Matthias Olschowy@MOlschowy
Climate change - it exists after all, the CO2 saturation!
When I claim this, I mean that the argumentation of climate science itself, as far as it is only consequently and, according to my conviction, correctly continued, leads to the clear insight that the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 with respect to the greenhouse effect.
The following thread, whose final compilation will take some time, deals accordingly with the saturation hypothesis. I am removing the comment function for the time being until the argument is completed.
Here is a brief summary:
The CO2 saturation hypothesis expresses that CO2, as a radiatively active gas, does in principle make its contribution to the greenhouse effect, but that higher than present CO2 concentrations, and thus man-made CO2 emissions, do not or hardly enhance this effect. Skeptics argue that this is because the lower part of the atmosphere is already impermeable to the CO2-relevant part of the thermal radiation emitted from the earth's surface. In other words, the transmissivity of the atmosphere for the CO2-relevant part of the infrared spectrum is practically zero, below which it cannot fall further, even if the CO2 concentration continues to increase.
Now, climate science correctly points out that in every penetrated layer, absorption and the accompanying weakening (reduction of transmissivity) of an outgoing ray is also associated with emission, because matter not only absorbs radiation, but also emits radiation. So in fact one is dealing not only with the weakening by local absorption but also with a strengthening by local emission. Further, one assumes that because of the temperature gradient in the troposphere, the outward emission there is less than the absorption, so that in the local balance there is still a weakening of the outgoing beam, whose strength therefore continues to decrease monotonically as it travels through the atmosphere, and with it the total transmissivity from the ground to a given altitude. However, it is clear that this weakening is smaller than the first one, the emissionless weakening, which exclusively follows Beer-Lambert's law. Therefore, it is advisable to distinguish the pure (Beer-Lambertian) transmissivity from the effective transmissivity, which takes into account not only the weakening by absorption but also the strengthening by emission.
Finally, the claim of climate science is that in the question of CO2 saturation of the greenhouse effect, it is the effective transmissivity and not the pure transmissivity that is crucial.
The assertion has far-reaching consequences, because the effective transmissivity is considerably larger, as described above. The greenhouse effect would thus be far from saturation, and ground-level temperatures would increase accordingly as long as atmospheric CO2 concentrations also continue to rise.
I am convinced that one thing is clear, that neither the effect of one transmissivity nor the other on the greenhouse effect is really clear without further ado. I.e., both are just weak hypotheses for now. The aim of this thread is therefore to bring about such an understanding and finally to justify that climate science is wrong, namely that for the size of the greenhouse effect the pure transmissivity, unaltered by emission, is determinant, which, however, according to unanimous conviction, is already saturated in the CO2-relavant part of the spectrum. In fact, it will turn out that it is not directly the transmissivity itself that determines the greenhouse effect, but the aggregate (optical) thickness of the atmosphere across the entire IR spectrum, which conversely is ultimately determined by the relative size of the atmospheric window.
