Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence.

Climate Myth...

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature ... " (Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide)

Predicting the Future

Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation.  The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

 

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

 

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments. 

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne


Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 

Last updated on 1 August 2015 by MichaelK. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Further reading

A good summation of the physics of radiative forcing can be found in V. Ramanathan's Trace-Gas Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming.

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Comments 201 to 250 out of 358:

  1. fred.steffen

    Here is the actual infra-red spectrum for a point on the earth. Taken by the Nimbus 3 satellite in 1969. The top curve is what the satellite observed, the bottom was calculated from radiation transfer theory. The top curve has been shifted up for clarity. In fact they match almost perfectly. The graph shown by Tom Curtis at comment 163 shows the left hand half of this curve without the offset, and also the Planck curves associated with different temperatures. You could also look at the full curve from theory shown by Tom at comment 154.

    The peak of the curve is at a wavenumber of around 600 cm-1. That's a wavelength of around 17 microns. And as you can see from the graph below, emissions have dropped away to virtually nothing at 3 and 4 micron's so CO2's absorption peaks there have virtually no effect.

    So sorry, firstly, Tim Ball is just flat out wrong.

     

    Next, the large notch at around the 15 micron point, due to CO2, is close to the peak of the emission curve, so CO2 is active in some of the most important part of the spectrum.

    Water vapour across most of the spectrum we are interested in here is a weaker absorber proportionally than CO2, except at the far right. However, as you point out, H2O is far more abundant in the lower atmosphere and this makes up for that so that H2O is a significant absorber across the spectrum at low altitudes. Importantly however, H2O concentrations drop sharply as one goes to higher altitudes because it condenses. By the time one reaches the stratosphere water vapour is almost non-existant - 0.0001% or less. So this reduces the contribution possible from water hugely.

    If water didn't condense, and water vapour was several % of the atmosphere right up into the stratosphere then most of the regions on this graph showing H2O absorption would be down at the same levels as the bottom of the CO2 notch. Much less energy would be able to get out to space, the GH effect would be very much hotter, and the Earth would be an inferno.

    So the common figures estimated for the relative contributions of different things to the GH effect are around :

    H2O - 50%
    Clouds - 25%
    CO2 - 20%
    Other gases - 5%


    Also, look at the graph I have posted at comment 191. That is the raw data for how absorbent CO2 is across the wavelengths we are interested in. Spectral Intensity is the raw number that is the starting point for calculating absorptivity, but the relative strengths at different wavelengths are still a strong indicator of the relative absorptivity of CO2 at different wavelengths. Not that the vertical scale is logarithmic so 6 orders of magnitude variation.

    However at sea level pressures and temperatures, due to the speed molecules are moving at and the frequency of collisions, this spectrum gets smeared out and CO2 absorbs quite well over most of the range indicated by the notch in my diagram here. It doesn't just absorb at 15 microns.

    As for what happens when a molecule absorbs a photon. It takes many, many milliseconds before the molecule can re-emit a photon. However that molecule will undergoes billions of collisions a second with other molecules. So mostly the absorbed energy is transferred to surrounding molecules in the air rather than re-radiated. It is 'thermalised'.

    So how does any re-radiation occur? Absorbing a photon isn't the only way a GH molecule can become more energised. Through the continuous collisions between molecules a proportion of all the GH molecules are in a higher energy state naturally. The vast majority of high energy GH molecules are energised because of collisions, not by absorbing a photon. And from this very, very much larger pool of energised GH molecules a small percentage do manage to de-energise by emitting a photon.

    So there is no coupling between the wavelength of a photon absorbed, and the wavelength of a photon emitted. It isn't the same molecule involved.

  2. fred.steffen @200, my assumption is that the IR camera was tuned to a specific wavelength (probably 15 micro-meters).  That being the case, the experiment would indeed show the same thing.

    @199

    "3 and 4 micron are centered around 451c and 693c respectively and the earth's black body curve doesn't hit that much."

    Here is an observed IR spectrum with black body curves for various temperatures overlaid:

    As you can see, the back bodies radiate even at 6 micro-meters, even at 200 K.  Indeed, using a radiance calculator, we can determine that even at 2.5 micro-meters, a black body at 200 K still radiates 0.00039 mW/m^2 sr per micro-meter.  At 240 K, that rises to 0.047 mW/m^2 sr per micro-meter.  At 288 K, to 0.26 mW/m^2 sr per micro-meter.  At 288 K, that rises to 2.9 mW/m^2 sr per micro-meter at 3 micro-meters, and to 43.8 mW/m^2 sr per micro-meter.  You will note the different unit to that used on the chart.  In any event, it is fair to say the Earth's black body radiation is inconsequential at those wavelengths, but not that it does not exist.

    Further, CO2 absorbs at more than just those wavelengths.  Specifically, the small notch in the observed chart at 12.5 and at 11.5 micro-meters are both due to CO2.  What is true is that only at those wave-lengths (and a significant band on either side of them) is the optical depth of the atmosphere due to CO2 greater than 1 (ie, all IR radiation of that wavelength from the surface is absorbed before it reaches space, but not all that is emitted in the atmosphere).

    "Earth's blackbody curve is around 10 microns"

    Using Wien's Displacement Law, the peak radiation for 255 K (Earth's effective radiative temperaure), peak intensity is at 11.36 micro-meters, while for the 288 K (approximate Global Mean Surface Temperature) it is 10.06 micro-meters.  However, the term "around" us excessively vague in this context.  At 288 K, the IR radiation at all wavelengths lower than 10.06 micrometers is stronger than the equivalent radiation for any lower temperature, even if their radiation is "around" that particular wavelength; and as can be seen on the chart above, the Earth's black body radiation is still significant out to 6 to 7 micrometers.

    "Toward the tail is where CO2's absorption kicks in"

    That is entirely an artifact of the units used on the x-axis.  If a unit of frequency is used (as above), the 15 micro-meter absorption band is located near the point of peak emission.  The difference in unit also makes a difference of the location of the peak (which is a measure of intensity per unit on the x axis).  Using wavelength, it is shifted further to the left, and spread out because of the large number of wavelengths covered.  The crucial point is the area of the 'absorption band', which is the same regardless of units on the x-axis.  Averaged across the Earth, and across all weather conditions, that represents about 20% of all absorption (25% exlcluding the H2O overlaps).

    "But once a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15 micron photon, wouldn't it either re-emit at the bbr curve of it's temperature, far more likely to be centered around 10 micron, or shed the extra energy as heat transfered to another molecule?"

    Once a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15 micro-meter photon it is far more likely to distribute the energy to the rest of the atmosphere by collissions than to re-emit it, but once it absorbs energy by collisions it is just as likely to emit it as a 15 micro-meter photon as if it has originally absorbed the energy as a photon.  If the temperature of the gas is the same as that of the incoming radiation, the net effect will be that CO2 will emit just as much radiation as it absorbs.  If the CO2 is warmer than that radiation, it will emit more than it absorbs; but if it is cooler it will emit less than it absorbs.  Crucially, the atmosphere gets colder as you get higher, so CO2 is a net absorber of IR radiation in the atmosphere.  That is how the greenhouse effect works.

    (As an aside, I have often seen it argued that because CO2 will dissipate energy gained by radiation through collisions, there can be no greenhouse effect.  It is a bizarre argument.  If it did not dissipate the energy, it would of necessity emit as much as it absorbs thereby preventing any greenhoue effect.  Ignorance is used to turn a cause of the greenhouse effect into a pseudo-argument against it.)

    "Eventually heat is emitted as radiation, but wouldnt' the odds be against that energy being re-emitted at 15 microns?"

    Again, look at the observed spectrum above.  There is no absorption band at 10 micro-meters, which means no molecule in the atmosphere absorbs at 10 micrometers.  Ergo no molecule emits at 10 micrometers.  In fact, in the troposphere, except for clouds (that do absorb and emit at all frequencies), all IR emission is done by CO2, H2O, CH4, NO2, O3 or one of the other minor greenhouse gases.  Because or the strength and relative abundance, almost all of that remission is by H2O or CO2.

    "Also, wouldn't each molecule (at 0.04%) essentially have to absorb 2,500c of energy and transmit that heat to other molecules in the atmosphere to increase the atmosphere's temperature 1c?"

    No because - energy increases with the fourth power of temperature - because CO2 is not the only GHG - and most importantly, because IR radiation represents only 69% of energy flow into the atmoshpere:

    "Also, considering water vapor overlap, even at 10% humidity at 70f, there's a lot more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere. Wouldn't that skew the numbers for the 15 micron range?"

    This is the crux of the issue, and related to the most common misunderstanding about the greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect is first, and foremost, a theory about preserving conservation of energy for radiation between the Earth and space.  Therefore it is the radiation from the level where the energy actually reaches space that is crucial to the strength of the greenhouse effect.  The back radiation (the "thermal down surface" in the above diagram) is often taken to be the greenhouse effect, but it is in fact a secondary consequence.  If it was stronger or weaker, there would merely be a shift in the rate of convection counterbalancing that effect until the actual radiation to space was equalized.

    Now, the crucial thing about H2O is that if it gets cold, it precipitates out of the atmosphere.  As a result, at the altitude at which CO2 radiates to space there is almost no H2O.  Consequently the entirety of the notch around 15 micrometers in the first graph in this post is due to CO2, even though almost the entirety of the back radiation (except at the poles and in deserts) is due to H2O.  The overlap is significant relative the situation with no CO2 because in that case H2O would preserve 20% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 in its absence (along with its own effect from the areas with no overlap).  Taking that into account, it has been determined that 20% of the total greenhouse effect is due to CO2 determined on a counterfactual basis.  If it was determined on a basis of molecule of last emission, that would rise up towards 25%.

    Finally, even with only 20% of the effect, if you removed CO2, things would get a lot colder.  Somewhere on the order of 9 K colder globally averaged with no feedbacks.  Because water precipitates out when it gets cold, that would reduce the H2O greenhouse effect, making it colder again.  Once the cycle repeats through to its assmptote, the net effect is that close to 100% of the greenhouse effect would be eliminated.

  3. Fred Steffan - See this video for just such an experiment. The candle disappears as intervening CO2 increases.

  4. @Glenn Tamblyn and @Tom Curtis, thank you very much for the information! I'm gonna try and get my head around all of that. I'll come back with more questions if I have any :)

  5. fred.steffen

    In addition to the radiance calculator Tom linked to, take a look at this site from the Uni of Chicago. It uses the Modtran radiative transfer code to allow you to do what if's with IR emissions for different situations.

    Pick an atmospheric temperature/cloud profile, set your different GH gases then see what would be observed at different heights.

  6. Comment 191 shows a graph of log intensity with the units cm^2/cm-mol.  I assuming that I(l,v) = I(0,v)) x 10^(-a x C x l), where I(l,v) is the intensity of radiation of frequency v at distance l, a is the absorption coefficient, and C is the concentration of the gas, presumably in moles/cm^3.  Am I correct in assuming that the intensity is per a wavelength band one reciprocal cm in width?  Am I also correct in assuming that if the log intensity in the units given is -20, then the absorption coefficient is 20.  Finally, if I want to compute the IR emissivity, can I just use the Beer's law equation multiplied by the energy per photon and the Boltzmann ratio of excited to ground state at the temperature of the gas?  It has been a very long time since I have done these kinds of calculations, and I am not sure I am properly understanding what I am reading.

  7. bicyclebob

    No, it isn't per a single cm-1 wide, it is much narrower than that. And no, the absorption coefficient isn't just the inverse of the spectral intensity. And at that point everything gets a lot more complicated.

    SpectralCalc have a description of some of the calculations and theory here. But I suspect getting to Beer-Lambert from this still involves more stuff.

    It always amazes me how simple rules and laws always end up being so complex when we look under the hood.

  8. bicyclebob:

    Glenn's comment not-withstanding, but yes spectral radiation is typically expressed in units that include a "per unit length" term. If you think of total energy flux  in the radiation as W/m^2 (1 Joule per second, for each m^2 of surface), when you divide that total into a "per wavelength" - i.e. spectral - distribution, you are of necessity divding by the units "wavelength" is measured in. Micrometers or nanometers are common, but there is nothing odd about centimetres, so you get the cm-1 term. When you integrate over all wavelengths to get a total, you are multiplying wavelength times the "per wavelength" units and cancelling them back out.

    Although Beer's Law (the equation you give) is appropriate for determining the absorption of the IR radiation, the emission of IR becomes more complex, as Glenn states. Although absorptivity = emissivity at a specific wavelength for a specific gas, actual emission involves temperature, too.

  9. "Radiative forcing" is such a contrived and meaningless term.  It is simply an attempt to dismiss water vapor's dominant significance.  The infrared spectra for water vapor strongly resembles that of carbon dioxide, and in fact the former is even more powerful at capturing IR radiation.   The unscientific nature of the Keeling Curve reflects the author's attempt to instill fear, rather than communicate truth and knowledge.  The Keeling Curve is blatantly dishonest [snip]because (1) it does not have a zero base and therefore is strongly skewed as to slope, and (2) does not include the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor.  
    Simply making these two adjustments changes it from this:

    to this:

    Response:

    [RH] Please keep your images down to 500px in width. 

    Warnings and snips due to commenter not reading the SkS commenting policies.

  10. Incidentally, the profound effect of water vapor on warming is clearly and demonstrably felt on cloudy nights, where water acts as a powerful blanket, warming local temperatures.  The carbon dioxide concentration does not vary remotely as much as humidity, so that on cool, clear nights, the "forcing" argument is out the window, along with heat.

    On a side note, another bogus claim is that "increasing ocean acidification" (sic) results from higher carbon dioxide concentrations dissolving in ocean water.  

    1. The ocean is not "acidic," it is alkaline. In fact, it is 18 times more alkaline than pure water. (The pH scale is logarithmic, and ocean water has a pH of ~8.2)

    2.  Degassification is a primary natural source of carbon dioxide.  It leaves the ocean, rather than dissolving in it.

     

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015

  11. RenaissanceMan @209.

    The choice of vertical scale on a graph of CO2 concentrations is hardily science. And the relative position of a red line on a piece of paper does not determine the contribution of CO2 on global climate forcing. The atmospheric levels of CO2 presented on both of your graphs is roughly consistent (you appear to plot CO2 some 50ppm too high on the lower graph) and it is atmospheric levels which determine forcing.

    Yet you accuse the Keeling Curve of having an "unscientific nature." Have you any reason for such a claim? Setting out your claims in scientific terms would be the proper thing to do, if you are able.

  12. The misnamed RenaissanceMan (hereafter RM) @210 quotes Ottmar Edenhofer as saying:


    "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."


    The quote is a translation of a comment Edenhoffer made in an interview, where in response to the interviewer saying:


    "De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde."

    {"De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy."}


    Edenhoffer replied:


    "Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun."

    {"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."}


    (Note that the translation is by Philip Mueller, apparently for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.  As that organization has repeatedly proven itself an unreliable source, I do not trust the translation, but not speaking German, must relly on it.)

    Stating the obvious first, RM, or his source, has reversed the order of the two sentences he does include in the quote, and deleted three of five sentences in the paragraph, one from between the two sentences, and all without any indication of the deleted sentences existence.  That sort of manipulation of other peoples words is, in academic situations considers fraud.  That is because the meaning of any sentence depends on its context - and RM (or his source) completely butchers the context whilst trying to hide the fact that they have done so.  So, at best RM rellies on a fraudulent source without fact checking.  I note that Larry Bell similarly butchers the text in an article for Forbes.  CFACT also butchers the quote, but again not in an identical form.  Simon Downing also has a similar, but distinct butchering.  It appears that AGW deniers are almost as bad as creationists when it comes to lying by out of context quotation.  But I can find no evidence that RM is not himself an original butcher of the quote; and hence a perpetrator of a deliberate fraud.

    So what is the context of the quote, and how does it effect things?  Well, to begin with Edenhofer had already stated clearly, in the immediately preceding response that:


    "Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."


    That is, he has clearly acknowledged the objective of climate policy, ie, to keep the increase in Global Means Surface Temperature to 2 degrees celsius or less.  But in doing so, he notes that the policy necessarilly will have impacts beyond the environmental, and specifically economic impacts.  He clarrifies what that means afterwords.  Specifically, the choice of different responses to AGW will de facto result in different consequences for the distribution of global wealth.  He has already mentioned one example in the response before that (ie, two responses before the one RM, or source, butchered):


    "That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all."


    I might note that the current approach, of limits on emissions as a percentage of a nations current emissions locks in higher living standards for the first world as part of the treaty system well into the future.

    No reasonable climate policy can be devised without noting, and negotiating these de facto effects.  But they are, as Edenhofer clearly states, even in the butchered version of the quote, de facto effects.  That is, consequences that were not the intended consequence of the policy.

    Response:

    [PS] You know better. Please dont roll in the mud with the pigs.

  13. MARoger@211:  

    [snip]

    "The choice of vertical scale on a graph of CO2 concentrations is hardily science. "

    The root word for science is "scientia," Latin for knowledge.  An essential component of knowledge is the accurate and honest presentation of such knowledge.  The choice of presenting data to skew the slope of a graph can be demonstrated by a graph of a population explosion with a base of 1,000,000 and a  top at 1,000,001, sharply sloping upward.

     

    "And the relative position of a red line on a piece of paper does not determine the contribution of CO2 on global climate forcing. The atmospheric levels of CO2 presented on both of your graphs is roughly consistent (you appear to plot CO2 some 50ppm too high on the lower graph) and it is atmospheric levels which determine forcing."

    As to CO2 being "forcing," infrared radiation is absorbed by water vapor and by carbon dioxide in virtually identical spectra, which I shall not bother to reproduce here.

    "Yet you accuse the Keeling Curve of having an "unscientific nature." Have you any reason for such a claim? Setting out your claims in scientific terms would be the proper thing to do, if you are able."

     

    I explained the etiology of the word "science" above, and for many I suspect this is their first such exposure.  Your condescension, "if you are able," was conveniently overlooked by the moderator(s) who seem eager to jump on anyone posting a word contrary to the "97%".  Elsewhere I am called a "denier" and the moderator ignored this blatant violation of the "rules" I just read.  The moderator also ignored the religious reference by that same poster which I shall address more specifically in another post.

    Finally, I am forbidden by the rules here from stating why I believe the Keeling Curve (1) has a steep slope, based on its non-zero base, and (2) based on its failure to include the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor.

    Response:

    [RH] Snipped for condescending tone. Trust me. People here know the definition of the word "science." Please, either raise the level of the conversation to one worth of science or risk further deleted comments. 

  14. Tom Curtis@212:

    "The misnamed RenaissanceMan...."

    I could have sworn I read rules for this forum that ad hominem attacks were forbidden.  Obviously that restriction does not apply to the "97%."

    Tom Curtis has not the slightest basis for claiming that my good friend, who has known me very well for many years "misnamed" me.  Tom has no basis; my good friend has a very broad and familiar basis indeed.

     

    ""Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

    1.  Do conventions at Cancun, and Davos Switzerland, and at expensive resorts all around the world, widely attended at taxpayer expense, with not just dozens, not just scores, but hundreds of private jets arriving to deliver those who claim we must all cut back on fossil fuel useage advance this essential objective of keeping fossil fuels in the ground?

    2.  Do the habits of such people as Barack Obama, and Al Gore, and all the Hollywood rich and famous flying everywhere in private jets, riding on their large yachts keep fossil fuels in the ground, and advance the demand that we cut back fossil fuel use by some 80%/

    3.  Why does every conceivable magazine which supports the 97% feature countless advertisements for foreign travel, from Sierra, to National Geographic, to Audubon, to all of them?  

    4.  Increasingly onerous restrictions, fees, cap and trade, and other actions drive up the cost of electricity and travel for even the poorest people worldwide.  President Obama even bragged that his policies would double the cost of electricity.  How can anyone support these reprehensible actions?  People in Haiti resorted to eating dirt pies after the cost of corn skyrocketed due to its demand for ethanol.

    5.  "Ecotour" - a one-word  oxymoron, an indefensible pretense.

  15. Renaissance Man,

    Denial Depot has an entire post on how Skeptical Science adjusts graphs like you state.  Perhaps you can elaborate on how the CO2 graph should be made.  Of course, it is a sham science site, but it has funny stuff.

    I teach Science in High School and College and if a student were to submit the CO2 graph with zero in the Y axis I would take off points because they did not fill the page with their graph.  You are mistaken with your assertion that the zero has to be included.  Read the linked post to see how your argument looks carried to its logical conclusion.

    CO2 is the thermostat that sets where the concentration of water in the atmosphere is.  Water follows the CO2.

  16. Renaissance Man, you claimed: "As to CO2 being "forcing," infrared radiation is absorbed by water vapor and by carbon dioxide in virtually identical spectra, which I shall not bother to reproduce here."

    You were incorrect on two counts:

    1. CO2 increase indeed is a forcing, but water vapor increases are a feedback to warming, not a forcing, as Michael Sweet pointed out to you. Read the post "Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works"--first its Basic tabbed pane, then its Intermediate tabbed pane. If you want to argue/discuss/query further on that topic, do so in the comment thread on that post, not this one.

    2. CO2 and H2O absorption do not entirely overlap. From physicist and historian Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming":

    The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) As Hulburt and Callendar had claimed, the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through.

    You should read more from that source, after that passage.

  17. michael sweet@215:  

    "Denial Depot has an entire post on how Skeptical Science adjusts graphs like you state. Perhaps you can elaborate on how the CO2 graph should be made. Of course, it is a sham science site, but it has funny stuff."

    1.  How is it that you can make fun of the opposition here, but nobody is permitted to make fun of your theories and hypotheses?  The moderator(s) would quickly come down on anyone daring to call climate change "sham science."

    [PS] The moderator would come down quickly on accusation of fraud but not on arguments against arguments that are backed in scientific way.

    2.  I just posted the proper graph, which of course includes water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas.  The resultant greenhouse gas "curve" is about as flat as a pool table.

     

    "I teach Science in High School and College and if a student were to submit the CO2 graph with zero in the Y axis I would take off points because they did not fill the page with their graph."

    Because you teach in such a manner does not remotely make it right. I have never heard of such a trivial argument as "fill(ing) the page" with a graph.  How about writing bigger!  That should be neat.  I repeat, the objective is information and its clear communication.  Perspective is an essential component of communication.

    "You are mistaken with your assertion that the zero has to be included."

     

    No, you are mistaken when you assert that a page must be filled with a graph, and when you clearly believe that exaggeration is meaningless.

    [PS] The numerous text books and guides on scientific graphing do not support your argument.  Provide a reference which does. Inappropriate scales instead are the common tools of misinformation. A simple example would be to plot temperature over last 1million years in Kelvin and insist on graph starting at zero. This gives a flat line for all intents and purposes so ice ages arent significant right?

    "CO2 is the thermostat that sets where the concentration of water in the atmosphere is. Water follows the CO2."

    You should not be teaching science.  You don't understand the vapor pressure/temperature relationship at all.  Water doesn't "follow" CO2 or air.  It really can exist independently, as a function of temperature and pressure.

    Prev 1 2 3 4 5

    Response:

    [PS] This discussion is skirting the edges of comments policy by both sides. Would everyone please read the policy and stick to the science.

    The main "substance" of RM's argument is that about water vapour. This myth is addressed in this article. Please read the article and comment there. Followups to RM on water vapour go there too.

    RM - please state your arguments in a line scientific way and keep the rhetoric for the public bar. By this, I mean you need to start backing your assertion with references. Starting with "You don't understand the vapor pressure/temperature relationship at all." in the appropriate thread.

     

    Ideally you quote and reference the science paper or IPCC statement you disagree with, why you disagree and provide data/references to back it. Start with why you think the science has it wrong on Clausius-Clapeyron.

  18. #215:
    "CO2 is the thermostat that sets where the concentration of water in the atmosphere is. Water follows the CO2."

    Indeed!
    Andrew Lacis et al did a model experiment where they removed all the greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere except for water vapour.
    The end result was something close to snowball Earth conditions, with a global temperature dropping to about -20°C, far colder than any ice age has been since the late Precambrian. Most of this cooling was caused by feedbacks like increased albedo and the loss of 90% of the water vapour.
    This figure from the paper shows how the temperature and other parameters changed during the experiment.

    CO2 control knob

  19. Renaissance Man,

    The default setting on Excell is to fill the page with the graph and not show the zero.  Why would it be the default setting if it were incorrect? Are you suggesting Microsoft programmers do not know how to make a graph? You are obviously not familiar with making graphs of data (I worked in industry for 20 years and had to send graphs to the USFDA.  The FDA requires you fill the page with the data.)  I used Denial Depot to make my point that your claim that the zero has to be included is incorrect.  Dr. Inferno shows what that argument leads to.

    If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere it would get colder.  That would cause the water to rain out.  Less water would make it even colder.  In the end all the water would rain out and the Earth would freeze.  The CO2 controls how much water evaporates into the atmsphere.  The water is not independent of the CO2.  Water concentration is controlled by the CO2 concentration.

    At the top of the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect causes it to get warmer, there is very little water vapor.  It is too cold and the water rains out.  CO2 does not rain out, it is stable as a gas at low temperatures.  You need to regraph your data showing the CO2 and water concentrations at about 6km above the surface.  You will find that the CO2 determines the amount of heating from the greenhouse effect.  

    This data is posted elsewhere on Skeptical Science.  If you ask for new information I will help you look it up.  When you make baseless claims it is not worth the effort.

    I will not post again on this thread.  Comments like these just gum up the board.

  20. RM @214 objects to my aside about his name.  For his information, I have the evidence of his posts on Skeptical Science of a massive incompetence when it comes to climate science that clearly disprove any claim he has to a broad competence across most fields of human intellectual and artistic endeavour, ie, to be a renaissance man.  Of course, he can disprove my comment by naming any two academic fields to which he has made a significant contribution - with full citations of at least one peer reviewed paper in each.  Or an academic field with citation to peer reviewed paper and refer his notable contribution to one of the arts - with evidence.  The purported anonomous endorsement of a person of unknown competence is no evidence to his vaunting claim at all.

    A case in point, as regards his incompetence in climate science is his claim @209 regarding the proper usage in scientific graphs, where he says that the Keeling Curve  "... is blatantly dishonest ..." in part because "... it does not have a zero base".  In fact scientific practise does not require the inclusion of the zero base as is easilly checked by looking at scientific websites such as the Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado, whose page on Total Solar Irradiance includes three graphs (the first of which is shown below), with lowest values on the y-axis of 1360.7, 1357, and 1360 W/m^2 respectively.

     

    Or at scientific papers such as "Effects of freshwater and saltwater adaptation and dietary salt on fluid compartments, blood pressure, and venous capacitance in trout" which shows as figure 2, a graph with three parts, only one of which shows zero as the lowest value on the y-axis:

     

    The reason for the practice of excluding the origin is simple.  Graphs are intended to succintly display data.  To do so they must be readable, and often including the origin will make that impossible by so compressing the display of the variation as to make it invisible.  (Indeed, making the variation invisible is clearly RM in his second graph @209.)

    So, not only is RM wrong about graphs - he is demonstrably wrong.  Worse, he would be known to be wrong by anybody familiar with scientific literature (as opposed to the anti AGW pseudoscience sites that are obviously his main source of information).  His compelling argument in favour of his view @217 that "No, you [ie, Michael Sweet] are mistaken" carries, in the end, no evidentiary weight.

    Response:

    [PS] Enough. Stick to the topic

  21. RM @210, claims that "Degassification is a primary natural source of carbon dioxide. It leaves the ocean, rather than dissolving in it."  That contrasts with the findings Sabine et al (2004) who find that:


    "The global ocean inventory estimated here permits us, for the first time, to place observational constraints on the anthropogenic CO2 budget for the anthropocene. In particular, it permits us to estimate the magnitude of the time integrated terrestrial carbon balance which cannot be easily deduced from observations. We first consider the anthropogenic budget terms that are relatively well constrained. Over the anthropocene, about 244±20 Pg C was emitted into the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and cement production. About two thirds of these emissions have remained in the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 281±2 ppm in 1800 (20) to 359±0.4 ppm in 1994 (21) translating to an increase of 165 Pg C. Subtracting our ocean inventory estimate of 118±19 Pg C and the atmospheric inventory change from the integrated fossil fuel emissions constrains the net carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere to be a net source of 39±28 Pg C for the period between 1800 and 1994.Therefore the ocean has constituted the only true net sink for anthropogenic CO2 over the last 200 years. Without this oceanic uptake, atmospheric CO2 would be about 55 ppm higher today than what is currently observed (~370 ppm)."


    This is one of a large number of similar studies with similar findings.  Against these evidence based, peer reviewed studies, RM provides only the evidence of his own assertion (again).

    Response:

    [PS] The "CO2 is from the ocean" myth is debunked in this article.

    RM - if you disagree with the evidence presented there, then present your  evidence on that thread and not here.

  22. HK @218:  

    #215:
    "CO2 is the thermostat that sets where the concentration of water in the atmosphere is. Water follows the CO2."

    Indeed!
    Andrew Lacis et al did a model experiment where they removed all the greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere except for water vapour."

    Response:   Atmospheric CO2 is relatively constant worldwide, in very dramatic contrast to water vapor.   This clearly refutes the "water follows CO2" claim.

     

    The claim of a "model" which spans a fifty year time span must be suspect because past models have done so very poorly at prediction of temperature changes.  

    The great deserts of our planet are not dry because there is no CO2 present across them.  Nor are the wettest parts of the planet located at high CO2 environments.  Indeed!

    Response:

    [JH] Sloganeering snipped. Sloganeering is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy

    Warning #1

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  23. [PS]@217

    "The numerous text books and guides on scientific graphing do not support your argument. Provide a reference which does. Inappropriate scales instead are the common tools of misinformation."

    Reference follows:

    Population Explosion

     


    Lay public can easily be misled by graphs which appear to show rapid changes, which when subjected to more thoughtful, more professional analysis, are not rapid changes at all.  For example, 1.36 parts per million increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, over the last fifty years, is an extremely small annual change on the basis of 15,500 parts per million of total greenhouse gas.

    Response:

    [PS] The point of graphing is illustrate the data to maximum effect in the context. What is "insignificant" cannot be read from a graph - it can only be determined in larger context. A doubling of CO2 add nearly 4W/m2 to earth surface radiation and in climate terms that is significant. See myth "CO2 is insignificant trace gas". Please look at water vapour question at the link provided. 

    We have a large list of myths. See "arguments" on top left. Please read and be prepared to provide evidence in support of arguments before simply mindlessly repeating yet another one.

    At moment, your discourse is sloganeering (repeating long debunked myths, assertions without backing), inflammatory tone, and frequently offtopic. Please pickup up your act.

  24. "Atmospheric CO2 is relatively constant worldwide, in very dramatic contrast to water vapor. This clearly refutes the "water follows CO2" claim."

    Why does the water vapour fluctuate so much while CO2 doesn't?

    Because the local temperature sets an upper limit (but not a lower!) to how much water vapour the local atmosphere can hold.
    CO2 and other forcings (including the Sun) control the global temperature and therefore the global amount of water vapour, which act as a strong climate feedback. The strong temperature dependency of water vapour also explains why its concentration drops so rapidly with altitude. If it didn't, but was a well-mixed gas like CO2, its warming impact would be so strong that the Earth would be inhabitable to all higher forms of life.

    BTW, the atmosphere as a whole contains about 4000 ppm of water vapour, not 15,400 as figure 2 in your post #209 claims.

    Response:

    [PS] RM also fails to notice that most of the planet is covered by water.

  25. Note: My post #224 was a response to #222.

  26. Concerning the fraudulent Ottmar Edenhofer quotation reproduced @211.

    The quote appeared to be presented verbatum (bar a "..."?) in Simon Downing (2011) "World Empire and the Return of Jesus Christ." p338? (I note Tom Curtis @212 suggested the quote in this source was not identical to that presented @211. Sadly the google review I link to has limited personal useage so I cannot double-check.) The quote appears in the book as a referenced quote but unfortunately the page setting out this reference #1061 (page 515) is not available in the google review available. Or that was the message I took away before I overstayed my personal welcome in the google review. It would thus take a sight of p515 to be sure this was the source of the fraud, so if anyone has a copy of this book on their bookshelf....

  27. MA Rodger @226, I consider the Downing quote to be a misquotation based on the fact that the selection shown in the search result shows the phrase "one has to free oneself" preceding the phrase "we redistribute", ie, the reverse of order in the actual quote.  That may be a coincidence, but that is unlikely.  Further, a fuller search string pushes Downing's book much further down the results (if it appears at all), which suggests Downing cannot have quoted the full passage verbatim.

  28. #223 @Renaissance Man

    "Reference follows:"     -   Where is the reference?

    Your example graph (Population Explosion) demonstrates clearly why it is often a good idea to not start the y axis at 0. If you had done we would have to scroll up or down about 200 metres to see the whole thing. I think you would admit that is impractical?

  29. When what you are attempting to convey is the _change_ in a value, filling the graph is the only reasonable choice. Padding the graph with unchanging values is in such situations misleading to the point (in many cases) of misinformation.

  30. Turning to RM's graphing examples, his example plotting CO2 concentration with his two adjustements (@209) shows a number of obvious flaws.

    Firstly, and most obviously, we may be interested in CO2 concentration quite independently of our interest in the Total Greenhouse Effect.  That the graph of CO2 concentration (the Keeling curve) does not include the primary contributor to the Total Greenhouse Effect is, therefore, irrelevant to its usefulness.  Indeed, if we are exclusively interested in the Total Greenhouse Effect, we are better plotting that, with changes to it, rather than only the CO2 concentration.  Consequently, the best that can be said for RM's graph is he plotted the wrong value for what he was interested in.

    Far worse, for the actual graph he plots, is that RM overstates the value of water vapour concentration in ppmv by nearly a factor of 4.  The concentration of water vapour, averaged across the atmosphere, is about 4,000 ppmv, not the 15,000 ppmv shown by RM.  The 15,000 ppmv is indeed a reasonable approximation of the average concentration of water vapour at the surface; but the radiative interaction that gives us the greenhouse effect does not occur exclusively (or even significantly) at the surface.  Rather, it occurs at altitude, and unlike CO2, the concentration of water vapour falls rapidly with altitude:

    (Note: graph is of model values, for actual observations see preceding two links.)

    So, not only does RM grossly inflate the graph to obscure important detail by including the irrelevant (for most purposes) H2O concentration, but he then includes an inflated value of the H2O concentration.

    Finally, if RM was interested in the Total Greenhouse Effect, he ought simply  to have plotted the Total Greenhouse Effect.  The contribution of H2O and CO2 to the Total Greenhouse Effect is not proportional to their concentration.  Indeed, though H2O has a stronger greenhouse effect overall, it has a very much weaker effect per molecule.  (That is partly because the H2O concentration is closer to radiative saturation, but mostly due to the lower, and hence much warmer altitudes from which H2O radiates to space.)  Schmidt et al (2010) showed that circa 1990, of the Total Greenhouse Effect, CO2 contributes about 20%, gaseous H2O a further 50%, and H2O in the form of clouds an additional 25%, with the remainder being contributed by minor greenhouse gases.

    For those unfamiliar with the term, the Total Greenhouse Effect is the difference between the "Thermal Up Surface" and the "Thermal Outgoing TOA" as shown on this energy balance graph from the IPCC AR5:

     That is, by best modern estimate it is about 159 W/m^2, though Schmidt et al cite 155 W/m^2 from an earlier source.

    Of that, about 3.38 W/m^2, or 2.125% is the increase in radiative forcing from all anthropogenic greenhouse gases.  It is very likely that approximately 2% further is due to the increase in the H2O contribution that has resulted from the increase in temperature leading to an average increase in global mean water vapour concentration (as discussed by HK @224).  Whichever is used, it is significantly more than the misleading 0.8% increase not shown due to poor scale choice in RM's fundamentally misleading preferred graph. 

  31. RM @223:

    1)  The most misleading aspect of the new sample graph is the heading, not the choice of window of the y-axis chosen.

    2) While true that non-informed people often have a false assumption that graphs always include the origin, and can be misled by their false assumption.  That can be partly countered by using of breakpoints in the graph as in this example:

    Still better, it should be countered by better choice of sample graphs in education; and by always emphasizing that no graph interprets itself - that you always need to look at the axies, the units, heading and text associated with the graph to understand it.  It should not be pandered to by choosing a y-axis window so large that the variation in the data cannot be seen.

    3)  There has been about an 80 ppmv increase in CO2 over the last fifty odd years, not 1.6 ppmv as you claim.

    4)  The claimed 15,000 ppmv of greenhouse gases is a furphy (see preceding post).

  32. Tom @212: fwiw, the Edenhoffer quote translation is correct. But more importantly, thanks for demonstrating how the denialists use chery picked, out-of-context, and rearranged "quotation" to mislead.

  33. Tom Curtis @227,

    I think 'misquotation' understates the what appears in Downing (2011) "World Empire and the Return of Jesus Christ". It is a total misrepresentation of Edenhoffer. The sentence in Simon Downing (2011) runs as follows:-


    “And, as many of us have suspected all along, a UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) official recently admitted that 'one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy... we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy'. [1061]”


    As I say @226, the name of the reference [1061] is not available from the link so it may be that Downing is not responsible for the fraud. And within this quote from Downing, the Downing mis-quote, bar the lower-case 'w' and the two extra fullstops indicating missing text, it is identical to the (mis)quote presented by RenaissanceMan @210.

    Response:

    [PS] No accusations of fraud please.

  34. MA Roger,

    Would you agree that 

    "we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy'. [1061]”


    is the real source of the objections we find discussing AGW and particularly how we propose to mitigate AGW?

  35. RB - In my opinion, this is really only an objection to very small group, many conspiracy theorists etc. Letting data define our opinions is not something that comes very naturally to human, even scientists. I think for many, the predisposition to disbelieve global warming and then haunt denialist sites to reinforce the opinion is more socially driven - its not what my "tribe" believes in/ not what opinion-makers I follow says is true etc. But what then drives the opinion makers?

    In this I think the issue is more about role of government. The right wing struggles to envisiage a solution that does not involve large government intervention - be it carbon tax (another no-no word), cap-and-trade schemes etc. International treaties are also difficult as soon as they involve obligations even if there is no wealth redistribution at international level. As stupid as it sounds, the logic of "solutions to this problem are incompatiable with my values, ergo problem must not exist", I think plays a very real role in this.

    However, most US citizens I know are academics, mostly scientists, so I may be underestimating prevalence of "wealth redistribution" phobics. (I gather these people dont mind redistribution of wealth from masses to a few extremely wealthy men - perhaps the old communist bogeyman lives on in US psyche).

  36. schaddenp@235:  "In this I think the issue is more about role of government. The right wing struggles to envisiage a solution that does not involve large government intervention - be it carbon tax (another no-no word), cap-and-trade schemes etc."

    Response: (snip)   The obvious counterpart to that nasty "right wing" is the "left wing" which almost undoubtedly would elicit a warning from the moderator, who brooks no discouraging word of any left wingers.  But right wingers are chastized instantly.

    " As stupid as it sounds, the logic of "solutions to this problem are incompatiable with my values, ergo problem must not exist", I think plays a very real role in this."

    Response: (snip)  The logic of "don't take away our billions of research dollars" and the profound left-wing bias of contemporary academia likewise plays a very real role.

    "However, most US citizens I know are academics, mostly scientists, so I may be underestimating prevalence of "wealth redistribution" phobics. (I gather these people dont mind redistribution of wealth from masses to a few extremely wealthy men - perhaps the old communist bogeyman lives on in US psyche)."


    Response:  (snip) "Wealth redistribution" is part and parcel of the left wing obsession of characterizing that "right wing" as greedy, mean-spirited, and completely uncaring about "the poor."  On that topic, the book by a former liberal and college professor, titled Who Really Cares, shows that the left wing does not practice what it preaches.  In other words, left wingers give less of everything, to everyone than the right wing.

    The final sentence written by schaddenp is socialist down to its core, claiming that the rich got that way by taking from the poor.  It isn't remotely true, as proven throughout history.  But the left wing never learns.

    Response:

    [RH] You can't seem to figure out the commenting rules. And, no, they're not being only applied to you. If you read carefully, the rules are being applied equally to all commenters.

    I think you're on your last and final warning at this point.

  37. [PS]@223:  "The point of graphing is illustrate the data to maximum effect in the context."

     

    The "context" of the Keeling Curve, as he presented it, is to emphasize the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  

    By so making such an emphatic presentation, he utterly destroyed any perspective of the place of carbon dioxide vis a vis the total panoply of greenhouse gases, most particularly water vapor.

    My graph demonstrates "maximum effect" of the "population explosion."

    (snip) It "fills the page."  I made it so to show the dishonesty of such exaggeration, like that of the Keeling Curve.

    Response:

    [RH] Again, no accusations of dishonesty are allowed in these comment forums. How hard is that to understand?

    Now beyond final warning. All further comments will be deleted.

  38. The following is a brief presentation of my model for calculating the daily heating contribution of carbon dioxide. There are 3 features of the model:
    1) Concentration Coefficient: (ppmv) of CO2 compared to (ppmv) water vapor. Using the Ideal Gas Law, the dry composition of N2, O2, Ar and CO2, the local temperature, pressure and absolute humidity values this ratio varies. On average it is 0.05
    2) Heat Absorption Coefficient: the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide compared to the absorption spectrum of water vapor. This includes all heat radiated from the surface of the earth and heat radiated during the exothermic phase changes of water, including solidification, condensation, and deposition. These wavelengths include 19.9, 2.9 and 2.6 micrometers respectively. Both carbon dioxide and water vapor have peak absorption wavelengths near these wavelengths, as well the blackbody radiation given off by the earth has a very minute amount of this of both the 2.9 and 2.6 micrometer wavelengths. Recalculating the total absorption spectrum peaks and the energy under the curve for these peaks, I arrived at a total absorption energy of 3.0 x 10^-19 J/molecule of carbon dioxide in an excited state and 1.1 x 10^-18 J/molecule of water in an excited state. The Heat Absorption Coefficient becomes 0.27 for carbon dioxide compared to water.
    3) Diffusion of Heat Coefficient: the rate that carbon dioxide transfers its heat compare to the rate that water vapor transfers its heat. Using Graham’s Law of effusion and the molar masses of Carbon dioxide and water, this coefficient is 0.64. As the greenhouse gas molecules trap heat, they must be able to transfer their heat to other molecules by making random collisions with the other molecules. The speed and efficiency at which they can do this will determine their “strength” as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is lighter and moves more quickly than Carbon dioxide, if both are at the same temperature.
    4) The total coefficient for the capacity of carbon dioxide to absorb and transfer heat compared to water is then 0.05 x 0.27 x 0.64 = .0086
    When we look at the difference between the global average temperature and the blackbody temperature we arrive at 32.8 degrees C. So on an average humidity day, between 50 N. Latitude and 50 S. Latitude, the difference between the blackbody high, low, and average and the daily high, low and average will be 32.8 degrees C. Carbon Dioxide will account for .0086 x 32.8 degrees or .28 deg. C. This experiment is occurring daily, and it is an alternative to calculating the differences in Top of Atmosphere (TOA) and surface IR radiance. The issue with calculating this difference is that water vapor is continually undergoing exothermic phase changes that give off near IR and mid IR in the absorption ranges for both water vapor and carbon dioxide. Near the surface, the water vapor and carbon dioxide molecules will absorb and re-emit these frequencies. The problem is that liquid water droplets in clouds can absorb the 15 micrometer waves and thus stop the wave from traveling from the surface to the TOA. It would be very difficult to measure the radiance of this and calculate how what CO2 absorbed and what water droplets in the clouds absorbed or surface water absorbed as down welling radiation is absorbed by the surface water.

    The argument that CO2 is more concentrated at higher altitudes cannot be used to support more heat being trapped here. There will be very upwelling in the little peak wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs, and almost no downwelling peak wavelengths. Carbon dioxide molecules at this altitude, provided the density separation does not result in a near extinction, will actually be radiators of heat. At this altitude, there are more possible vector directions that point to space, than point back to the surface. So as excited carbon dioxide molecules spontaneously radiate photons, there will be a more favorable amount of heat loss than heat gain by the climate. These higher altitude molecules cannot hold on to any trapped energy for an indefinite amount of time. Nothing can do that. Everything radiates its heat to the colder gradient as a necessity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. CO2 at the TOA is not going to collect more heat than it radiates.
    In summary, water is more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, by a factor of nearly 120 to one. The reason is that there are more molecules of water vapor to collide with the other 992,000 ppmv of non-greenhouse gases, and they can absorb more heat than CO2, and they can move faster than CO2 in order to transfer their heat to the other non-greenhouse molecules. It is painfully obvious that water vapor is most significant greenhouse molecule. Besides that, water must give off heat when it freezes, or condenses or undergoes deposition. When we get massive snowstorms, or rain storms or large areas of Arctic winter time freezing, then we must get rid of heat from the environment. If the rate of condensation in a cloud is equal to the rate of evaporation, then the droplets of water will never get large enough to fall from the sky; Hail stones would not fall from the sky in the summer if heat was not escaping the climate. Waves at the surface of the ocean break and create droplets of mist that come back down and rejoin with the ocean. It took energy to break the hydrogen bonds in order to create the mist. When the mist returns to the surface of the water, it reforms hydrogen bonds and photon of ER are given of in the 79 micrometer range. There is nothing to capture these photons and so the earth cools that way. Water is the great climate regulator and CO2 is responsible for a small fraction of the heating. Experiments measuring downwelling against upwelling of the peak wavelengths of carbon dioxide are not able to distinguish where the wavelengths were absorbed. Liquid water also absorbs these peak 15 micrometer waves that CO2 absorbs. Therefore we cannot attribute the absence of these 15 micrometer waves as a result of CO2 blocking the upwelling radiation totally out. Liquid water blocks some. A better way to measure the effects that CO2 has on trapping heat, is to measure use the final coefficient as described in my model.

  39. From my model, the temperature rise is .0007 deg. C/ppmv CO2.  When we double the CO2 values, the temperature will rise .57 deg. C.  

  40. Rudmop,

    Can you suggest to me two reasons why I should accept the conclusion of a random guy on the internet instead of the conclusions of scientists who have worked on this problem for over 100 years?  Have you tried getting your model peer reviewed so that you can see what professionals think of your work?  Have you compared your model to the professional models available on the internet that Tom Curtis linked for you?  Professional scientists say that the upper atmosphere is the key location for the greenhouse effect but you claim that it is not important.  Seems to me like one side has a gross error.  Are you claiming all the scientists in the world are incorrect but you are correct?

  41. michael sweet,
    In science, there is no benefit to be had by forcing the validity of a clearly presented model down the throat of other scientists. Science does not work by one scientist or a group of scientists forcing people to accept a clearly thought out model. My model is steeped in thermodynamics and KMT, as well as quantum mechanics. My model does not violate any of the laws, and it serves as an alternative answer to a model that has failed on its predictions. What is unique about it, is that it considers the climate soup we wallow in on the surface. It considers the direct and frequent measurements we take globally and precisely on our weather stations. My model has no need to consider downwelling and upwelling IR photons, because it uses the results of their influence on the climate to calculate the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. So there is no need for me to give you two reasons or a hundred reasons of why I need to convince you to accept anything. I trust that you are a scientifically literate person. I trust if you know and understand the laws of Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics. You will be able to convince yourself of the validity of any scientific model that any scientist presents. When the science illiterates try to force their beliefs and views to force others to adopt these views, then they will lose any credibility they had hoped of having. True scientists don’t have beliefs and don’t have to force others to believe. True scientists also understand the potential of presenting a false model and expecting other scientists to dignify their credibility. As a scientist, all I have is a successful patent on a cleaner that is unique like no other, a science degree in Biology with a chemistry minor and a Master of Arts in Secondary Education. I am credentialed in the Life Sciences, Chemistry, Physics, the Geosciences and I have taught school for 26 years in subjects ranging from 7th grade life science to High School Advanced Placement Chemistry and Physics; Currently I teach Aerospace Engineering, 8th grade Physical Science, Physics and Advanced Placement Physics. Besides researching and learning the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the probable working of Quantum mechanics, I enjoy reading science Journals that arrive from AAPT and ACS, of which I am a member. As well, I like to turn nuts and bolts in my free time. I enjoy fixing stuff when it breaks, like the plumbing, air conditioner and the mechanical stuff on my hybrid car. I’m simply saying besides being a professional in my field, I understand a bit about the world.

  42. Rudmop @238.
    So what you are saying is that the amount of radiation absorbed by CO2 and transferred to the atmosphere immediately surrounding it (thus its GHG function) can be usefully compared with the amount absorbed by water vapour. This Ratio(CO2:H2O), you say is the product of three factors:-

    Ratio(CO2:H2O) = A x B x C

    where A = the average volume ratio of the two gases in the atmosphere, B = the ratio of the blackbody radiation occuring at the wavelengths absorbed by the two gases, and C = the number of collisions made by a molecule of each two gases and the energy thus transferred. You calculate Ratio((CO2:H2O) = 0.0086.
    From this you conclude that if the global surface temperature is 32.8ºC above the blackbody temperature, the warming contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere is 32.8 x 0.0086 = 0.28ºC.
    To this finding you add the caviat that clouds add a complication to a simplistic use of this ratio. You also mention the altitude profile of CO2 not being a factor (although I was unaware of there being such a profile of any significance – eg see Foucher et al 2011). You do fail to mention a whole bunch of other stuff which will prevent the use of such a simplistic analysis, stuff which all others have considered which is why they don't attempt what you are doing here.
    @239, your comment "When we double the CO2 values, the temperature will rise .57 deg. C." is presumably describing the total CO2 warming resulting from a CO2 concentration of 550ppm relative to 0ppm. (Note the accepted extra primary warming from a doubling of CO2 (eg 275ppm to 550ppm) is currently given as 1ºC which is greatly different from your 0.28ºC fixed for all 275ppm rises.)
    @241 you present what I consider a misguided appreciation of science along with your credentials which are an irrelevance. You say that you “understand a bit about the world” but I do wonder if your understanding is of a bit that isn't useful to this analysis you perform here.

  43. Rudmop @241 states:

    "My model does not violate any of the laws, and it serves as an alternative answer to a model that has failed on its predictions."

    The models (plural) that Rudmop claims to have failed are the Line By Line (LBL), or lower resolution radiation models (or the modules within GCMs that serve the same function).  It is they, not GCMs as a whole that determine relative contribution to the Total Greenhouse Effect of various gases.  These models have produced such obviously failed predictions as this one from 1969:

    Or these (all 134,862 of them) from 2008:

    Here is the preceding data binned by surface temperature (a) and latitude (b):

    In contrast to the LBL models, which predict easilly discriminable data for clear comparison with reality, Rudmop's model does not predict any observable quantity.  Rather, it only predicts a quantity that cannot be directly observed.  That is, its only prediction is not falsifiable by direct observation.

    It can be known to be wrong, however, because the LBL radiation models with their copious directly observable predictions, which are falsifiable but unfalsified, also make predictions about the value which is the sole prediction of Rudmop's model.

    It is no wonder he wants to take his model before an uninformed public rather than to a group of experts in the field.  It is hard to hoodwink those who know what they are talking about.

  44. Sorry I don't have time for sarcastic retorts that attack my character,  as well it is against the rules of the site which hats scientific discussion. I have provided a clear explanation of my model. There is an expectation that you will not use conflation as a means to invalidate it. It stands own as far as the science.  So unless you can address where it fails, without using tactics of insults and conflation, I trust that anyone who views this as a credible means to invalidate my model will know what that type of behavior clouds their scientific reputation. It is not how scientific discussions progress. Good day.

  45. Rudmop... I'm curious. If you genuinely believe you have a model that substantively challenges the standard accepted model, why are you posting it here? If I had worked out such a thing I'd be submitting it to major scientific journals. And after that I'd be out shopping for the tux I'd need for my Nobel acceptance speech.

    Yes, I know that sounds like a sarcastic comment, but that is the gist of what you're offering up. You're challenging basic physics which has been well understood and accepted for 150 years. 

    As a non-scientist I can already pick out several basic errors in your comment. But it seems counter-productive to go into those details being that the overall notion you're presenting is so utterly preposterous. 

    But you are correct to essentially suggest that all ideas should be entertained. So, for entertainment purposes... can you please paste in here your calculations?  You know, something along the lines of this.

  46. Rudmop... "I have provided a clear explanation of my model."

    Not so much. You've written a rambling piece, that doesn't have any substantive math, and runs contrary to basic physics. 

  47. Rudmop... "I trust that anyone who views this as a credible means to invalidate my model will know what that type of behavior clouds their scientific reputation. It is not how scientific discussions progress."

    If you give us the math that shows your model, people here can evaluate it.

  48. Further re Rudmop, here is a fuller version of the first comparison in my preceding post, with the data offset for easy comparison:

    In reading such graphs, as a simple rule, a molecule traps an amount of energy per second cm-1 steradian-1 equal to the difference between the observed radiation at that wavenumber and the black body radiation of the surface.  As can be seen, the 15 μ-meter wavelength (667 cm-1 wavenumber) is deep and distinct, unlike the neighbouring absorption by H2O.

    Second, the effective altitude of radiation within the troposphere can be determined as approximately the difference between the radiation temperature and that of the black body at the surface, divided by the lapse rate.  Thus the "shoulders" of the CO2 absorption band show absorption at about 12 km, while the neighbouring H2O shows absorption at an effective altitude of 6 km or less.  That difference is the fundamental difference that makes CO2 absorption more effective per molecule than is H2O absorption.

    Both of these features are features Rudmop claims are false.

  49. I have submitted it to a scientific journal on Feb 21, 2016. I am also ready for talks.. I probably am going about giving up a lot, but to date, no one has shown this in the literature, except me here on this discussion blog for climate scientists. I will be giving a presentation at Occidental college tomorrow on my model here. I. In my submission t have done the math and provided the equations, with my own variables. I prefer zeta and and kapparently for my coefients. I explain my calculations an the resonance absorption frequencies that cause an excited molecule in a state of super position. I appreciate the efforts of those scientists who have given me rational food for though for my presentation. My less egocentric psyche did warn me about the possibility of giving away my ideas, however if there is a Nobel prize to be given for this, I have only disclosed the part, it takes much more that I will not present here and show the proof. If that is the case that my model is worth a Nobel prize, this important part is the half of it. The other half will be in the book and the article. 

  50. That submittal date is 2017, sorry. I cannot read my post as I type on my phone. Need to wait until this evening when I can access my computer.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us