Recent Comments

Prev  431  432  433  434  435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  445  446  Next

Comments 21901 to 21950:

21901. Tom Curtis at 23:49 PM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @155 (156 &157 being redundant):

       1)

       "Since the earth atmosphere radiates 199.8wpsm to space, 199.8wpsm has to be added to maintain the attained air temperature. 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere."

       What is necessary to maintain the vertical temperature structure is that the net energy balance of the atmosphere, ie, energy inputs minus energy outgoings, should equal zero.  Given that, let's look at the energy balance again:

       

       The energy input into the atmosphere is 77.1 Solar absorbed by atmosphere + 358.2 Surface IR absorbed by atmosphere + 18.4 thermals + 86.4 latent heat, for a total of  540.1 W/m^2.  Given that, it is very clear that the 199.8 W/m^2 of upward IR emission from the atmosphere is insufficient to maintain a constant energy content in the atmosphere, and consequently a stable temperature structure.  Without the 340.3 W/m^2 IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface, that energy balance cannot be maintained, and consequently neither can the stable temperature structure.

       This is so basic, and so simple, a point that if you are not able to acknowledge it, no further discussion with you is warranted nor capable of being fruitful.

       2)

       "Tom incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect."

       That the temperature differential, ie, the convection induced lapse rate in tropospheric temperatures is a corner stone of the standard theory of the greenhouse effect is seen in the seminal paper by Manabe and Weatherald (1967).  David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert introduce that paper in their collection of seminal papers on global warming by saying (in part):

       "Three more building blocks had to fall into place before a proper, quantitative estimate of the effect of CO₂ changes on temperature could be carried out. ... Second, a means had to be found to represent the effects of convection on the temperature structure of the atmosphere. ... This[*] was achieved in the remarkable 1967 paper by Manabe and Weatherald ... Manabe and Weatherald (1967) can with confidence be described as the first fully sound estimate of the warming that would arise from a doubling of CO2."

       (* The "this" that they refer to was the inclusion of all three additional elements, not just the lapse rate which had been addressed by Manabe and Strickler (1964), and also by the apparently forgotten Hulbert (1931))

       It is fair to say from that, that in their opinion without "a means ... to represent the effects of convection on the temperature structure of the atmosphere", a sound estimate (ie, one with an adequate theoretical grounding) is not possible.  Therefore that temperature structure is fundamental to the basic theory of the greenhouse effect.

       Indeed, absent that knowledge, it is impossible to predict event the sign of the effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations on surface temperatures.  If the lapse rate were negative (ie, temperatures increased with altitude), increased GHG concentration cools the surface, as in fact happens on Titan.

21902. MA Rodger at 23:31 PM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @ 155/156.

       Your first paragraph is undoubtedly incorrect.

       Firstly, the atmosphere is insensitive to up or down. So in addition to radiating 200W/sq m upwards, it also radiates 200W/sq m downwards. It thus requires 400W/sq m to maintain a temperature of theoretically -40ºC (as Stefan-Boltzmann)

       Secondly, it is incorrect to assert that even this 400W/sq m is sufficient to maintain "the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere" unless you have some extra information to share with us. Your second paragraph does not suffice. Note this temperature you consider to be the average for an atmosphere with higher density (& thus thermodynamically averaged) at lower altitudes: such a theoretical atmosphere you imply has a temperature much closer to the tropopause than the surface.

       Consider the simplest 'structure' possible, a two-layer atmosphere comprising a 'top' atmosphere and a 'bottom' atmosphere both opaque to the IR they absorb/radiate. The 'top' radiates 200W/sq m into space and thus has an average temperature of -40ºC, the 'bottom' radiates 340W/sq m back to the surface and thus has an average temperature of +5ºC. The imbalance at the interface between 'top' & 'bottom' atmoshpere would be (200 x 2) - 340 = 60W/sq m. The imbalance between the 'bottom' atmosphere and the surface woud be (340 x 2) - 200 - 360 = 120W/sq m. These two imbalances require further atmospheric heating which is provided by the absorbed solar radiation (75W/sq m) and the convection-driven energy flux (105W/sq m sensible & latent heat). As the tropopause marks the point where the convective process ends, the 60W/sq m required by the 'top' atmosphere cannot be solely solar in origin. Indeed the solar heating is predominantly below 6km and thus would not be predominantly heating the 'top' (see for instance Lacis & Hansen 1973 'A Parameterisation of the Absorption of Solar Radiation in the Earth's Atmosphere')

       Of course, what this simplest of model is beginning to describe is the "standard theoretical greenhouse." but which is described within the second paragraph @155/156 as being incorrect. Perhaps my description here will allow the reason for this claim that "Tom (@149) incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect." to be justified, which is certainly required as it is looking mighty wrong without it.

21903. Tom Curtis at 22:43 PM on 15 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       curiousd @36:

       1)  Did you in fact consult with an expert source as I suggested, which source agreed with you?  Or is your renewed confidence simply a question of your having convinced yourself?

       2)  The central spike in the CO2 absorption/emission band seen in emission spectrum results from the fact that the average altitude of emission to space at that wavenumber is in the stratosphere.  Because the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause, that spike consequently shows a higher brightness temperature.

21904. MLDonoghue at 22:32 PM on 15 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Correction: Brinks values are today 10% of 1940 figures. Sorry.

21905. MLDonoghue at 22:28 PM on 15 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       What a fantastic site, as an interested amateur please correct me if I am wrong, but the way I see it all today:

       When water was first created on Earth the environment centred just under boiling point and eventually became tropical with the creation of plant life. 10,000 years ago humans began to upset the carbon cycle by farming and successfully delayed the next ice age, although ice ages are one way to redistribute minerals leached away by farming Hence the lush forest in pre historic times.

       In the last 50-years farming has changed globally. Look at our fields and you will see that a good proportion of the year they are clear of vegetation. Many of our crops are fed hydroponically in polytunnels with nutrients, and field crops use fossle fuel based fertilisers. Worst of all beneficial soil microbes that consume the plant sugars in order to extract nutrients are killed off with herbicides and pesticides as no longer required. one type of microbe burrows into a plant root in order to feed on the sugars from the 8% of carbon extracted between the night/day CO2/Oxgen cycle These particular microbes increase the water take up area of a plant root by 1000x, just think how much nutrient solution or fertiliser is required to account for the microbes lost. This is huge if considered world wide.

       I have a book that recorded Brinks Manometer readings in 1940 that shows that the sugar levels of ripe tomatoes in 1940 are only 10% of best grown organic today, which is an indication of ripeness and mineral content indicating how we are all so well fed while starved for nutrients. This book is ex-library so goodness knows what today's figures are. As I just retired this year and have bought a manometer I intend to start monitoring and tests on my allotment, this is a good forum to discuss the results.

       There is a growing interest in no till farming, using companion planting, organic methods, and green manures with permanent clover keys to sequester carbon from the atmospher. A great book on this is "The one straw revolution". All those ploughed brown fields would over winter with a green manure made from CO2, which fixes nitrogen, and is then retained within the soil when ploughed in.

       Another change to our climate is being caused, so I read, by desertification. See the Savory Institute web site. They will show you how a desert is formed in just a couple of years when animals are removed from the land, elephants are culled or domestic cattle are wrongly farmed standing around in fields. Carbon sequestration from recovery of a desert using just cattle and mob grazing is equivalent to 6000 car emissions/acre (please check this figure yourself on the Savory website). There is a great movement in the USA and UK towards mob grazing techniques, and when you compare the root size of say a Rye grass lay using mob grazing, soil improvement, with cut and digging in rather than ploughing out, you can see first hand where the CO2 is going, or at the moment not going. Even composted it releases CO2 back into the air along with other far worse greenhouse gases.

       This is such a complex topic, my belief is if every aspect is altered just 5% it will make a vast improvement. We all have to do our bit, everyone is correct in their beliefs.

       Mike

21906. curiousd at 11:33 AM on 15 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Hello,

       1. In regards to post 32 above I am now certain that my formula for the SMASS is correct for the constant temperature case at surface conditions of temperature and pressure. Now I have another question.

       2. If one looks at a satellite determined plot of absorption versus wave number , then right at the large dip in detected radiation near 667 wn, the peak of the CO2 bending mode absorption, there is always a small sharp upward peak. If you run MODTRAN U. Chicago at, say 20 km you do not see this, and  I believe that peak has to do with narrow absorption due to the small doppler broadening in  the upper atmosphere. I have a feeling that this effect was discussed elsewhere on Sk. Sc. some years ago? Can anyone tell me where that peak comes from?

21907. john warner at 09:55 AM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Tom Curtis @ 150 No

21908. john warner at 09:48 AM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Tom Curtis @ 150 No I never said anything like that. [snip]  It is beyond my capability to imagine what the moderator thought I meant. It would be nice if he would repost it.

       What I said in John Warner @ 146 is: Since the earth atmosphere radiates 199.8wpsm to space, 199.8wpsm has to be added to maintain the attained air temperature. 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere.

       I don’t think either of Tom’s options were adequate and I had two comments prepared to defend my statement [snip] before the moderator suspended my privilege to speak. An email I sent to the Washington Free Beacon, based upon the NASA 1998 Solar Energy Budget, to remind everyone that the air temperature is based upon the joules of energy already in the air. Furthermore, the 199.8wpsm represents the radiation to space of the entire atmosphere. In order to use the 1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator Digital Dutch I had to enter 5,891 meters altitude. The temperature calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator is a representative average annual global temperature for the entire atmosphere. The vertical temperature structure of the Troposphere up to 11 Kilometers is explained by the Ideal Gas Law. Tom incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect. My second comment addresses Tom’s linear regression of the carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient, using the Earth Air Budget, the Solar Energy Budget, the Standard Atmosphere Calculator and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator.

       In short my belief is consistent with my reading of option 1 but is not limited by an unreasonable reading of option 1.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] You are permitted to continue to defend your position here so long as you don't suddenly switch to another tack as you did over the question of ocean outgassing, and so long as follow the comments policy.

       [RH] Moderation complaints snipped. Once again, John, we want you to focus in on one single issue here before gishgalloping in 16 other directions. It has been explained to you that your ideas are in contradiction with thermodynamic law relative to atmospheric air pressure. Set everything else to the side and deal with this one thing and then you can move onto others. If you cannot address this issue then you're going to have to relinquish your posting privileges. Nothing you've stated here or in the previously snipped comment have sufficiently addressed this and therefore, as warned, was deleted.

21909. john warner at 09:32 AM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Tom Curtis @150 No I never said anything like that. [snip] Why RH snipped the comment is beyond my ability to comprehend.

       What I said in John Warner @ 146 is: Since the earth atmosphere radiates 199.8wpsm to space, 199.8wpsm has to be added to maintain the attained air temperature. 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere.
       I don’t think either of Tom’s options were adequate and I had two comments prepared to defend my statement [snip] before the moderator suspended my privilege to speak. An email I sent to the Washington Free Beacon, based upon the NASA 1998 Solar Energy Budget, to remind everyone that the air temperature is based upon the joules of energy in the air. Furthermore, the 199.8wpsm represents the radiation to space of the entire atmosphere. In order to use the 1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator Digital Dutch I had to enter 5,891 meters altitude. The temperature calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator is a representative average annual global temperature for the entire atmosphere. The vertical temperature structure of the Troposphere up to 11 Kilometers is explained by the Ideal Gas Law. Tom incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect. My second comment addresses Tom’s linear regression of the carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient, using the Earth Air Budget, the Solar Energy Budget, the Standard Atmosphere Calculator and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator.

       In short my belief is consistent with my reading of option 1 but is not limited by an unreasonable reading of option 1.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Moderation complaints snipped.

21910. scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 15 December 2016
       It's not happening
       

       Dennis, NOAA maintain a "State of Climate". For global view, updated Oct 2016, see https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201610

21911. jeffronicus at 03:59 AM on 15 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       @34

       Jeffrey,

       This paper by Turk, et al., touches some of your questions about rain's role in transfering carbon dioxide to the oceans.

       "Rain induces surface layer chemical dilution, enhances the gas transfer velocity and exports carbon from the atmosphere by wet deposition."

       www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/2010_Turk_etal_GRL.pdf

       Though several factors are addressed, the gist appears to be that where there is little existing wind-driven surface turbulence (such as portions of the tropics), rain creates more surface mixing and can turn a net CO2 source into a net CO2 sink.

       "Rain may have a significant effect on air‐sea CO2 exchange directly through increased transfer velocity and indirectly by chemical dilution and wet deposition."

       So a final answer would probably involve a more detailed analysis of where climate change is moving precipitation; that is, if climate patterns shifted precipitation away from the tropics and toward more volatile oceans, you would see less CO2 transfer. If climate change simply created more rain over, say, the Southern Ocean, there would likely be a minimal effect.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link. In future please create link with the link tool in the comment editor.

21912. One Planet Only Forever at 03:18 AM on 15 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       BILLHURLEY@3

       It would be helpful if in the future you refined your comments about Population related to climate change to be clearer that the real problem is the portion of the population that acts in ways that make the largest contribution to the growth of the climate change problem (as investors and consumers).

       A very small percentage of the current global population is irresponsibly creating the vast majority of the problem (they actually have no excuse for their behaviour - they undeniably have access to the information and the mental capability to 'know better' - and if they choose not to be well informed and better understand then they should be considered to be legally mentally incompetent for a leadership position). So a minor reduction of the human population (removing that group) would be a major improvement. However, a more responsible way to advance humanity would be for all of those higher impacting people to lead by changing their minds and dramatically reducing the unacceptable impacts of their desires and actions.

       As for the Evil label, it applies to the chosen actions of people. The ones among that group of the biggest trouble-makers who choose to unjustifiably (but temporarily successfully) Trump-up popular opinion to the discredit of climate science, try to reduce efforts to expand awareness of the best understanding of climate science (reduce funding for research and edit the reporting or redirect what gets researched to try to create more doubt), impede the development of better understanding of climate science and the required changes of human activity to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all (essentially Trump and his Cabinet) are objectively Truly Evil-acting People (an objective based label if advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all is a Good objective and actions impeding that advancement are Evil). And fans of such people would be followers and supporters of Evil action.

       Those despicable trouble-makers could also be referred to as adolescent Bullies, with their fans being the gangs that bullies always need to have around them to intimidate and punish those who would point out the unacceptability of their desired ways of believing and behaving. However, "Evil" is a more appropriate label for the types of actions and their impact that the powerful and wealthy trouble-makers choose to pursue in the current case of climate science.

21913. DennisMyers at 00:55 AM on 15 December 2016
       It's not happening
       

       I would like it very much is this type of article, or at least this one in specific, were updated with the latest numbers. In this new age of Trumpism, we need the best ammo available, please.

21914. Jeffrey Middlebrook at 00:40 AM on 15 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Thanks, RedBaron. Exciting stuff for sure. Very enlightening.

21915. RedBaron at 17:53 PM on 14 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Jeffrey,

        Yes decaying organic matter yields CO2 (and/or CH4 in anaerobic conditions). This is well described by the Roth C mathematical model used by most climate scientists. Only a tiny % of that carbon actually gets sequestered long term in the soil. The rest eventually returns to the atmosphere. I want to emphasize that this model is well developed and I have no problem with it at all in describing the fate of carbon that follows this biological pathway.

       Where the difference lies is that it does not describe the newly discovered Liquid Carbon biological Pathway at all. This carbon is not easily decayed. Once that carbon reaches the humic polymer stage, it tightly bonds to the soil mineral substrate and becomes an intrinsic part of the soil matrix. But not only that, it actually stabilizes the soil too.

       Remember, these two pathways are fundamentally different. Catabolic pathways like described by the Roth C model break down molecules and produce energy. Anabolic pathways like the LCP synthesize molecules and require energy. That's the primary reason for reducing or eliminating herbicides and other biocides. The energy comes from increased photosynthesis and through the LCP (anabolic pathway) stable soil structure is built. Entirely the opposite of the decay of organic material on the surface. Keep in mind, this is so completely the opposite of what was thought prior to the discovery of Glomalin in 1996, that most soil science textbooks still claim that mollic epipedons are primarily formed by decaying dead roots. And they had no explanation at all why this should happen under grasslands rather than forests which contain more biomass. Keep in mind all this is still contentious. Even this paper published as recently as 2011 and stating the current models are flawed, still describes as "unknown" the reason why. I can't stress enough how exciting this new breakthrough is for both agriculture and climate science.

       Now you make a good point questioning the time it can remain sequestered. Once those humic polymers tightly bind to the soil forming a mollic epipedon, this will last into geological time frames unless disturbed. However, we certainly know how to release it if needed. ;)

21916. Jeffrey Middlebrook at 14:45 PM on 14 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Thanks RedBaron. I love your descriptions of what you're doing. This soil sequestration is something I've wondered about for a long time. What I still wonder about is the eventual surrender of sequestered CO2 back to the atmosphere. Decaying organic matter yields CO2, right? I even have the same concerns for my sequestration technology. My technology captures 95%+ of all gases of combustion but somewhere down the road through various natural processes I'm sure the sequestered CO2 will find its way back into the environment in one form or another. By the way, in my post #34 above I actually know how to spell "inputs". That's a dumb typo.

21917. One Planet Only Forever at 14:45 PM on 14 December 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #50
       

       RedBaron@2

       The statement is my statement, inspired by the comments made by the interviewer, Jim Brown, as well as Patrick Stokes.

21918. RedBaron at 12:45 PM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       nigelj,

       Again, not the animals at fault. It is the degradation of the soils and their capability to biotically oxidize that methane. That's why eliminating to extinction every single cow on the planet still won't work. Because the soil methantrophic oxidation would even get worse! Net is still not negative. But change the agricultural model and the cows change from a problem to a solution.

       “The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

       Remember, this is a stocks and flow problem like any other in climate science. It is never the gross that matters, but rather the net fluxes that matter. You are making the same fail in the same way as this denialist argument: Breathing contributes to CO2 emissions

       Whether it is Methane emissions or Carbon dioxide emissions from living animals, never counts unless you tie it to the opposite side of the active biological cycle and can measure net positive flux. The whole methane emissions argument from farting and burping cows is just as ridiculous as the breathing argument, except instead of plants being on the opposite side of the biological cycle, it is methanotrophs on the opposite side of the biological cycle.

21919. Tom Curtis at 11:31 AM on 14 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Art Vandelay @72, nearly all, if not all sea food eaten by humans are situated in a food chain with photosynthesis at the base.  Ergo, while the exchange of CO2 for oxygen that drives the process may not take place in the atmosphere, it still occurs.  As pCO2 equilibriates between the atmosphere and surface waters in less than a year, that means most of the marine food eaten by humans has no significant effect.

       I am not aware of any human from non-organic sources, or from archaea, so if you want to claim that "food is derived from a source of photosynthesized CO2" is an appreciable source of human food, you will need to provide references.

       The difference in biomass between humans and plants is accounted for in the Land Use Change (LUC) budget in the global CO2 budget.  It is smaller than you think because the biomass of large herbivores (ie, cattle) has massively increased over the last 160 years.  Identifying just a single component in the changed system and comparing it with the total biomass of the preceding system is misleading, though no doubt unintentionally. 

21920. nigelj at 11:16 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       Red Baron @11, thanks and I had a read of your link. Basically you do acknowledge livestock emit methane, but appear to claim different farming techniques can solve the methane problem by less indoor livestock farming, etc, and better soils management.

       Well I respect your view and maybe you are right, but changing farming techniques exactly like you suggest will be challenging thing in so many ways in terms of persuading farmers, legislating, etc. It would take forever. The general maistream view is changing feedstock has the most practical promise.

       I was suggesting to the other poster its futile to blame animals or expect that much change will happen there, and we should concentrate on reducing fossil fuels as the first priority. Im not saying give up on the animal methane issue, but its a particularly tough one obviously.

21921. nigelj at 10:46 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       The following article is worth a read and is quite chilling:

       www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11766755

       Its by Eric Holthaus writing in the Washington Post, reprinted in my local newspaper. He is a meteorologist and journalist concerned that the Trump administration may delete public / government data bases of climate data. He has taken extaordinary steps to archive this material and so have others. He cites examples where other governments have removed data.

       His concern is Trump may want to make as difficult as possible to access information so as to stop further understanding of the climate, and to reinforce the interests of the fossil fuels industry.

21922. Art Vandelay at 10:19 AM on 14 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       One thing to consider in the argument that the biosphere is still in balance with 7 billion humans is that 20% of food consuption is from the oceans, not land. In other words, 20% of the 3Gt CO2 exhaled by humans was not part of the normal terrestrial cycle. It's also true that not all food is derived from a source of photosynthesized CO2. 

       Also, to what extent is balance achieved by the burning of fossil fuels - which increases photosynthesis as a feedback response?

       If the existing balance is only made possible by virtue of 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the current population is obviously not sustainable in the long term.   

       Based purely on the amount of CO2 exhaled by humans it should be possible to calculate a population level that's sustainable with a photosynthesis rate commensurate with around 280 ppm atmospheric concentration.  Based on flux apprximations from the IPCC it would appear that we're already beyond a sustainable population maximum. 

       One last point is that 7 billion humans doesn't actually sequester much in the way of C when compared with plants. There's approx 25kg of carbon per human, so <0.2Gt for the entire population.   

21923. RedBaron at 10:19 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       nigelj,

       As I have pointed out many times, the agricultural component to rising methane has nothing to do with methane emissions from livestock anymore than breathing out CO2 counts towards greenhouse gas emissions. 

       There is an agricultural component, but that component is not the livestocks' fault and veganism will not fix it. I have spelled it out with good references here

21924. RedBaron at 09:58 AM on 14 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Jeffrey,

       Yes I got that was the feedback you were refering to. No I can't comment on it as I am not a climate scientist. Like you I amd working on mitigation through sequestration, in my case agricultural soils. I have taken a climate science course at university level in order to better understand and communicate with climate scientists and better communicate climate science to laymen. But that does not make me one myself. Just a research farmer concerned as all farmers are about climatic conditions and their impacts.

21925. Jeffrey Middlebrook at 09:31 AM on 14 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Wow, I'm impressed with the responses and tangentially inspired responses to my initial inquiry. I don't know if any of you who've posted your learned responses are actually "climate scientists", so if any of you are I'd love to have you say so. I'm just a humble engineer and inventor of a sequestration technology, but one of my friends is a maverick climate scientist from the UK who is not a global warming denier (only a fool would be so), but he is an AGW skeptic. I invited him to create an account with this group but I don't know if he has. His imputs would liven the discussions for sure. I think perhaps I might not have made myself fully clear in my initial inquiry to this group. I did not mean to imply that there isn't an evaporative transfer of heat upwards as precipitation enters the oceans. It wasn't heat per se I was asking about, rather the capture of CO2 in precipitation, and whether or not greater precipitation brought on by atmopsheric warming would capture more CO2 to then be transferred to the oceans. Was this clear to anyone else?

21926. nigelj at 08:35 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       Ivanka Trump appears to be the brains of the Trump family. I have to take her at face value that she is sincere in her concerns about the climate.

       However Trump has already appoined several hard line climate denialist people. Trump has shown flexibility of views on some things, but his actions indicate he is serious about his denialist views on climate change.

       Of course he may soften his position, or listen to Ivanka, but he will then be at war with the very people he has appointed. They will be unlikely to simply soften their views if Trump softens his. He is unlikely to fire them.

       The whole thing looks like a gigantic mess in the making to me.

21927. nigelj at 08:24 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       Swampfoxh @6

       I'm not sure where you get the figure that animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of emissions or exactly what that includes. However I agree it is certainly an issue.

       Basically animals and humans exhale CO2 but this is part of a cycle and isnt responsible for increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Its easy enough to google this issue.

       Livestock exhale methane and increasing livestock has led to increasing methane. This is more of a problem. This methane breaks down to CO2 in the atmosphere eventually but causes a high level of warming in the short term. However there are no easy solutions, although research is being conducted on feedstocks that reduce methane emissions and does show some promise, but no actual solution yet.

       The other approach is vegetarianism, which does have some appeal, but we simply cannot force this on people by law.

       So the priority and something we can change right now is fossil fuels.

21928. Tom Curtis at 07:48 AM on 14 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       rkrolph @151, you probably have picked this up, but it is important to the budget that it contains three layers, the TOA, atmosphere, and Surface.  In order, the budgets are (with all values in units of W/m^2):

       TOA:  340.4 Solar in - (77.0 Solar reflected from clouds and atmosphere + 22.9 Solar reflected from the surface + 239.9 IR out) =  0.6

       Atmosphere: (77.1 Solar absorbed by atmosphere + 358.2 Surface IR absorbed by atmosphere + 18.4 thermals + 86.4 latent heat) - ( 169.9 upward IR from atmosphere + 29.9 IR upward IR from clouds + 340.3 back radiation) = 0

       Surface: (163.3 solar absorbed at surface + 340.3 back radiation from atmosphere) - (398.2 IR emitted from surface + 18.4 thermals + 86.4 latent heat) = 0.6

       In addition, it is very important that the energy imbalance (right hand term in the equations) in the atmosphere plus the energy imbalance at the surface equals the energy imbalance at the TOA.  If it did not, we would have a violation of conservation of energy.  As a side note, it is also important that solar energy in equal solar energy reflected plus solar energy absorbed.

       Some AGW deniers look at this diagram and say some element should be completely excluded as non-existent - most typically the back radiation.  In doing so they merely show they do not consider conservation of energy to apply in climatology.  You cannot remove a major element without creating an unaccounted for imbalance.

       john warner has made such a suggestion (in his deleted coment @146) that:

       "The total air at all altitudes combined radiates to space at the rate of 199.8 W/m2. That is the only energy that needs to be replaced to maintain all of the temperatures of the temperature gradient"

       Again, that fails the conservation of energy test.  The total energy that needs to be replaced in the atmosphere is the combination of IR radiation to space from atmosphere and clouds (199.8) and the total value of the back radiation (340.3), but as the budget shows, that is indeed what is replaced.

       Finally, it should be noted that many values in the graph are determined by a combination of observations plus the knowledge that they balance.  Thus, due to calibration errors of absolute values, space born instruments show an imbalance of 1 - 2 W/m^2 between incoming and outgoing energy.  The far more accurate observations of changes in ocean heat content are known to effectively identical with the actual TOA imbalance (within error), and are used with the knowledge that total surface plus atmosphere absorbed must equal the TOA imbalance to calibrate the actual TOA imbalance.  Thus the precise concordance of the values is not evidence of anything but the researchers knowledge that the budget must not violate conservation of energy.  The values are, however, sufficiently well constrained from observation that the removal of an entire form or energy transfer would violate not only conservation of energy but known observations.

21929. PluviAL at 07:36 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       Swampfoxh: Jackson had some shortcomings but he expanded the nation and did a prety good job, that's how he got his gig on the $20 Bill. My sense is that Trump is more like Grant, with a supremely corrupt administration resultnig from political incompetance and alcohol. Let's hope Trump can listen to his daughter and see the huge loss the US will take if we force advantage in the green revolution to China. Personally, I am willing to work with China to develop my technology, it's for the good of my kid's and grand kid's world, not for my national pride. I think a lot of people feel the same way, especially if they are not Americans.

21930. rkrolph at 06:37 AM on 14 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       152 HK:

       Thanks for clarifying that.  I missed the 77.1 solar absorption number. I think then I would have figured out how the numbers work.  That's my excuse anyway! :)

21931. villabolo at 06:30 AM on 14 December 2016
       Climate Science Legal Defense Fund at AGU and how you can help
       

       Slightly off topic but I ran into this article about scientists archiving everything related to AGW in anticipation of Trump's administration deleting government data sets.

       https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.2db84db1fd76

21932. HK at 06:01 AM on 14 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       151 rkrolph:

       You have to include all the energy fluxes into and out of the atmosphere!

       The energy input includes absorbed incoming solar radiation (77.1), absorbed radiation from the surface (358.2), thermals (18.4) and latent heat in water vapour (86.4), totalling 540.1.
       The energy loss includes back radiation to the surface (340.3) and radiation to space (169.9 + 29.9), again totalling 540.1.

       The atmospheric window (40.1) represents radiation that passes directly from the surface to space without being absorbed by GHGs or clouds, and should not be counted here.

21933. swampfoxh at 04:29 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       So much for the efficacy of the universal right to vote.  Hillary only had a miniscule more votes than Donald.  Had the electorate been "informed" about the universal perils of anthropogenic climate change they might have picked the Green candidate instead...she was the only candidate that knows the problem well enough to do something meaningful about it.  Since the electorate remains ignorant 187 years after they voted for Andrew (trump) Jackson, why would any of us believe that a few more votes might have canned Trump?  (Hillary wasn't qualified either).  So let's forget the whining over whose going to manipulate the levers of power and work to educate the public about the facts of climate change.  We could do a better job educating ourselves by acknowledging that Animal Agriculture is directly and indirectly responsible for about 51% of global emissions, along with desertification, deforestation, water shortages, ocean dead zones and famine, but I never hear any of you talking about that.  Why? 

21934. william5331 at 03:34 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       Tell Trump to forget climate change.  Instead, point out how much money he is sending overseas to buy oil which could be better used for his infrastructure programs.  No need for government handouts.  Simply sort out the government settings so that the America people and her industries find it worth while to install wind and solar generation.  Every 5 kWh generated, especially if the settings also favor construction of a truly affordable electric car, is a dollar that doesn't go out of America: a dollar that can be used internally.  Also point out to him how many jobs are create installing wind and solar and building electric cars compared to the few provided by the largely mechanized coal mining.  No need to bash coal.  Economics will take care of that.  Simply stop wasting money subsidizen coal.  This money can also be diverted into Trump's works programs.

21935. rkrolph at 03:21 AM on 14 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Regarding the energy budget shown by Tom Curtis at 140 I have a question.  The IR radiation from the earth is 398.2, and the back radiation is 340.3, for a delta of 57.9 into the atmosphere.  But the total outgoing IR radiation from the atmosphere is 239.9.  So where does the additonal 182 (239.9-57.9) come from?

21936. Paul D at 02:25 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       We're all doomed. In more ways than one.

21937. BILLHURLEY13951 at 01:50 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       I really think our side doesn't appreciate the importance of 'paradigm' in human understanding.

       What appears ignorance, often is just the polite reaction of someone who doesn't get the big picture and you're telling him/her the details without explaining the big picture first. The big picture is simple - 7 billion people now with most of them using 35 times the natural resources unsustainably.

       IE Evil people are not the cause. That turns heads among "trumpistas"

21938. mark48 at 01:38 AM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       Don't get played by Trump. He is the current (!) producer of a reality TV show and he has been running his transition like The Apprentice. The NY Times editorial staff made a big deal out of his 'I have an open mind' comments, but read the actual transcript of the Times interview. He would make a ridiculous climate denier comment, then finish with 'but I have an open mind'. He used Al Gore to distract attention from his cabinet picks, and probably DiCaprio, except DiCaprio did manage to emphasize the jobs potential of clean energy. Trump's cabinet nominations and the DOE questionnaire trying uncover 'climate moles' in the DOE say everything. We grasp at Trump's gratuitous comments in hopes that it isn't as bad as it seems, but it is. Elections have consequences and far too many Americans did not bother to vote.  Trump lost the popular vote and was elected by about a quarter of the eligible voters. Over the next 4-8 years we will be conducting a grand climate experiment, 'the will of the people'. 'Belief in climate change is optional, but participation is mandatory' (Jim Beever, SWF Regional Planning Council).

21939. Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 14 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @150, are you explicitly stating that your snipped post @146 answers my question at the end of my post @149.  In other words, you are explicitly stating that (in my words), "There is an external source of energy which provides the energy allowing the atmosphere to radiate at 199.8 W/m^2 at approximately 6 Km altitude, but the additional emission at the surface is the result of a continuous energy supply to the atmosphere by gravity".

       Is that correct?

21940. Tom Curtis at 16:35 PM on 13 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner, given your tendency to ignore rebutals, and just switch topics, the moderators have directed you to stick to the topic @142 until you have acknowledged your errors therein, or proved your views on that topic to be correct. (See Moderator's comment @146, and @147.  Particularly the statement that:

       "I propose John first address the pressure and temperature violation of thermodynamics. Any comments outside of that will be struck until John addresses this one."

       )

       In light of that, you claim @142 that the ideal gas law states:

       P = CDT          (1)

       where P is pressure, C is a constant, D is density, and T is temperature.

       The ideal gas law is normaly given as:

       PV = nRT        (2)

       where P is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of molecules of the substance (in moles), R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature.

       Rearranging (2), we get

       P = (Rn/V)T    (3)

       If we then multiply n/V by the molar mass of the substance (M(s)), relying on the fact that M(s) * n equals the mass of the substance, we then get

       P = R/M(s) * DT  (4)

       Substituting with one, we then find that so long as C = R/M(s), your formula is correct.  R = 8.3144598 J/(K mol).  The molar mass of dry air is 0.02897 Kg / mol.  Ergo, in the case of dry air, C= 287.0024 J /(Kg K)

       Inserting, that and checking units, we find that the right hand of the equation has units of Joules/meter^3, which reduces to units of (kg x m^2)/(m^3 x sec^2).  That cancels to units of kg/(m x sec^2)  In the meantime, the left hand has units of pascals, or kgs/(m x sec^2).  The two are identical, thereby validating the equation.

       Comparing to your exposition @142, I first notice a slight difference in the value of C (about 2%), which is possibly due to rounding errors in the calculation.  I also notice @148 that you use correct units for C.  It follows that your presentation of the ideal gas law, although ideosyncratic, is valid.

       You proceed by saying:

       "How much did the Gravity induced increase in Temperature increase the the radiation emitted by the surface temperature? 154.8wpsm. 199.8wpsm +158.4wpsm=358.2wpsm."

       That is ambiguous to me.  Are you saying that:

       1)  Gravity induces a temperture difference in the atmosphere between an altitude of approximately 6 kms and the surface, such that additional energy must be supplied from some other source (ie, not from gravity) to maintain that equilibrium temperature difference (and hence difference in emmitted radiation); or

       2)  There is an external source of energy which provides the energy allowing the atmosphere to radiate at 199.8 W/m^2 at approximately 6 Km altitude, but the additional emission at the surface is the result of a continuous energy supply to the atmosphere by gravity?

       (1) is, of course, the standard theory of the greenhouse effect; while (2) is arrant nonsense.

       (PS inline @147, I looked carefully at the post suggested, and Postma's article and I cannot find where he is suggesting the theory such as john warner appears to be expounding above.  While we have encountered that theory several times on SkS, it has always to my knowledge, been in comments and lacks a specific article debunking it.  Hence, for want of a better location I am continuing to discuss it here.) 

21941. john warner at 14:09 PM on 13 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Michael sweet @ 147

       101325 Nm^-2 = 287.052 Nm^-2m³/kg^oK * 1.25203 kgm^-3 * 281.930^oK

                                            Nm/kg^oK

                                            J/kg^oK

       If you know that a pascal is defined as a Newton per square meter and simplify the expression to a Newton meter which is a Joule you can see that the individual gas constant for air in Standard International Units is 286.9 J/kg^oK.

       http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/individual-universal-gas-constant-d_588.html

       Would you repost my snipped comment so I can defend it.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Please respond to Tom's comments below. This needs to be acknowledged and resolved before moving forward.

21942. Stardustoz at 11:32 AM on 13 December 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #50
       

       FYI - I've noticed your social media share tab has not been working correctly the last couple of days. It' s not linking the article of interest or providing a shortcut to the more popular social media options (such as Facebook or Twitter for example). 

21943. John Hartz at 06:09 AM on 13 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       Supplementing the information contained in Dana's article...

       The heads of Donald Trump’s transition teams for Nasa, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy, as well as his nominees to lead the EPA and the Department of the Interior, all question the science of human-caused climate change, in a signal of the president-elect’s determination to embark upon an aggressively pro-fossil fuels agenda.

       Trump has assembled a transition team in which at least nine senior members deny basic scientific understanding that the planet is warming due to the burning of carbon and other human activity. These include the transition heads of all the key agencies responsible for either monitoring or dealing with climate change. None of these transition heads have any background in climate science.

       Trump's transition: sceptics guide every agency dealing with climate change by Oliver Milman, Guardian, Dec 12, 2016

21944. michael sweet at 03:12 AM on 13 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       John Warner,

       At 142 you claim that according to the ideal gas equation P = CDT where C is the ideal gas constant (normally abbreviated as R), D is density and T is temperature.  If that were the case, since all gases have different densities, all gases would have different pressures at the same temperature and volume.   All my High School students learn that at the same temperature and volume different gasses have the same pressure.  Your equation is falsified by my college textbook (Brown and LeMay: Chemistry the Central Science 11th edition page 407).

       I cannot find your value of 287.052 Pam3/kgoK for R anywhere on the Internet.  It appears that you made this up.  What are these units anyway?

       As MA Rodger explained, while pressure and temperature are related, you cannot draw power with gravity as the source.  That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

       Your "calculation" using Boltzamn's law (struck by the moderator) was similarly in error.

       Since you have demonstrated that you cannot calculate values from first principles, you must start to reference your material to accepted sources.  You need to start asking questions about how the atmosphere works.  People here are happy to help you understand.  Everything you explain just makes others doubt you more.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Though it's dubious to believe it would be fruitful, perhaps it would be good to take John's errors one at a time. The list is large and growing, thus the potential for advancing the conversation is diminishing.

       I propose John first address the pressure and temperature violation of thermodynamics. Any comments outside of that will be struck until John addresses this one.

       [PS] John has bad habit of simply ignoring inconvenient response and then changing to a different tack. He not responded to errors pointed about source of CO2, meaning of correlation, calculation errors and now a monumental misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Furthermore he is repeatedly ignoring moderator instructions to find suitable thread.

       I agree that John should respond here to either acknowledge the errors or defend his position and any other response should be deleted. This vaguely resembles Postma's nonsense so perhaps further followup beyond this should go to here.

21945. john warner at 01:35 AM on 13 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       From the Stefan-Boltzmann Law if we know the temperature we can calculated the rate at which the air is cooling itself. The total air at all altitudes combined radiates to space at the rate of 199.8 W/m². That is the only energy that needs to be replaced to maintain all of the temperatures of the temperature gradient. 

       [snip]

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] John, before you go any further here, you're going to have to directly and clearly address the shortcomings that have been pointed out so far.

21946. Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 13 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @142, if you look at the diagram @140, you will notice that the 169.9 W/m^2 from atmosphere, and the 29.9 W/m^2 from clouds are labels for arrows leading upwards.  That is, they are the upward IR flux from the atmosphere at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA).  While it is true that the IR flux from a layer of the atmosphere sufficiently thin so as to absorb essentially none or the IR photons emitted from the layer is equal in both the upward and downward direction, that is not true of the atmosphere as a whole.  It follows that upward IR flux at the TOA from atmospheric emission does not inform us regarding the downward IR flux from atmospheric emission at the surface.  Ditto for clouds.  Reading the chart as it it does is nonsense.

       That is most easilly seen with clouds.  Clouds are essentially opaque to IR radiation except for all but the thinest clouds.  Thus, for a cloud of thickness T (units of meters), the upward emission comes almost exclusively from the cloud top, while the downward emission comes almost exclusively from the cloud bottom.  Because of the lapse rate in atmospheric temperatures, that means the downward transmission will have a brightness temperature approximately T x 0.0065 K greater than the upward emission from the cloud top.  As the upward arrow in the diagram is radiation to space, if there is high cloud overlying low cloud the difference in brigtness temperature of the upward emission will be a function of the altitude difference between the cloud top of the upper cloud and the cloud bottom of the lower cloud, multiplied by the lapse rate.

       Atmosperic emission is not quite so clear cut, but in general, the thicker lower atmosphere results in a shorter free path length for downward emission than for upward emission.  That means IR radiation emitted from the atmosphere and reaching the surface comes from much closer to the ground than IR radiation emitted from the atmosphere and reaching space.  Dragging numbers at random from a diagram while ignoring context (such as the arrows) does not change this.  Invoking an unphysical theory to "explain" a discrepancy that only exists because you have completely, and bizarrely, misread the graph does not change it either.  

21947. john warner at 00:38 AM on 13 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Correction: john warner @ 142

       101325 Pa = 287.052 Pam³/kg^oK * 1.25203 kg/m³ * 281.93^oK.

21948. MA Rodger at 22:04 PM on 12 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @142.

       There are monumental flaws in the argument you present but I will confine myself to just the one monumental flaw. It is true that there is a phenomenon known as Gravitational Compression. The act of compressing a gas does heat the gas (as anybody who has pumped up a bicycle type by hand would have noted). But when the compression stops so does the warming and the elevated temperatures experience cooling (as my bicycle pump plainly shows). So what compression is happening in the Earth's atmosphere? There is none. The Earth's atmosphere has not been compressing for eons.

       With deference to the Moderator Response @142, I will not suggest that you are delusional in you belief that you have mastered the understanding required to allow a person to wield the equations that you employ. Rather I will humbly suggest that you are a tad out of your depth here.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The deleted paragraph is a blatant "ad hominem" attack which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

       You know better than that.

       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.

21949. john warner at 20:11 PM on 12 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Google 1976 US Standard Atmosphere Calculator, Digital Dutch and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator. From the Earth Energy Budget emitted by atmosphere is 169.9wpsm and emitted by clouds is 29.9wpsm. They add up to 199.8wpsm. Entering 199.8 for P yields 243.64oK. Now enter 5,891 meters for altitude and -6.22oK into the Standard Atmosphere Calculator. T=243.638^oK Subtract 243.638^oK from 281.93^oK. Where did thes extra 38.292^oK come from? Gravity. The 12 tons of air over the air at the surface increased the Pressure and Density. According to the Ideal Gas Law Pressure and Density determine Temperature according to the following formula. P=CDT Where C is the Gas Law Constant. At 0.0 meters altitude the Ideal Gas Law Calculates:
       101325 Pa = 287.052 Pam3/kg^oK * 1.25203 kg/m3 * 281.930^oK.
       How much did the Gravity induced increase in Temperature increase the the radiation emitted by the surface temperature? 154.8wpsm. 199.8wpsm +158.4wpsm=358.2wpsm.

21950. Tom Curtis at 17:05 PM on 12 December 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #50
       

       Courtesy of my son on facebook:

       

Prev  431  432  433  434  435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  445  446  Next