effect in global warming models...

The misuse of numbers here has led to all sorts of dreadful predictions about the need to do away with very minor trace gases like methane (CH4), N2O and others.

“Global Warming Potential” was first introduced in IPCC ...To grasp what it means, it is first necessary to understand how molecules absorb and re-emit radiation...

Once a molecule absorbs a photon, it gains energy and goes into an excited state; until that energy is lost (via re-radiation or collisions), that molecule won’t absorb another photon. A consequence of this is that the total absorption by any gas gradually saturates as the amount of that gas increases. A tiny amount of a gas absorbs very effectively, but if the amount is doubled, the total absorption will be less than twice as much as at first; and similarly if doubled again and again. We say the absorption has logarithmic dependence on the concentration of the particular gas. The curve of how total absorption falls off varies according to the exponential function, exp (-X/A), where X is the amount of a gas present [typically expressed in parts per million, ppm], and A is a constant related to the physics of the molecule. Each gas will have a different value, denoted B, C, D, etc. Getting these numbers within + 15% is considered pretty good.

There is so much water vapor in the atmosphere (variable, above 10,000 ppm, or 1% in concentration) that its absorption is completely saturated, so there’s not much to discuss. By contrast, the gas CO2 is a steady value of about 400 ppm, and its absorption is about 98% saturated. That coincides with the coefficient A being roughly equivalent to 100 ppm.

This excursion into the physics of absorption pays off when we look at the mathematics that goes into calculating the “Global Warming Potential” (GWP) of a trace gas...the reality is that every one of the GWPs calculated is enormously inflated due to division by the extremely small denominator associated with the slope of the CO2 absorption curve.

The calculation of GWP is not so much a warning about other gases, but rather an indictment of CO2, which (at 400 ppm) would not change its absorption perceptibly...

When it is too difficult to carry out an actual integral over data that is very uncertain and widely variable, the next best thing is to select one number for the lifetime and multiply by it...

The guesswork involved in that will probably afflict both numerator and denominator is roughly the same way.

While the good doctor has not found a scientific publisher for this view, he does not expect us to take it on faith, and offers the following supporting information on his website, which by an odd coincidence is linked via The Heartland Institute:

Science
When God created the laws of physics General Relativity
Quantum Chromodynamics, etc.
He created a universe that would bring forth a creature capable of loving Him in return.

Science Grew From Christianity
• Antiquity: science just a curiosity, no rational order• Christianity: God made the universe intelligible,
Subject to human reasoning• There were great churchmen/scientists of past 5 centuries

Data

• As science advanced, a preference for experimental and observational data emerged
• Data became the final arbiter of scientific truth
• Theories are mankind’s reasoned attempts to explain the data.
• But in the final analysis, data is supreme.
  Data Trumps Theory

No global warming for 18 years 4 months

All the models over-predict
warming
Christy & Spencer (2013)

Real Data

• CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to > 400 ppm since start of industrial revolution
• The computer models predict that the Temperature would already have risen.
• That is clearly not the case.
• Therefore, a capable scientist must build a new theoretical model.

God created the universe with wisdom
far beyond our own
The presence of two major life forms (plant & animal) that use each other’s waste
and thus provide food
Is far to clever for mankind to imagineCO2 is Plant Food

CO2 is plant food
• More CO2 makes the Stomata on leaves open wider
• Allowing water to be converted more efficiently
• Plants grow more• Trees• Grain
• Food• Life

Conclusion
There is nothing to fear from CO2
It does not increase the temperature
If there is no reason to abolish CO2,
Then there is no reason to suppress fossil fuels 

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen is vice president of the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP), Director of the Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and Technology (ITEST)