Changes

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter.  The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1.  As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).   

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter.  The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1.  As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).   

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed.  In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way.  Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon.  Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect.  This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology.

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed.  In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way.  Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon.  Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect.  This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)