JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can

Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.

The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.

Graph of Additional Absorbance of CO2 showing that extra CO2 makes less and less difference.

The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance.

Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules.

This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra 20ppm of atmospheric CO2.

AGW says: The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve, and use it already.

Skeptics say:
The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). “Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: Test tubes don’t have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The “clouds and humidity” factor is bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet, but low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models don’t know, but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point: The feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbon’s alleged effect. E’Gad.

AGW says: It’s not 100% saturated.

Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that’s already up there.

And the effect is already so small, it’s unmeasureable.

Conclusion: If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in ice cores and thermometers. We don’t. Ergo, carbon’s effect is probably minor.


Notes about page 8 of The Skeptics Handbook:

When someone pointed out this basic chemistry to me, it resonated, and again I marvelled that something so basic had been carefully not mentioned in this debate. I realize log curves are not something you want to reach out to the public with in detail, but I felt everyone who has done chemistry at university would grasp this point quickly. It explains the paradox: It’s true that carbon has some warming effect, but it’s also true that extra carbon doesn’t have the same effect. When alarmists point out that the natural greenhouse effect causes “X degrees of warming,” they usually fail to mention that the first 100pm does almost all of this, and no extra 100ppm addition will ever do as much. It’s a lie by omission.

The graph in the first printed edition of The Skeptics Handbook is shown below, and comes from David Archibald, who was the first to arrange the results in this powerful format. It’s a good graph, and he deserves credit for being the one to capture the increasing ineffectiveness of carbon very well.  This was calculated (like the top graph) using Modtran, which is a model provided by Spectral Sciences and the US Air Force, and used by researchers around the world.
Graph of Additional Absorbance of CO2 showing that extra CO2 makes less and less difference.

Archibald based his figures on a climate sensitivity calculated by Craig Idso and published in peer reviewed literature (Idso 1998).  The graph itself was not published in peer reviewed paper*. The top graph above comes from Patrick Michaels, and was also constructed on Modtran. It  started with a climate sensitivity estimate from Richard Lindzen in his recent ERBE paper (Lindzen and Choi 2009). Useful discussions on the observational backing for a low climate sensitivity are at Friends of Science and Niche Modelling.

The two log curves here are not that different (which is one of the things about a log curve: Once you get past the initial slide, it’s all “small” or “smaller”). Overall, both graphs accomplish what I wanted; namely, to show that the basic effect of carbon dioxide on it’s own dwindles to almost nothing. Sure, each extra molecule of carbon makes a little difference, but it becomes less and less so, and there’s a point where it’s irrelevant and unmeasureable. We’re not at that point yet. Even if doubling carbon leads only to a 0.5 degree difference on a global scale, it’s arguably still measurable (well, at least theoretically).

My point with this page was not that we could use Modtran to calculate whether there is a crisis due to carbon. I was not so much interested in the exact numbers as in the shape of the curve. From a science communicator’s point of view, this is basic science: Additional carbon has less effect.  But, can anyone find a school climate education program with this chemistry?

The exponential “hockey-stick” curves of the IPCC et al emphasize just how much difference extra carbon supposedly makes. Few people realize that the exponential rising curves come from feedback factors (which are the fatal flaw of the science behind the scare campaign).

Attacks on this page

There have been plenty of people who claim the log graph is totally, completely, utterly wrong. Desmog argued that Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t even close to saturated: “…look at Venus.” So I did, and demolished that point in this reply.  (Basically, Venus’s atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth’s. No wonder it’s hot. It wouldn’t matter what gas was in it’s atmosphere).

Other people come out with irrelevant things, like the Idso paper is “old” (so is the theory of gravity). They launch ad hominem attacks on Archibald, and claim the graph is not peer reviewed.  Their most inflated argument is that the creator of Modtran says Archibald misused it. But in the cold light of day, it only means that the guy who developed the web interface for the Modtran model didn’t like the climate sensitivity that Archibald chose.  And we are supposed to care?

*UPDATE:

David Archibald writes in #104

The graph’s first outing, in 2006, was in a peer-reviewed paper, published in Energy and Environment. Thanks for republishing.

David

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (17 votes cast)
4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can, 8.8 out of 10 based on 17 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yauesjh

167 comments to 4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can

  • #

    Jo,

    Your point about CO2 is well taken. You write, “Every time alarmists point out that the natural greenhouse effect causes “X degrees of warming” they usually omit to mention that the first 100pm does almost all of that, and no other 100ppm above that will ever do as much. It’s a lie by omission.”

    Very true. Also, the first 20 ppm has more effect than the other 367 ppm combined. I have seen several other charts from different sources and they all say the same thing. I hope this precludes some pseudo intellectual from attacking the graph simply because it is from Lindzen and Choi. The taxpayer funded gravy train riding scam artists at the IPCC always mention a positive feedback from water vapor but never cite any empirical evidence to support their contention, just GIGO models. Some say that the fraudsters at the UN IPCC and their minions should get their resumes in order. In addition to that, each of them should retain the services of an attorney. After all, it really benefits the opposition when the other party is embroiled in scandal and politicians are some of the most efficient predators on the planet.


    Report this

    22

  • #
    Brad Johnson

    CO2 is not actually saturated. See Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Philipona 2004, Evans 2006, Chen 2007. Observations continue to find an enhanced greenhouse effect as CO2 levels rise.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    When someone pointed out this basic chemistry to me, it resonated.

    Anybody who has studied music, or electronics, will be familiar with the concept of resonation. Every physical object, including molecules has its own resonant frequency. CO2 molecules are no exception – they resonate in a frequency band in the near infrared (from memory).

    When they resonate, they absorb some of the energy, and then release it again. That is what resonating is.

    Each molecule can only hold a finite amount of energy – a quantum of energy – in the resonant frequency band.

    But a quantum of energy is an on/off sort of thing. A molecule either resonates or it doesn’t. You cannot have half a quanta.

    So for each molecule there is a “tipping point” depending on the amount of energy available in the resonant frequency band where the molecule just happens to be right now.

    If all of the energy in that place has already been absorbed, the molecule just sits there feeling lonely and unloved.

    So the limiting factor has nothing to do with the absorption factor of CO2 (the quanta), and it has very little to do with the number of molecules in the atmosphere. It has everything to do with the amount of energy being emitted by the sun in the resonant frequency band at any point in time.

    The atmospheric CO2 simply becomes saturated with energy.


    Report this

    21

  • #

    Al “the center of the Earth is millions of degrees” Gore often mentions that Venus is hotter than Earth. The reason Venus is warmer is not because of the green house effect. As Jo has already explained, the effects of CO2 are logarithmic and Venus is virtually void of water. As the water that was once on Venus rose in the atmosphere it was broken down into its basic components and carried away by the solar wind so no positive feedback is possible. Venus atmosphere is at least 90 times more dense than Earth’s and the two planets are relatively the same size. The dense atmosphere creates tremendous pressure and thats what causes the extreme heat. Although Venus is closer to the sun than the Earth it is still far enough away to support life if not for the composition of the Venusian atmosphere.

    As the public becomes aware of the truth about CO2′s logarithmic effect they are going to become much angrier than they are already. I hope there aren’t any lynchings. It is my humble opinion that these climate criminals should receive a fair trial before they are publicly executed for crimes agains humanity. I still believe in the rule of law, even for these criminals.


    Report this

    12

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    An addendum to my #3:

    Most of the arguments put forward by the Cultists around CO2 energy absorption, and the role of water vapour in the mix, are focused on the dynamics of energy interchange in the atmosphere, especially between different layers of the atmosphere. It is a complicated area, so I tried to reduce it to school-room physics level.

    In response to Brad Johnson #2

    Yes it is not actually saturated, for the reasons that Jo mentioned. I should have said it tends towards saturation.


    Report this

    21

  • #
  • #
    Dean Turner

    This is the essence of the entire argument. This is what the public need to be made aware of!


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #

    Brad Johnson:
    February 17th, 2010 at 5:03 am
    Observations continue to find an enhanced greenhouse effect as CO2 levels rise. thanks again for the references. If Lindzen and Choi are wrong and your stament is correct, why, as phil Jones admits, there has been no statistically meaningful warming in the last fifteen years. If the temp records were correct (they are not, see Read Me Harry File, Bolivian effect and the various “gates” regarding temp data manipulation) and the effects of CO2 are monotonic, where is the warming? The GCM models all predicted warming and none of them forecast the lack of warming we have experienced for the last fifteen years.

    2 Rereke Whaakaro:great posts, thanks!


    Report this

    01

  • #
    janama

    I became a sceptic years ago when I learnt that the CO2 effect is logarithmic. Last year I learnt that Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Penny D Sackett, was unaware of the logarithmic effect of CO2.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    @ Brad Johnson

    You wrote, “CO2 is not actually saturated.” Very true! Jo wrote,” CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light and it’s close to its saturation point.” Jo never stated in her article said that it was saturated. I hope the straw man you employed was unintentional; perhaps you were just making a point?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Eddy,

    My Apple widget tells me it must be your bedtime – I hope you have a late pass :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    We’re convinced! We believe the Beer-Lambert law, always have.

    Can anybody observe this effect in the atmosphere? Of course not, it is drowned out in white noise [red noise, actually] but anyway how much has all this cost the world so far? Plenty – but I guess the issue remains for it not to demolish the free world

    I become more optimistic every that it won’t (although a couple of years ago I had my doubts)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    @ Rereke Whaakaro # 12
    actually, it is almost 12:30 in the afternoon PST

    I am not a math major but after seeing the IPCC math, calculations, etc., I am reminded of Jethro Bodine from the Beverly Hillbillies doing his “guzindas.” Example: “Four guzinda ten twice, fetch the two”!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    MarcH:
    February 17th, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Dr Crowley’s qualifications…..
    Bachelor of Arts – Monash University, Victoria <<<<=============== !!!
    Diploma of Education – Rusden College, Victoria
    Graduate Diploma of Recreation <<<<=============== !!!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    A “guzinta” is the place on a piece of machinery where electricity or water enters, and it isn’t always evident on pumps etc which port is the guzinta


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ BrianG. Valentine Thank you for your post, erudite as always!

    From theUrban dictionary (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gazinta)

    1. gazinta 3 thumbs up
    buy gazinta mugs, tshirts and magnets
    Generally. any device that goes into any other device. An electric plug goes into a wall outlet, a light bulb goes into a socket. The plug and the light bulb are gazintas.
    “What’s THAT?” “I dunno, I think it’s a gazinta of some sort. Wonder where it goes?”
    goesinto gozinta gosinta gazinta gizenta
    by Aludra Jun 13, 2009 share this
    [Snip... Ed ]

    BTW, Aludra, no dyslexic relation to Aruda!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Eddy Aruda: #15

    Hmm – whoops. I was was using the translation widget and happened to glance up at my PST clock. I got the time right, but the color was wrong – Duh.

    You might be pleased to know that it is still night time in Siberia, however … or perhaps not. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Jo and David.
    Qs for any knowledgeable that cares to help me out.
    Considering the IR energy in the ranges that CO2 absorbs can produce only
    barely measurable (sensible)heat, where and for how long is IR in frequencies that CO2 responds to emitted that actually has an effect on air temperature?
    Considering the downwelling IR (from slower collisions in cooler parts of the atmosphere and
    cloud?), how does it pass the near surface CO2 barrier that converts almost 100% of the upwelling IR in its range?
    X amount of energy from the planet surface, a little directly from the Sun warms the air and it rises and cools. IR moves at the speed of light. For how long per 100 molecules CO2 per million added to 300ppm does it delay the energy escape? I know it is impossible to increase temperature without additional energy input so all additional CO2 can do is maintain a temperature for a little longer (by increasing air density?). A day? An Hour? Milliseconds?
    Doesn’t the increased diffusion accelerate the IR energy conversion to the other forms that rise, accelerating the convection cooling effect?

    Sorry to show my ignorance but I’m having a hard time finding out from the available literature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    In a college class I taught once some years ago, a student answered a homework assignment question by cutting and pasting some internet source material (from Wikipedia or something) on their homework paper – but did not read the material that he submitted, evidently, and the web page that he copied from had been hacked – there were a few 4-letter words strewn in the text of what he copied.

    Since he did cite the source of his answer this wasn’t plagiarism; I thought of entertaining the rest of the class with this story, but I did not


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    The biggest effect incremental CO2 has is to decrease the height in the atmosphere where most of the energy that can be absorbed is absorbed. Atmospheric absorption simulations show that the effect is not completely saturated, for example, doubling CO2 from 280 to 560ppm increases the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere by about 3.6 W/m^2. If it was saturated, this would be zero, however; since the first 280ppm contributes over 55 W/m^2 of absorption, there are clear effects of diminishing returns.

    Interestingly enough, most warmists claim to understand this physics even as they frequently fail to understand it’s consequences.

    We can do a little sanity check on the graph. If CO2 causes the atmosphere to absorb 55 W/m^2 of additional energy and half of that absorbed energy is sent to the surface while the other goes into space, the Earth surface sees an extra 28 W/m^2 from CO2 absorption. At 288K, the surface energy is 390.1 W/m^2. Adding 28 W/m^2 to this and converting back to temperature gives 293K, for a total warming from CO2 of 5C, which is close to the integration of effects across concentration.

    If the IPCC sensitivity of 0.8 was applied to the 55 W/m^2 of absorption (the IPCC assumes all absorbed energy contributes to warming), then the warming due to CO2 alone would be 44C. Add to this the 100 W/m^2 from water vapor absorption and the total temperature increase due to GHG would be 124C, which is clearly not the case.

    If we consider all of the surface warming above 255K to be related to GHG, the total temperature increase is 288-255 = 33C, which when compared to 124C represents about a 300% power difference.

    Here is some more sanity checking. 255K represents 239.7 W/m^2 of surface power. There’s about 180 W/m^2 of total GHG absorption, of which about 90 W/m^2 is directed back to the surface (at least under cloudless skies). Under clouds, we can consider that 100% of the energy is absorbed by the system, half by the surface and half by the clouds, which ultimately finds it’s way back to the surface. Considering 66% average cloud coverage, we can calculate the surface energy as follows:

    239.7 + (1-0.66)*90 + 0.66*180 = 386.2 W/m^2

    When converted into a temperature with SB, the result is 287.3K, which is close to the expected value of 288K.

    We can also calculate the sensitivity as about 33C per 180 W/m^2, or about 0.18 and not the 0.8 assumed by the IPCC! Note that this is the average sensitivity and because of the diminishing returns, the present day absolute sensitivity will be lower that 0.18, but in any event, 0,18 established a robust upper bound.

    George


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Scott

    Hi George,

    Love your posts by the way. wondering if you can help with the following a little.

    I remember in my very early days when we were doing IR spectroscopy, the C-O and C=O bands on the scans were around the same area as H2O.

    If we wanted to determine water content in say oil we had to use a oil blank that had been dried instead of air to netralise the c-o and c=o bands.

    My question is what is the difference in IR absorbtion between H2O and CO2 and what if any effect does this have on the warming argument?

    Sorry its been awhile


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Binny

    As I’ve learnt more and more about the science behind the theory of AGW, over the last few months( the EST galvanised me to look into it a bit closer). I’m becoming it recently amazed that the theory even got off the ground in the first place.


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Colin Davidson

    Further to CO2isnotevil (see post #23),

    The sensitivity of the SURFACE can easily be calculated from the surface energy balance:
    Absorbed Solar Radiation + Back Radiation from the Atmpsphere =
    Radiation from the Surface + Evaporation + Direct Conduction to Atmposphere

    Scientists are unsure (confused) about the increase in evaporation/transpiration with increasing temperature: the consensus seems to be between 2.5% and 6.5% per DegreeC. With this uncertainty in mind, the calculated sensitivity of the SURFACE to changes in downward radiation lies between 0.095 DegC/W/m^2(lots of extra evaporation) and 0.15 DegC/W/m^2 (not very much extra evaporation). These numbers are very consistent with the calculation in post#23. (The calculation assumes no change in net conduction, Stephan-Boltzmann for the radiative term, and 78W/M^2 of evaporation at 15DegC.)

    Too little attention is being paid to the Surface Balance. To maintain a claimed increase of 3DegC at the surface (the average of the modellers’ “consensus” of between 1 and 6 DegC) for a doubling of CO2, you need the claimed 4W/m^2 increase in “Radiative Forcing” at the Tropopause to become a massive 20 to 32 W/m^2 of “Surface Forcing”. Where does all this forcing come from? What are the details? How much additional absorption by CO2 is there, how much is due to increased atmospheric temperature, how much is due to increased CO2, how much is due to increased water vapour, how much extra cloud is there because of the increased water vapour, and how does this affect the insolation term? No-one seems to want to talk about this, but there are hints that all is not well at the surface in modelling-land, not least because the AGW fanatic cheer squad is quickly on the case whenever anyone raises the Surface Balance.

    Miskolczi claims that there is an unphysical surface discontinuity in the models. The paper claiming lowest evaporation needed low evaporation for (unexplained) surface energy balance reasons.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Scott,

    There is quite a bit of overlap between CO2 absorption and H2O absorption. This plot shows the atmospheric absorption spectrum.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/absorb.gif

    The different colors represent which gas has the majority of the absorption at each wavelength (color to gas mappings are along the left side of the plot).

    The gray line represents the net energy spectrum emitted by the Earth, which includes radiation from clouds and the surface, appropriately weighted.

    You can see the H2O spectrum on either side of the 15u CO2 line and without CO2, this continues across the 15u range. The result is that even if CO2 was absent, much of that energy would still be absorbed and at high water vapor concentrations, the CO2 has little incremental effect.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The Skeptic’s Handbook said it all about CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Thank you George,

    This (without your detailed explaination thanks again) was my feeling after what I had observed in the lab.

    There was a recent paper that spoke about the water vapour / CO2 levels being in a state of balance and that if there was an increase in CO2 then there was a corresponding decrease in water vapour keeping the balance and adsorbtion levels relatively constant.

    I believe it was an ex NASA scientist (Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi) that could not get his work published while empoyed there and had to resign to do so.

    Just wondering your thoughts on this if you have seen the paper?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Hi Roy Hogue

    I certainly meant no disrespect to Jo’s handbook – I just wanted to internalise the concept with my own experiences which gives me a more solid grounding in the subject.

    and you have to admit hearing from George is always good :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Scott,

    No disrespect even crossed my mind. I just wanted to sum it up succinctly. There’s plenty of room for discussion about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Scott.

    Yes, I have seen this. It’s a case of water vapor being so dominant in terms of establishing thermodynamic equilibrium, that any static offset from CO2 or other lesser GHG’s is compensated by a smaller amount of water vapor. This seems to assume that the regulating mechanism (i.e. the system control valve) is atmospheric absorption. I agree that water vapor is the top level control valve, but the mechanisms are more complex than simple atmospheric absorption, so whether all of the CO2 effect can be offset would be subject to debate. Besides, the atmospheric absorption effects push the temperatures in the opposite direction.

    What I have found is that clouds seem more or less neutral, relative to surface warming. They both promote cooling by reflecting more energy and promote warming by trapping surface energy. The net effect seems to be neutral. The predominate water vapor effect is the cooling that results from evaporation and rain (both sides of the hydro cycle). As temperatures increase, more water evaporates. More water evaporating means more precipitation is falling. Since both evaporation and rain remove heat from the surface, this acts as a very strong negative feedback effect.

    I have noticed something else that could be related, which is that the atmospheric absorption spectrum forms a bandpass filter which just happens to be centered at the average temperature of the planet.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Further news on ABC’s war on science: FOI request for climate time line emails turned down.

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/foi-request-for-climate-time-line.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Given the whole IPCC projections are essentially based on a warming per doubling… where is the ignorance of the logarithmic relationship? I mean that is pretty clear… going from 100 to 200 is about the same as 200 to 400, and 400 to 800.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Thanks again George

    I appreciate the time you have taken to respond, I have a greater appreciation of the subject now.

    Scott


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    It should be noted that all radiation striking the Earth will eventually be degraded to wavelengths 17+ micrometers and above, for which everything in the atmosphere is diathermanous

    (or otherwise contribute to the increase in internal energy of the atmosphere; the fraction of the increase in molecular speeds on the temperature being negligible.)

    If that weren’t so, we’d have a very warm Earth by now, wouldn’t we


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB # 34

    Good morning, Matt, hope all is well.

    You wrote, “MattB:
    February 17th, 2010 at 10:04 am
    Given the whole IPCC projections are essentially based on a warming per doubling… where is the ignorance of the logarithmic relationship? I mean that is pretty clear… going from 100 to 200 is about the same as 200 to 400, and 400 to 800.”

    Forgive me but maybe I am not getting your point. If I understand correctly, the first 20 ppm have more effect on the climate than the rest of the CO2 in the atmosphere combined. If CO2 is almost absorbing as much IR as it possibly can than adding more CO2 will have an almost insignificant and undetectable effect on temperatures. The IPCC claims that a positive feedback occurs because, “Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the at- mosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour
    increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feed- back may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.” See http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf.

    The IPCC makes it clear that it is the positive feedback, primarily from water vapor, that cause the “runaway” greenhouse gas effect. Are you aware of any empirical evidence to substantiate this claim? I am confident that you can help me by citing peer reviewed literature that is base on empirical evidence and not model results or appeals to authority. Thanks


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB,

    There’s little disagreement about the logarithmic nature between forcing power and concentrations. The only disagreement regarding this relationship is the assumption by the IPCC that 100% of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is re-emitted to the surface. Half of it is actually re-emitted into space.

    The public is generally steered away from the significance of this by the IPCC claims of an exaggerated sensitivity. You can still make a logarithmic effect scary large by multiplying it by a large enough arbitrary constant (i.e. 0.8).

    You would get the same shape graphs by applying the bogus 0.8 sensitivity, instead of 0.15 that was used, but the integration of the contributions across concentrations would be far larger than can be supported by any physical mechanisms. If you used a climate sensitivity of 0.8, instead of 2.5C for the first 20 ppm, you would get over 10C!

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB 34

    I hope you are sitting down. I liked your question. That one thumbs up (as of 10:45 AM your time) came from me!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sordnay

    On your first graph you note that it is assuming a climate sensitivity of 0.15ºC/W/m² according to Lindzen and Choi 2009, is this climate sensitivity accepted by most as correct? if another value is proposed by IPCC report, I think it would be fair to make a comparative graph using both values.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cyberforester

    MattB @ 34

    I think it is in the way the IPCC express it to the generally unwashed public, that the public think there is an increased warming as CO2 concentration increases i.e. there is an exponential rise, whereas there is an logrithmic decrease in the amount of warming with a doubling (and as CO2 increases the warming produced approaches zero though never reaches saturation).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see Obama is going nuclear … first new reactors to be built in the US in 3 decades:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/6815463/obama-ups-nuclear-investment-for-climate-fight/

    Watch his Green vote support die off… but you have to tip your hat to a politician willing to make the tough, but right decision (assuming one believes CO2 is going to destroy the planet yadda yadda yadda).

    Incidently I saw the stats reported again somewhere recently that nuclear energy is the safest energy source known to man based on deaths/GWh supplied. I believe that hydro was the worst … dam bursts can really ruin your day apparently.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I am not sure Obama isn’t going to try to trade this for cap and trade or something – “ok Republicans I signed up for nuclear, now you sign up for cap and trade”

    Three 1100MW reactors are good but he needs to get off the regulation road pronto, and I mean like yesterday, if he thinks he has any chance of turning a recession around before his three years are up

    (they go fast, too)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Eddy(37) and [scientist] George(38), too many Georges!

    I recall Lindzen saying in a lecture video that technically the warming range might be not from 1.5-5 degrees but to infinity, ie there is a seemingly settled approach towards categorically positive feedbacks, yet effectively a limit is being placed on same.
    The wry humour of Lindzen`s statement notwithstanding – a “potential runaway” is nonetheless still going to be limited to a “not above” point in the projections…?

    As a layman I would certainly like a generic explanation from someone in relation to this apparent “yes,but” methodology. Specific and selective modelling with a convenient side-benefit of spin for the masses?

    Miskolczi is looking better day by day.

    On a slightly lighter note, the latest you-tube re-subtitling effort. Not as good as the first one but still very much worth a giggle

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-PI2vCA9ck

    Cheers Y`all


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Morning All

    That is the trick. The beautiful, beautiful trick that the warmist’s use all the time. They tell us that increased CO2 concentration will increase the infrared absorption, they don’t tell us that the marginal heating is irrelevant. As a stinger in the tail, they usually try to imply that us “skeptics” deny the fundamental physics.

    Our message is: YES – CO2 induced warming happens – in theory. But once CO2 levels are greater than (say) 200 ppm, the practical difference it makes is sweety fanny adams.

    And I suspect that the warmists use this trick deliberately. Using half the truth to spread a lie.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    let’s be fair, why should the taxpayers fund obama’s nuclear reactors to the tune of billions?
    i thought sceptics didn’t like governments picking favourites.
    plus, it is certain that the nuclear announcement is an attempt to get capntax thru.
    reminds me of neil cavuto having john howard on fox at the time of the turnbull/abbott transition. cavuto obviously thought he could get howard to rubbish rudd, but howard is on the nuclear capntax team, as opposed to the renewable energy capntax team, and did his ‘we need nuclear’ spiel, to a very surprised cavuto.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I completely understand the graph, but have a minor niggle with the way the data is presented. To someone unfamiliar with graphing and the physics involved, a casual perusal of the graph might give the impression that increasing CO2 concentrations result in decreased (overall) temperature.

    I think it would be a tad more intuitive if the graph showed cumulative temperature increases resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations, or clearly stated that the bars represent marginal increases in temperature with each increment of CO2 concentration increase. IMHO that would dispel the potential illusion that increased CO2 leads to a drop in temperature.

    As I said, the graph is clear to me, but then I have been dealing with stats and graphs for decades <– which is also why I tend to be nit-picky about the way data are presented. I don't think a cumulative graph would diminish the visual impact too much. Y-axis gridlines would show the reader how small the incremental CO2-temperature impacts are at current concentrations.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] the original post: 4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can. « JoNova -february-17th, aruda, atmosphere, climate, dislike, eddy-aruda, ipcc, same, science, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Pat @ 46:

    I don’t think Governments should pick favourites (unless the evidence clearly shows they are the best policy decision). I think you’ll find that Obama is prepared to garuantee the loans, not simply hand money over to the industry. Much like Rudd garuanteed bank deposits until recently due to the GFC.

    And yes, this is clearly a gambit to get the Republicans onside for cap&trade, but it will most likely fail, because the public opinion in the US is shifting away from AGW, much as it is here in Australia.

    I merely presented the article because it showed that Obama was willing to make courageous decisions (in the “Yes, Minister” sense of the word courageous) based on his belief in AGW.

    Personally I have no problem with nuclear power… I think it is a sensible option for electricity generation for many countries*. The latest designs are very appealing with exceptional safety measures… my understanding is that the latest designs aren’t even capable of going critical (usually the biggest fear associated with nuclear power).

    * not so much Australia because we have so much cheap fossil fuel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Pat,

    Even though I’m a strong proponent of nuclear energy, I agree that the Obama administration is spending money on the wrong thing. It should be spending money on things that help everyone, not just a selected few. For example, streamlining the regulatory requirements for building a reactor would be a better thing to pursue and in fact would even save money. Funding research into standardized pre-approved building blocks for constructing reactors would be something else worth funding, even though the funding would probably go to GE. The wisest way to spend money would be on ways to reduce the capital costs of nuclear energy. If the purpose, as you and others have suggested, is to bargain for cap and tax, it will surely backfire, just like the recent graft used to gain support for socialized medicine.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neil Fisher

    If we consider all of the surface warming above 255K to be related to GHG, the total temperature increase is 288-255 = 33C,

    This is also a fallacy. While it’s true that the surface temperature is 33C above the theoretical BB temperature, it is less than what we would expect for a planet with an atmosphere that is completely radiationaly non-interactive (no GHG’s).
    The ideal gas law – which is called the lapse rate in climatology – is (dry) 10C/km. Moist (ie, with water vapour) it’s less than this – about 6.5C/km. This is most likely due to latent heat transport by water, with some additional effects from advection (“wind” and related effects).
    The measured temperature of Venus at one earth atmosphere of pressure is almost exactly what one would predict using simple ideal gas law principles.

    The over-all effect of this mistake of assigning all 33C over the BB temp to GHG’s is the current fools errand we find ourselves on. Once the effects of compression of gasses are taken into account, the remaining “forcing” from GHG’s is insignificant. This is the gross error in CAOGCM’s.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Bulldust

    I would be pleasantly surprised if they ever built a nuclear reactor with the blessings of the Obama administration. Although you are probably right about Obama using nuclear reactors as a bargaining chip., U.S. environmental laws give any citizen standing in court to sue just about anybody including the government. The misanthropic greens will tie up the utility companies in court for several years, probably decades, before the issue is adjudicated. By then, the utilities will probably have given up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I’d like to see a coal to liquids plant built right next to a nuclear plant – oxygen and hydrogen from electrolysis of water could beef up coal syngas yield and thus coal liquid fuel yield significantly (using off peak electricity).

    This is the way to go to get the US off of foreign oil for good.

    Produces about 0.2 kg of CO2 per liter of fuel at optimum as by-product – good for the world to grow their crops, I say.

    I’m going to write to Obama and explain my plan. He and his “science” advisor John Holdren are sure to love it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Brian,

    That’s an awesome idea. I’m sure John Holdren would absolutely love it. Of course, he’s probably been busy answering some really tough questions from his boss these days tho.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    You mean, like “Why did you lie to me about what happens with CO2 in the air?”

    That’s a really good question. Holdren can always claim he was duped. (Again for the 400 millionth time in his life)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Brian G. Valentine and Madjak

    As sharp as you guys are you got to remember the greens. They hate coal and oil even more than they do nuclear power (see # 52.) Too bad because its a dam good idea, Brian!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy,

    I’m with you on nuclear power. I think Obama has no intention of actually allowing it to happen. But right now he needs to look a bit more conservative after getting his political butt kicked in Massachusetts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Those who wish to see an excellent graphic on the various IR wavelength absorbtions by atmospheric gasses click HERE
    From The Resilient Earth by Doug L Hoffman

    It would be a good graphic to reproduce on this thread mods.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I wonder if I can use the image link

    absorption spectrum image

    SOURCE: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic

    [Thanks Baa Humbug! It's a good graph so I've added it here. If you click on img and paste in the http address of the image itself if should load up in the comments. --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    sorry Baa Humbug tried but couldnt get it to load


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    In discussing Nuclear, lets remember Gordon browns announcement of a few weeks ago about building more reactors and the list of East Anglias Climate Research Unit sponsors I listed at the “Great Collapse” thread comment #161 No less than 5 nuclear related sponsors.

    Here’s my take on this. Brown Obama etc have realised going by way of the “greenies” route, i.e. alarmism about catastrophic warming etc is not working, it’s bogged down in IPCC scandals and will collapse anytime now. So now they are trying the “clean” nuclear against reliance on “foreign” (read Arab and Russian) fossil fuels.

    This move wasn’t taken before because it is dangerous. It will alienate the substantial green movement and the non-euro western electors still worried about the safety of nuclear not to mention the “renewable” crooks and the wannabe carbon traders. IMHO


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Scott:
    February 17th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    sorry Baa Humbug tried but couldnt get it to load

    Try again, works fine for me. failing that here is the raw link
    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Morning All.

    This is a fragment of an “interview” where Kerry interviews an AGW heavy, who goes into the anatomy of an ICPP style presentation. It’s “The Undeniable Scientific Basis for Global Warming.” It shows how the warmists cloud the science.

    The comments below are from my deluded imagination, unfortunately, and have never appeared on “Our” ABC. I’ll post the rest of the “interview” at 5pm Perth time to avoid being off thread.

    [Excerpt from #12]

    John: So we provide the public with a rational framework, Kerry. It’s called “the undeniable scientific basis for global warming”. We climate scientists know that

    • carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas,
    • increased CO2 concentrations increase the thermal capture in the atmosphere, and
    • global warming results.
    • Every year, mankind’s burning of fossil fuels emit billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere,
    • CO2 concentrations have increased by over 100 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
    • Global temperatures have also increased over this period.
    • In our lifetime, we have seen the melting of glaciers, rising sea levels, floods, hurricanes and drought over much of the planet…

    Kerry: So mankind is causing serious and irreparable environmental harm through the increased carbon dioxide levels caused by the burning of fossil fuels?

    John: I said nothing of the sort Kerry.

    Kerry: You did! I heard you.

    John: I know what you heard but it’s not what I said.

    Kerry: Then what did you say?

    John: I simply stated some elementary scientific facts Kerry. How you interpret them is your business.

    Kerry: Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

    John: No doubt about it Kerry. An effect discovered by Arrhenius in the 1890’s, from memory. No-one disagrees with that.

    Kerry: Except the skeptics of course.

    John: I said nothing about skeptics. I merely said that climate scientists agree with Mr. Arrhenius.

    Kerry: But doesn’t that imply that the skeptics disagree?

    John:. Not necessarily. Personally, I think that most, if not all, skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s fundamental science Kerry.

    Kerry: But as CO2 concentrations rise, less heat can escape from the earth’s atmosphere and global temperatures will rise?

    John: That’s right Kerry.

    Kerry: And that’s a bad thing.

    John: I didn’t say that either. I said that temperatures will rise. I didn’t say by how much.

    Kerry: But the droughts and floods and rising sea levels?

    John: Have been with us since the dawn of civilization Kerry. Though I agree that they can be unpleasant.

    Kerry: What about the rising CO2 concentrations and fossil fuel consumption?

    John: …May or may not be related to each other or to the rather gentle rise in temperature we’ve seen in the last 200 years Kerry. No-one knows for sure, but significant fluctuations in temperature and atmospheric composition have occurred before without any input from humanity. There is no proof that this present event is any different.

    Kerry: So everything you told me was a lie?

    John: Everything I told you was the truth. A simple list of dot points – you were the one who chose to join them together.

    Kerry: But the combined logical argument generates a conclusion that is obviously wrong.

    John: But nevertheless sufficient to give Joe Public a reason to believe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Just a thought here,

    Maybe the main driver behind this whole scam was to make Nuclear more palatable?


    Report this

    10

  • #

    @ Baa humbug

    Thanks for the link. The real question isn’t whether or not CO2 is logarithmic and near its saturation point but how did these hucksters perpetrate the greatest fraud in history? Bernie Madoff eluded the SEC for years because he use to run the NASD and cloaked himself with with the aura of legitimacy which fooled the regulators for years. It seems the more legitimate you appear, the mote fantastic the fraud you are able to perpetrate and the longer you are able to keep it going. At least Madoff’s early victims were able to get their money back and make a phantom profit (they were forced by the government to return any profit they made, not sure on the principal.) I wonder if some social scientist will devise a formula or law to explain it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Eddy Aruda:
    February 17th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    I wonder if some social scientist will devise a formula or law to explain it?

    Dunno Dirty eddy. A Social Scientist? Are they the ones who “share” data with others? Social like?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Eddy,

    The way that the flaky science was perpetrated is that it came became political. We can thank Gore for this as his movie coincided with when the warmists started to declare that the science was a done deal and marks when catastrophic AGW took on a life of it’s own.

    Getting people to believe that CO2 was a danger to the planet had enormous political leverage for Gore. It was a way to piss Bush off for having beat him in the election. Not only could AGW irritate Bush, it cast him as the bad guy, owing to his association with oil. Many of his most ardent followers are also staunch environmentalists and leading an emotional environmental cause would galvanize his supporters, Finally, once climate science became a political issue, logic and reason no longer applied, all doubt could be casst aside and all that mattered was that the end justified the means. For as hypocritical Gore is with regard to his lifestyle, I think he has been completely deluded into believing that CO2 is a danger and it wouldn’t surprise me if it was his goal to turn this into a political issue in order to circumvent the growing uncertainties in the science.

    There’s a reason why this issue seems so divided along political lines and it has absolutely nothing to do with the science.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MadJak:
    February 17th, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Maybe the main driver behind this whole scam was to make Nuclear more palatable?

    There has been lots of talk about Margaret Thatchers involvement from the very beginning. It is said she didn’t trust the Oil Sheiks and other oil rich nations like Russia Venezuela and Nigeria, (proven to be correct so far). The oil shocks of the 70′s were quite bad. But nuclear was a no go zone after 3 mile island and Chernobl.
    She did have a big hand in setting up climate research.

    I guess we can surmise all we like. time will tell.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    @ Baa Humbug #63

    Sorry meant embed the picture in the thread using “image” the link works fine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    We’re getting well off the topic of this thread folks.

    I would like to know when warmists will have a go at Miskolcis paper. It’s been around for years, untouched. Too bad it is so complicated. His summary makes sense though. I like the simple line..

    “If the earth needed extra GHG’s to warm, it needen’t have waited for humans to emit a little bit of extra CO2. It had virtually limitless amounts in WV by way of the oceans”.
    I’d be very interested to hear someone argue against this.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Scott, Baa Humbug, I’ve added in that graph above. It is a good one. Thanks.

    If anyway wants to go to Modtran and use it to create the cumulative log graph or the log graph based on higher climate sensitivities I’d be happy to post that. They’re all valid points.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    A Google image search for “MODTRAN” yielded this link:

    http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/MOD2.jpg

    Eye-balling the linked graph, it seems to be pretty much in line with the incremental one linked above.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> The Barrett / Bellamy refers to Dr Jack Barrett and Prof. David J. Bellamy – yes, the David Bellamy we love from TV … those of us old enough to remember him ;) . Seems like a decent web site from a bit of casual browsing. I may have to read a bit more.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Just to back up Sordnay in post #39, why not use a less contentious value than Lindzen and Choi 2009, the graph would still look the same, with lots of warming early, and a lot less later on.

    They issue is however that when you add up all the little bars right of the arrow “pre-industrial times” then you get the warming… which will be 3degrees per doubling +/- 1 ish if you are using a non-outlier sensitivity.

    To be quite frank, I feel that this whole post uses a perfectly non-controversial graph of a well established logarithmic relationship to make it look as through there is no problem, and as though it is some sort of revelation to the science world.

    And this is where science communication risks being science propaganda, or just marketing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    whoops I see you adressed that in your last post Jo sorry.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    64 Eddy Aruda:
    February 17th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Goebbels figured it out long ago. When you’re in a positition of power or authority, the bigger complex lies go over even better. Your position of authority automatically silences a large percentage of the audience, allowing you to focus on discrediting the few with the timerity to challenge the lie.

    Despite the fancy that humans are independent by nature, they really crave direction and leadership. This makes it easier to propogate “official” lies. Whoever coined the word “sheeple”, had it right. Once you get the mass moving in one direction, it’s difficult for anyone to turn them with facts.

    “My mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Gov. Rick Perry announced today Texas would legally challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming endanger the public’s health and welfare.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    franks

    Nice article from the American Thinker about the absorbtion of outgoing outgoing long-wave IR radiation by atmospheric CO2. It shows that over 35 years there was no reduction in absorption and how this relates to AGW theory.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

    Nearly as clear as your superb articles! keep it up Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Afternoon All

    For those who are interested, here’s the rest of a Clark-Dawe style interview, that got a mention at #62. It’s not funny, but it’s how I felt after watching the 7:30 Report a couple of weeks ago when Kerry O’Brien gave us a sample of his unique form of “incisive” interview technique that he keeps reserved for the Hockey team. A couple of minutes into the interview I realised I’d heard all of this before – same speech, same arguments, same bland style, verging on hypnotic…

    If you ever wondered how the IPCC built a following, despite operating in a fact-challenged environment, here’s one theory. Just for a change, Bryan and Kerry have changed jobs…

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    If the ABC was Relevant, Part 12.

    Bryan: Tonight John and Kerry talk to Dr. Michael Oppenheimer.

    Kerry: Dr. Oppenheimer, are the IPCC telling us porky pies?

    John: Before answering this question, I should put the issue into context by verbalising a long series of vague motherhood statements and self-serving platitudes in a dull, modulated monotone.

    Kerry: Why would you do that?

    John: To train the audience into a pattern of conformity by discussing subjects they can’t possibly disagree with.

    Kerry: Dumb the audience down?

    John: People shouldn’t be thinking while I’m trying to talk.

    Kerry: So you numb the audience with a verbal lobotomy?

    John: A mild coma is preferable.

    Kerry: But how can you keep the public informed when the first thing you do is switch off their brains?

    John: I don’t keep the public informed Kerry – I keep them persuaded.

    Kerry: What’s wrong with a well-informed public?

    John: If the public were to obtain their opinions from facts, Kerry, then they would be free to change their opinions whenever the facts are updated.

    Kerry: And that’s bad?

    John: Obviously. But if the public is persuaded – on the basis of unknowing faith – then they are impervious to facts. They cannot even consider the possibility of themselves being wrong.

    Kerry: That’s bigotry.

    John: Bigots are excellent believers Kerry. Even the skeptics have some.

    Kerry: But a system of belief with no rational framework is simply a form of superstition.

    John: So we provide the public with a rational framework, Kerry. It’s called the undeniable scientific basis for global warming. We climate scientists know that

    • carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas,
    • increased CO2 concentrations increase the thermal capture in the atmosphere, and
    • global warming results.
    • Every year, mankind’s burning of fossil fuels emit billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere,
    • CO2 concentrations have increased by over 100 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
    • Global temperatures have also increased over this period.
    • In our lifetime, we have seen the melting of glaciers, rising sea levels, floods, hurricanes and drought over much of the planet…

    Kerry: So mankind is causing serious and irreparable environmental harm through the increased carbon dioxide levels caused by the burning of fossil fuels?

    John: I said nothing of the sort Kerry.

    Kerry: You did! I heard you.

    John: I know what you heard but it’s not what I said.

    Kerry: Then what did you say?

    John: I simply stated some elementary scientific facts Kerry. How you interpret them is your business.

    Kerry: Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

    John: No doubt about it Kerry. An effect discovered by Arrhenius in the 1890’s, from memory. No-one disagrees with that.

    Kerry: Except the skeptics of course.

    John: I said nothing about skeptics. I merely said that climate scientists agree with Mr. Arrhenius.

    Kerry: But doesn’t that imply that the skeptics disagree?

    John:. Not necessarily. Personally, I think that most, if not all, skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s fundamental science Kerry.

    Kerry: But as CO2 concentrations rise, less heat can escape from the earth’s atmosphere and global temperatures will rise?

    John: That’s right Kerry.

    Kerry: And that’s a bad thing.

    John: I didn’t say that either. I said that temperatures will rise. I didn’t say by how much.

    Kerry: But the droughts and floods and rising sea levels?

    John: Have been with us since the dawn of civilization Kerry. Though I agree that they can be unpleasant.

    Kerry: What about the rising CO2 concentrations and fossil fuel consumption?

    John: …May or may not be related to each other or to the rather gentle rise in temperature we’ve seen in the last 200 years Kerry. No-one knows for sure, but significant fluctuations in temperature and atmospheric composition have occurred before without any input from humanity. There is no proof that this present event is any different.

    Kerry: So everything you told me was a lie?

    John: Everything I told you was the truth. A simple list of dot points – you were the one who chose to join them together.

    Kerry: But the combined logical argument generates a conclusion that is obviously wrong.

    John: But nevertheless sufficient to give Joe Public a reason to believe. And once the faith becomes entrenched, the facts become irrelevant, whether they are true or false.

    Kerry: So that’s it?

    John: That’s it Kerry. Enough for blind faith and unquestioning obedience. We ask for nothing more.

    Kerry: But why are you telling me this?

    John: We only confide in those we trust. Kerry O’Brien, you are recognised as an outstandingly “domesticated” journalist – trusted and tame. You wouldn’t put this to air, would you?

    Kerry:[Fawningly] Not unless you wanted us to.

    John: Good doggie.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony

    Professor Plimer has been illustrating this point for ages but there are none so many as cannot hear as those who will not listen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Speedy, #78 is good!

    Mattb: To be quite frank, I feel that this whole post uses a perfectly non-controversial graph of a well established logarithmic relationship to make it look as through there is no problem, and as though it is some sort of revelation to the science world

    .

    Now Matt, when I read that I start to think you are finally getting the skeptical point………..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “But right now he needs to look a bit more conservative after getting his political butt kicked in Massachusetts.”

    Ordinary people just don’t seem to care for the taste of liberal eletism/statehoodism – do they.

    People are smart enough not to be duped into being the sheep that the liberals want them to be – in the end, this is what will save the world from “climatoligist” stupidity


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Scott @76,

    I knew someone would challenge the EPA. Leave it to Texas — they’ve never liked marching to someone else’s drummer.

    One more good reason to remember the Alamo! Go Texas!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mark D: Thanks! Next time you see Jones, Gore, Pachauri etc in full flight, you will see the standard format:

    “The Undeniable Science” of Global Warming

    Once the audience has been domesticated, then the IPCC really start telling the whoppers. I’m not sure whether this is them getting a bit enthusiastic or its a deliberate attempt to get the audience to reject rational thinking altogether by presenting them with a conflict they cannot resolve. For example, at this stage Oppenheimer went on long and hard about the quality of the IPCC output, even though the evidence clearly showed that the IPCC systems (and integrity) had been compromised throughout the Glacier-gate episode. By this stage of the interview, most of the audience were emotionally bonded to the guy and would accept his comments uncritically. I saw something similar at a Perth climate debate where a Gore-trained warmist was debating.

    So similar, it’s almost sinister….

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    People like Eddy Aruda – speaking out about what is wrong and what is right – will save the USA from irreversible misery based on nothing more than wishful thinking about the atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    People in Virginia USA where I live are finally coming to the conclusion that “global warming from CO2 in the air” makes no sense


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB, re 73

    Yes. if you use the inflated sensitivity of 0,8, the graph looks the same, and only the scale along the left edge is multiplied by about 5. Now it’s true that if you add up the pieces across a doubling of CO2, it will produce about 3C warming. But this doesn’t make it right, it only indicates that a 0.8 sensitivity is consistent with IPCC claims.

    If you add up all of the contributions, you will see that when the sensitivity is 0.8, all of the 33C difference between 255K and 288K (and then some) is attributed to CO2. This is clearly not the case. Relative to current GHG effects, CO2 is about 1/3 and H2O is about 2/3.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Scott @ 76, thanks for posting that. I think we should be contacting Governors in every state to jump on the same bandwagon. The EPA needs to know they are not part of the executive branch!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Scott:
    February 17th, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Scott, there is a thread about it here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/debate-thread-miskolczi-semi-transparent-atmosphere-model/

    Unfortunately, the thread just ends when Ferenc himself had some posts.

    Ferenc has his own web-page where one can ask him questions.(A mail address)

    And where he has also answered some critisism;

    http://miskolczi.webs.com/

    But before you go there,I’m sure you have seen the youtube introduction?

    By Dr Miklos Zagoni?

    here;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4

    Its very interesting, at least for me. But there were many areas where my intellectual
    capasity just isnt big enough to follow the reasoning….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    CO2 has no effect on global temps. Period. How can scientists
    make alarming statements regarding AGW when half the planet is in winter and the other half in summer. Greenhouse gases mainly water vapour keep this planet warm or cooler from cloud cover,
    and the latitude you live in, the urban developments etc., have
    regional effects regarding climate.

    In the arctic circle say in Norway, and the Hebrides off Scotland spend months in the land of the midnight sun, same as Antarctica. Alaska have short days and long nights depending on the season as does UK.

    Tune in to a 2008 interview in New Zealand, by Prof.Bob Carter
    he sums up what I learned at Uni. And I believe as this blog
    had run a theme Why shouldn’t a Royal Commission be installed
    to sought out not only the offending scientists in this climate change hoax but politicians (that I am lobbying and have been for months) to stand up and be counted.

    It’s not going to happen sirs/madams, now why should you support any ETS or Cap ‘n Trade legislation? Because it won’t change the climate! It makes me so annoyed, and I know that
    $200 Billion dollars (some going into Al Gores pocket) in Carbon Trading Credit Investments. Now with out ETS taxes
    their dividends will be devalued.

    My wireless broadband is dropping out all the time, and must
    go off to bed, as I am burning the midnight oils too.

    See you in the morning folks. God Bless


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Baa Humbug:
    February 17th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Humbug, I read that the reason that Thatcher wanted to break the Coal Industry in the UK, is because Scargill and the Coal Union became too powerfull.
    Too many General Strike’s all over the country, halting the society.
    The Heath government had to resign because of this.

    So she founded the CRU to come up with anti-CO2 arguments. I understand thats what she build her whole career-start on. Unfortunately, when the Union/Scargill battle was done, she forgot to close down the CRU…..

    So they kept on working on their mission. Very unfortunate for the Western sivilisation.

    Hope I didnt distort history too much now. (Its not Peer-reviewed).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    average joe:

    At #90 you suggest:

    Humbug, I read that the reason that Thatcher wanted to break the Coal Industry in the UK, is because Scargill and the Coal Union became too powerfull.

    I have to disagree.
    She did it for reasons of purely personal political advantage.
    However, she needed her political party to allow her to do it, but the antipathy of her political party to the coal industry did permit her to do it.

    I have seen your suggestion made several times over the decades but it does not make sense. At the time the UK coal industry was being severely damaged by the acid rain scare, and the global warming issue was a distraction from that scare.

    In 1980 the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) commissioned me to investigate if there were potential environmental issues that could be as damaging for the coal industry as acid rain. I interviewed as many pertinent people as I could identify and produced influence diagrams of the potential issues I discovered. Thus, I determined two significant potential issues; viz. micro-dust and anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    I presented my report to BACM in 1981.

    In the late 1990s I updated part of that report from nearly two decades before and the late (and much lamented) John Daly posted it on his web site where it can still be seen at
    http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

    My 1981 report concluded that AGW would displace acid rain and all other environmental issues whether or not it obtained any supporting scientific evidence. The reason for this is the feedback loops that are shown in the colour-coded influence diagram in the URL. The feedback loops all pass through “politicians’ support of global warming” except for the loops that pertain to science. Remove all reference to science in the diagram (linked by green influence indicators) and the issue continues to operate.

    So, my report predicted that AGW would become a serious political issue with the appearance of being a scientific and environmental issue. And AGW would displace other environmental and scientific issues in importance whether or not AGW obtained any supporting scientific evidence because AGW would be provided with large funds from government.

    But when I presented my report to BACM in 1981 they had not heard of global warming. So, BACM rejected my report because, they said it was “extreme” and “implausible”. Since then AGW has displaced all other environmental issues but has failed to obtain any supporting scientific evidence despite decades of research costing $billions in attempt to obtain such evidence.

    I leave it to others to decide whether or not my 1981 report was “extreme” and “implausible”.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Yes, I think you are right, it was acid rain at that time, not CO2.

    I remember acid rain now when you mention it. It was a “hot topic” for many years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    @Richard S. Courtney #91

    That is a very interesting article, and I think very much “on target,” especially for its day! I find the comment about large funding by government to be very prescient. I will freely admit I was a fan of Thatcher, but my knowledge of British politics was not one of any significant depth. I have enough problem keeping up with my US government! Thank you for posting the link.

    When John Daly was alive I visited his site quite often and found it very interesting and enlightening. He was a good man and is sorely missed. I once (gently) pointed out a slight mistake he made about the nearest surface observing site to a particular glacier and he instantly agreed. Then he sent me a small compilation of observations from the correct site!

    I don’t know how long I’ve been aware of, and opposed to, AGW, but I have a 20 year old letter on my computer that I wrote about it. The scam is being exposed now, but the battle is not yet won.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Richard S Courtney:
    February 18th, 2010 at 9:08 am

    WOW thank you for that Richard. As a matter of fact, my limited knowledge about Thatcher and AGW came from the late John L Dalys site. I should have checked the article (have it saved on my hard drive) before posting, I hadn’t recalled the authors name (sorry).

    I often go back and read the many articles at Dalys site. Isn’t it amazing how so many of the predictions/pronouncements at Dalys (some 10yrs ago) are now coming true.

    Great man, vale John L Daly


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    O/T I left UK in 1965 to move to Australia, my husband was then
    a captain on a Vulcan bomber V Force (Nuclear Strike Force) but
    my sister in law told me that Heath (who was prime minister) had totally miscalculated the reason behind the miner’s strike. I thought the crux of the strike was about money (wages), and the government had totally miscalculated
    what was due to them and hence the strike. I was amazed and commented, mounted police riding into strikers, etc! Never seen
    that in my time in UK.

    Well Britain now is central heated like Europe, and burn a lot
    of oil or wood. I remember the SMOGS of the 50s when thousands
    died, and how my slip would have a two inch black line on the hem from travelling on the train to work in the City of London.

    And how the Thames froze over in 1963 near Windsor. But I am
    more cynical that you fellows, I believe what drives politics
    and this climate change farce – is money, investments, and power over the masses. The sad thing is that nuclear, solar, wind (dicey anyway) will cost the householder more monies anyway.

    If there is nothing to financially gain why would allegedly intelligent men and women go to these lengths to con people? And start a world wide movement aiming at capitalism and living in an energy dependent state of being. Without the internet they would have taxed by now people who own a car or travel on
    a train to work, etc. Or plane of course.

    Now they are talking about making Northern Australia into a
    food bowl growing ‘paradise’. Hmmm – haven’t they heard of the big wet, Cyclone Tracy that flattened Darwin. Droughts etc. On the presumption that because of climate change Northern Australia will become wetter? Actually it will become drier if anything. And these politicians have our futures in their hands! Baa Humbug (sorry no reference meant to one of our
    posters).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    average Joe, well acid rain was effecting some areas and believed
    responsible for deforestation in Sweden if I remember rightly,
    but then the Chenobyl accident that did effect British milk producers and international trade in food products, etc plus the number of people who suddenly blamed leukaemia and cancers on the fall out from that accident twenty years later.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard, Thank you for that link and chart. It is fascinating. Do you ever wonder that the chart was adopted by the AGW side as a road map?

    Bush Bunny:
    But I am more cynical that you fellows, I believe what drives politics and this climate change farce – is money, investments, and power over the masses.

    I want to wager on the idea that you are more cynical than me! (we can use Matt’s money)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark I’ll take that wager at $10,000 evens, and by the way I have written on a piece of paper here that Bushy is more cynical than you – so YOU LOSE PAY ME NOW!

    Cheers:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Mark D. Don’t take Matt B’s bit of money, you capitalist supporter, he might need that to buy an ice cream! LOL One of his types was rattling off about capitalists poisionng the very
    air we breath. So I asked “What is the composition of normal air? “Most is oxygen, then carbon dioxide that is increasing”
    Would you be surprised to know dear – (a patronising bitch she can be) that 78% of the air you breath is Nitrogen? Look of disbelief on this young chaps face. He then grinned after
    thinking a while…”Oh yeah, pull the other one!” He was
    just like the other AGW protestors. They don’t understand the science and genuinely believe we don’t either and therefore covering up for the dirty rich of this world.

    I’ve been trying to convince politicians that still believe in
    the AGW hypothesis, it is totally wrong and even if they killed
    all the poor cows and sheep in Australia, (for farting and burping dirty little critters) went back to gas lights and fires
    and horse and buggy, it would be much colder around the place.

    A little bit of nonsense, but coke has been used since the 14 hundreds for ore and metal workings.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I would like to know the names of all the politicians who believe
    in the AGW hypothesis (even when they know of the corrupting of data and CCT investments looking to crash or cash in on whatever
    they do) and would still go along and vote for a cap ‘n Trade tax.

    And how to survive in an ice age economy (if there is any and/or the food wars looming) to boost politicians incomes (Baa Humbug)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    You win Matt and since we were using your money (see the terms clearly outlined) You collect nothing.

    Kinda like “services” in a socialist world huh?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bush bunny; naw I won’t take Matt’s money. He already said he doesn’t have any and he has kid(s) at home. (I know what that costs). I do think that he is a bit jumpy though (he wanted that bet bad). Could mean that “trickle down” has not reached him yet?

    Capitalist: yes
    Constitutionalist: Yes


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Eddy, you’ll blind MattB with science. LOL How do you stop Cosmic sub atomic atoms (rays whatever) from bombarding us? MattB do you know? They are the things that are the result of a star exploding ‘Super Nova’ and they come and go, but when they meet up with a water or vapor molecule thats comes from the oceans they produce clouds. Clouds drive the climate and what part of the planetary latitude you live in.

    But the Sun will have her way. And solar activity radiates down
    on us and deflects the cosmic rays from joining up with vapor
    molecules. Hence we have drier years and hotter years and then
    we have wet and snowy years. CO2 has no significant part to play in this equasion.(I’ve spelt that wrong) Other than in congested cities with SMOGS etc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Bush Bunny @ #95

    The Northern Australian Food Bowl has been put on ice for a bit last time I heard – environmental considerations re dams and river flows, also land rights are in the equation. I get the impression it`s in the too hard basket.

    Vulcan bombers, eh? Now that IS a piece of aviation history!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Archibald

    Dear Joanne,

    The graph’s first outing, in 2006, was in a peer-reviewed paper, published in Energy and Environment. Thanks for republishing.

    David


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    George: post 104. O/T Vulcans yes the poor navigator, bomb
    aimer (H bomb) and engineer, had no ejection seats like the two
    pilots… they had parachutes. Can you imagine trying to bail out of a pyramid shaped winged plane? It was doubtful they would make it out alive.

    But this Food Bowl thing, how can anyone even think about it.
    Look if the Banana Benders (Queenslanders for non Aussies) weren’t tampering with the Murray Darling River system that system would be much more healthy for the NSW and SA. They are growing cotton in Southern Queensland. Terrible crop to grow. Pesticide ridden – When wool is certainly not a better option.

    I just wonder where these pollies brains are sometime. I don’t
    expect them to be scientists but surely they could resort to
    those who are or at least do some research! The CSIRO put out
    a report in 2008… No go for growing food in Northern Australia
    it’s too wet one part of the year and too dry the next. But it
    cost Aussie tax payers 1.5 million to start off the report
    that suggested it would be OK! Even when the CSIRO said differently. And the solution – but when climate change happens Queensland will get more rain. No they won’t dear. The mega bucks interfering with commonsense and reality driven by a big myth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    Maybe a dumb question, but how does CO2 know which direction the IR is coming from? The sun outputs IR so presumably CO2 in atmosphere will absorb this and re-radiate up or down, but block some IR from reaching the surface?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Atomic, Co2 is really smart and evil. That is how all this started. :)

    Actually I think you are on the right track.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    Thanks for that link George. Now to see if I can find datasets showing incoming and outgoing IR over time :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Atomic Hairdryer — The sun does not emit much in the infrared. Its electromagnetic radiation is primarily in the visible range (red to violet), and the atmosphere (except for clouds) is transparent to visible light, so it reaches the ground and warms things up. Warming means it starts the molecules vibrating.

    When molecules vibrate, they eventually stop vibrating and in so doing have to send that energy somewhere. What they do is to emit electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range.

    This radiation goes up from the ground (well, some goes down deeper into the object, too, to be absorbed by other molecules in the object/ground, but eventually, as the object cools, it will get released).

    Some of this emitted infrared radiation makes it all the way out to space. Some of it hits molecules with the property that they are able to absorb infrared radiation (it starts those molecules vibrating). From there, the energy can be passed to other molecules in collisions, so the original molecule is free to absorb more infrared radiation. Alternately, the original molecule can stop vibrating and emit the infrared radiation back out in any direction.

    Some goes up, some goes sideways, some goes down. Of that, some may make it all the way out into space, some may be absorbed by other molecules on the way, and some will reach and rewarm the ground or lower atmosphere. How much reaches the ground affects how warm the planet is.

    Without this interaction, without an atmosphere, the Earth would be about 255 degrees K / -18 C / -1 F (i.e. if all solar radiation were able to simply be emitted back out into space). With it, it’s a balmy 288 K / 15 C / 59 F.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Sphaerica,

    If there was no interaction with the atmosphere, there would be no clouds and the Earth’s albedo, dominated by the oceans, would be about 0.1 instead of 0.3. For an albedo of 0.1, the incident solar energy would result in a surface temperature of around 271K. In this scenario, the effects of water vapor and CO2 (mostly water vapor) only increases the surface temperature from 271K to 288K, or about 17C, not from 255K to 288K.

    What this tells us is that the regulatory process of GHG (specifically water vapor) acting on the climate warms by reflecting energy! This is yet another indication that the net feedback acting on the system is negative.

    If we consider that half of the 187 W/m^2 or so of energy absorbed by the atmosphere is returned to the surface, It will increase the temperature of the surface from from 271K to 289K, which coincidentally? is the approximate average surface temperature!

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another George

    Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and other miscellaneous gases absorb radiation much more efficiently than carbon dioxide, but are also present at much lower concentrations.” – TJ Nelson

    Huh? Mauna Loa has CH4 ~1800ppb and N2O ~323ppb. Am I missing something?


    NOAA Atmospheric Gases


    Report this

    00

  • #

    co2isnotevil,

    Yes, for the sake of simplifying the explanation, I did leave out albedo.

    Your thought experiment concerning a world with no atmosphere is interesting, but I think flawed. Without an atmosphere, the oceans would freeze and you’d have a snowball world with an albedo close to 1, so it would probably get even colder. If not, water would evaporate and you’d develop an atmosphere.

    In any event, drawing feedback conclusions from such a simple model as applied to the real world/real atmosphere is, I think, reaching.

    But yes, in the interests of “full disclosure,” the difference in temperature between 255 and 288 K is due to many factors, including albedo, axial tilt, the seasons, solar brightness, properties of the ocean as a heat sink, atmospheric and ocean convection, etc.

    I was merely trying to answer as completely and clearly as possible how CO2 “knows” which way to radiate IR (short answer: it doesn’t).

    Oh, and I probably should clarify that I also simplified in the range of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun. There’s also a portion emitted in the range of ultraviolet and short-wavelength infrared, but almost totally below the absorption range of CO2, so for the sake of this discussion (again, how does CO2 know what to do with inbound IR) there is none.

    What Atomic Hairdryer really wants to see is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    George,

    No, you aren’t missing anything, The lesser GHG’s are usually accounted for in simulations anyway. Look at this,

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/absorb.gif

    This shows exactly where the CH2, O3, CO and N2O peaks.

    Water vapor is by far the most powerful GHG agent. CO2 is next. Ozone seems to be next, largely because there is little overlap between ozone and other GHG spectrums and because the peak of the ozone line is close to the peak in the Earth’s emitted EM spectrum. CH4 is next, followed by CO and O2. All other gases either have absorption peakds that are not near the Earth’s emitted spectrum or are so low in concentration that any effects are negligible.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Another George,

    CO2 is measured/reported in ppm, where CH4 and N2O are measured/reported in ppb… 390 ppm CO2 is still 216 times larger than 1800 ppb CH4 (390/1.8).

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Another George,

    Sorry, in case it wasn’t clear…

    ppm = parts per million
    ppb = parts per billion


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    Re: Sphaerica:
    February 19th, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Atomic Hairdryer — The sun does not emit much in the infrared. Its electromagnetic radiation is primarily in the visible range (red to violet), and the atmosphere (except for clouds) is transparent to visible light, so it reaches the ground and warms things up. Warming means it starts the molecules vibrating.

    Yes, I get that, but looking for more detail as to how much and how it varies over time. I disagree somewhat that IR is a small component given it’s actually quite large, albeit most of it is in wavelengths uninteresting to CO2, but then that’s the same for IR re-radiated from surface heating. Aim is to try and create a kind of IR/CO2 ‘pachinko’ animation showing incoming/outgoing effects over a notional 24hr period, ideally with lapse rates for day/night cycle included.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Sphaerica,

    Yes, the flaw is that as long as there are oceans, there will be an atmosphere. If instead, we considered an Earth covered in rock that was about the same reflectivity as the oceans, then this particular flaw goes away.

    Of course, as you pointed out, there is a lot of complication with factors pushing and pulling the climate in different directions.

    Also, the CO2 doesn’t radiate much energy. Most of the energy gained by absorbing a photon is transferred to other molecules in the atmosphere via collisions. Only a small part is re-radiated. This is generally radiated at a frequency that will be absorbed by another CO2 molecule, so for all intents and purposes, we can consider that CO2 radiates it absorbed energy in no direction.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    I find this website useful when thinking about ppm’s and the like;

    Global Warming:
    A closer look at the numbers;

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    ps.. as for direction, I’m mostly interested in incoming vs outgoing IR, specific direction energy is emitted by a molecule seems to be in the lap of the quantum gods.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Atomic Hairdryer,

    …most of it is in wavelengths uninteresting to CO2, but then that’s the same for IR re-radiated from surface heating…

    That’s not at all true. Visit this page here. The graph says much of what you want.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    co2isnotevil,

    Yes, much of the radiation absorbed by CO2 is lost in collisions, but if what is radiated were only re-absorbed by other CO2 (or other GHG) molecules, the earth would get very, very hot. The only way the planet can shed heat is through infrared radiation. It’s just that at any time, re-radiation can go up instead of down, and slip through the cracks and out. Eventually, it’s going to get out. If not, we’re “toast.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Sphaerica,

    Actually, the CO2 in the atmosphere would get very hot. The rest of the atmosphere would be quite cool, which of course violates the kinetic theory of gases.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    Re: Sphaerica:
    February 19th, 2010 at 7:41 am

    That’s not at all true. Visit this page here. The graph says much of what you want.

    Not really. It shows a the narrow window for CO2, but not the effects over time, hence why I think an animation over a day/night cycle could be educational.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    co2isnotevil,

    But you yourself said CO2 mostly transfers that energy to other molecules in collisions. So CO2 would keep absorbing IR, which would be mostly transferred to O2 and N2 as kinetic energy and could not then be emitted out into space, but the CO2 would be free to absorb more IR. That would, in fact, be a runaway greenhouse effect.

    The planet would be beyond crispy. Shoot, just thinking about it makes me want an iced coffee.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Sphaerica,

    No, that is incorrect. The energy given up to the rest of the atmosphere heats it up and the atompshere in turn radiates this energy away. Half of the energy is radiated up into space and half back to the surface.

    CO2 is always free to absorb energy. Even if already energized, it can be further energized into a higher state. There is no runaway GHG because 1) energy absorbable by CO2 is limited and 2) half of the absorbed energy is radiated back into space by the atmosphere.

    Remember, the atmosphere acts as a black (OK gray) body which emits a Plank spectrum of power dependent on it’s temperature.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Cannot reach neither http://www.wattsupwiththat.com nor http://climateaudit.org/

    Anyone knows whats wrong?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another George

    @ co2isnotevil and Sphaerica,

    Thank you for the UOM correction. My reading comprehension is at an all time low today.

    Another item of interest is the H2 in these samples. It appears to have a small correlation to temperature and H2 concentrations. It sounds like the H2 is a fraction from the CH4 procedure, yet the data leans toward a similar response to the temperature (water vapor fraction?). Is the H2 a measure (loosely) of water vapor?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    co2isnotevil,

    No… O2 and N2 are very neutral molecules when it comes to electromagnetic radiation, with very low specific heats (no vibrational capability). They only absorb / emit in pretty much the very high energy UV range, which is outside of that which would result from the temperature of the atmosphere (not enough energy for UV radiation). That’s why UV gets blocked high up, but sunlight gets in so easily, and IR gets out so easily. O2 and N2 are not going to radiate out much in the way of heat energy away into space. Without GHGs, radiation would pass right by them into space, and with GHGs the IR can be absorbed by the GHG, exist as vibrational kinetic and potential energy, and then in a collision be transferred as kinetic translational energy to other molecules in the atmosphere (to the O2 and N2), but for the most part once its transferred as translational energy, it can’t get back out again without GHGs (i.e. collision with a GHG, turning the translational energy into vibrational energy, which then is at the right energy/frequency to be emitted as IR).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    So then the only reason a warm breeze feels warm is because of H2O?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Your confusion concerning effects of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is that you are forgetting GHGs cool the atmosphere.

    The Earth receives an amount of solar energy from space and must return that amount of energy to space if the Earth is not to get hotter and hotter and hotter … But the Earth can only emit energy to space as radiation because space is a vacuum.

    And the Earth’s surface absorbs some solar energy and must lose this energy if it is not to get hotter and hotter and hotter …

    The Earth’s surface loses energy in several ways (most importantly by latent heat of evapouration) and one of these ways is by emission of infra-red (IR) radiation. Some IR emitted from the surface radiates through the atmosphere to space. But some IR emitted from the surface is absorbed in the atmosphere.

    At specific wavelengths of radiation, greenhouse gas (GHG) molecules are much more effective at absorbing and emitting IR than other molecules in the atmosphere. So, more GHG molecules in the air
    (a)
    increases the ability of the atmosphere to absorb IR radiation from the Earth’s surface thus warming the atmosphere, and
    (b)
    increases the ability of the atmosphere to radiate IR radiation to space thus cooling the atmosphere.

    I hope this helps your discussion.

    Richard

    PS My Avatar seems to have changed because I am posting from a server that is not my own. This is a pity because the blue one looks like me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Richard S Courtney:
    February 19th, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Your confusion concerning effects of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is that you are forgetting GHGs cool the atmosphere.

    As in why our daytime temps are not as high as that on the moon?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Well I am completely confused. At Uni we were told the sun doesn’t
    actually warm our atmosphere? The earth itself reflects the
    sun’s energy? However, desert is hotter because there is nothing
    like clouds to keep it cool? And temps plummet at night because of this?

    Anyway, no one is saying on this blog that CO2 from industrial
    emissions doesn’t cause pollution especially when water vapor
    is around to trap them closer to earth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Baa Humbug: Joking of course, forget the moon we don’t live there yet, think about why H20 is so important to conserve plants and
    humans. I suppose I sound like an old badger, but …” I remember the SMOGS around London in the 1950s. And they killed
    people by the thousands. Then they made London and Greater London smoke free zones, and curtailed some industrial pollution.

    Within 10 years, swallows were again nesting in the eaves of city buildings, dolphins or purposes were swimming again down the Thames, so in congested areas pollution can be curtailed. However, one of our biggest polluters in big cities is transport.

    I wish I can find a copy of the 300 level of a unit I did to
    complete my BA majoring in Archaeology and palaeoanthropology.

    I tied up the climate and how it affected humans and their precursors and how this effected communications. (Including all forms of communications (rock art, early forms of writing, and trade between cultures) including the printing press ie books and the transfer of information to the masses (who could read) To the present day.

    One interesting point, during the last mini ice age those countries who could no longer grow grapes, used and adjusted
    wine presses into printing presses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Excuse me I am seeing if my new Avitar is working


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Yes it is? Thanks Joanne for the info.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Baa,

    Don’t forget hat the Moon day length is 28 days not 24 hours and this will have something to do with the max temp.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Who cares eh? The moon does have influence on our lives and all life on Earth. With tides etc. I remember (here I go again …the old codger recalling anecodotes but true ones mind you!)

    I had a marine aquarium with local acquired invertibrates, ie.
    local native sea anemones. They were lit by appropriate lighting during the day most times and at night when we wanted to show off our respective aquariums. Now they were indoors of course, but when the full moon was there, guess what? They climbed over their rocks and opened their arms to embrace it. Now one inch or two inches isn’t a lot but for a sea anemone it is something that meant a lot to them, or they were driven by something, that we terrestrial humans weren’t conscious of. I gave my report to M.A.R.I.A (The Marine Aquarium Institute of Australia) at the University of NSW. They couldn’t explain it? Then – that’s about 35 years ago I think? For some reason
    those sea anemones had a link with the Moon?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Average Joe: Congratulations I have downloaded this and will send it to my local Federal parliament representative, and if he still goes on about Global Warming …? Well I will work for him during his next campaign but will be possibly, I mean possibly, not be putting him as No.1 on my ballot paper … but don’t tell
    him!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Co2isnotevil, Do you have info on how much heat in the earth’s systems is attributed to the moon’s gravitational tugging? I have to believe it is significant just from friction.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A modern day Galileo? Henk Tenneks committed heresy against the holy church of AGW 20 years ago and is not yet forgiven. His problem was that he was right.

    KNMI-director Henk Tennekes has put the cat among the pigeons years ago and was sacked. ”Former collegues still avoid me like the plague because I say something different from the group dogma“

    From: http://www.climategate.com/wp-content/uploads/UKVersieHenkTennekes.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Now they are talking about making Northern Australia into a food bowl growing ‘paradise’. Hmmm – haven’t they heard of the big wet, Cyclone Tracy that flattened Darwin. Droughts etc. On the presumption that because of climate change Northern Australia will become wetter? Actually it will become drier if anything. And these politicians have our futures in their hands! Baa Humbug (sorry no reference meant to one of our posters).

    Historically, productive food growing areas are generally closely linked to private ownership of land and the initiative to try new ideas, develop infrastructure, and cultivate the land (i.e. convert it from one thing into a different thing). In Northern Australia there is no shortage of annual rainfall, no shortage of sun and warmth. There is a shortage of good fertile soil (but we do understand that fertilizer and other methods can improve the soil) and there is a shortage of water storage infrastructure (but we also understand how to build such things).

    The big limiting factor is that no one can just buy land and start farming. As Peter Spencer discovered, any land cultivation and development is a political process; and a process where the private land owner is highly likely to lose. For this reason, private investment into agriculture projects is poisoned — no one trusts future governments. The only potential for investment is buying shares in the massive agribusiness that is big enough to bully opponents out of the way, and no doubt these mega-corps will in due time start work on Northern Australia but only when food prices are high enough to make it worth their while.

    This situation is no accident. Having a spread of private owners implies that food production is out of the hands of central control. Forcing food production into the hands of large corporates and government regulators means that materials essential to human life are controlled by a small group of people. Government in Australia is at the moment pushing an agenda of Central Planning and this is only one aspect of that process (NB: Liberal and Labor both do this). One more chapter in the book about why Central Planning is hopelessly inefficient when it comes to economic development.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    By the way, regarding cyclones and food production… it very much depends on making a good choice of what to grow. If you plant long-lived, slow-growing trees (such as olives) then a cyclone is a disaster. But there is plenty of space for olives in southern states of Australia anyhow.

    If you plant fast growing annual crops then yes the cyclone will cause damage but not all the crops will be lost every year, so here is a factor to consider but hardly a show stopper. Florida has extensive agriculture and still gets hit with cyclones. They tend to prefer fast growing trees like citrus and avocado allowing speedy replacement of uprooted trees.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Knowles

    Re Baa Humbug at No 58.
    Thanks for the graph. Am I reading it correctly to say that except for a narrow oxygen absorption spike at about 9.5 microns the bulk of Earth’s radiated IR light is not absorbed by any gas in the atmosphere? Water and CO2 take out almost all (say 99%) of the wavelengths at their specific bands but Earth does not radiate very intensely at these wavelengths. Does this means that as the Earth warms there is always a bleeding to space of excess heat via these non-absorbed IR wavelengths?
    Does anyone know where I can find the W/m2 heating attributed to the different gasses? From the graph, water vapour blocks a lot of IR light, perhaps 2 to 3X that of CO2. There must be an upper limit on water vapour in the air because of cloud formation and precipitation which clearly act as negative feed-backs. Computer models which omit this common sense are worthless.
    Lastly, how much atmospheric heating comes from gas absorption of IR light and how much comes from heat of the soil being transfered by conduction/convection to the air? Surely, on a sunny day the heat of a road transfers a greater quantity of heat directly to the air by contact than by absorbing its IR light.
    All in all, from my reading of this, CO2′s IR heating is minor issue but it’s not my field.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    John Knowles:
    February 20th, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Hi John
    I like you don’t know enough about the subject (who does?) But you’re on the mark. If you go to the source of the graph you’ll see results of an experiment that answers your query. But again, not enough is known so take all with a grain of salt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Tel: 144 & 145. Spot on. An Jewish Israeli friend of mine actually entertained PM Rann some years back now, because her family had been into olive groves for a few generations. PM Rann wanted to start it in SA. Obviously has. I buy Australian olive oil now from the supermarket in preference to imported oil.

    Sustainability is what we should be striving for. Better soil
    management (that needs better understanding of soil science, types, micro-climates, and soil water conservation measures, all sorts of things). I’m studying it through TAFE. Studying for my diploma in organic agriculture. I don’t think I will pass in one year, as I don’t have a farm, I did years ago well – 100 acres.

    However, if we enter a long cooling period, or mini ice age, the northern hemisphere will be hardest hit with regards growing some foods. Yet years ago there was a programme about
    this on TV, and they were showing how to grow food under heated
    canopies, like cloth greenhouses.

    And of course the Chinese have already made overtures for buying land… And the Japanese already own land in Australia.

    The Swedes are storing seed underground just for emergencies.
    Or is it in Norway?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Craig Goodrich

    Lovely work, as always, Jo.

    Another point on the graph that might be worthy of note is around 160-180 ppm, at which point all plant life starves, unable to accomplish photosynthesis, thus effectively ending all life on the planet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JM

    Where did you get this nonsense from: because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.

    Look around you in daytime. See all the visible light? That’s where the photons come from. CO2 is transparent to visible light (which is why we don’t walk around in a fog), the visible light hits the ground, warms the rocks and is retransmitted as infrared

    If there’s increased CO2 in the atmosphere it then gets trapped.

    There is no shortage of photons at all. Give me a break.

    Try to understand the basics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    JM:

    At #150 you demonstrate complete ignorance of “the basics” while berating others for not trying to understand them.

    As you rightly say, visible light is absorbed by the surface and is lost as heat (mostly latent heat of evapouration) with some of this heat loss being IR emitted from the surface.

    Almost all the IR emitted from the surface that can be absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is absorbed in the atmosphere. Simply, it is a fact that “there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths”. And this is not disputed by anybody with at least a basic understanding of the subject.

    Please try to learn a little about the subject before chastising others when they report established empirical facts that do not accord with your misunderstandings which are based on ignorance.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    JM,

    Well shoot me for a horse thief. I’ve been laboring under the delusion that visible light bounces right off of material objects without being absorbed. Otherwise our eyes would be worthless. Any heating of the ground or other objects by the sun is from its invisible radiation in the infrared.

    Thanks for correcting me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush Bunny

    Tell me something guys. Why do desert Bedouins wear white and have black tents. I thought (forgive me scientists) it was because white reflected the heat, and black absorbed it? Given desert temps fluctuated without cloud cover and night temps plummet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Why do desert Bedouins wear white and have black tents.

    The story I heard is that the black tent does heat up on the outer surface which encourages air circulation inside the tent. The hot air moves up and away from the tent so the people inside feel cooler (presuming they sit some distance in from the wall of the tent itself.

    A similar principle is used for double-skin façades on multistory skyscrapers where heating in the outer layer encourages convection to circulate between the layers. It is also used on steel sheds if you have two layers and convective air-circulation between the layers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Thanks Tel, another version was they wear white red and black, and wrap themselves up in the sun to conserve the bodily fluids and protect against UV rays. Seems they only drink 1 litre a day of water. Also night temps in their winter can drop to minus degrees C. The black tents are cooler inside but must also keep them warmer when it’s cold.

    Interesting how different cultures evolve isn’t it? I was wondering in a mini ice age, Australia did not have the tree cover it does now. In Europe (away from the glacial areas of course) deciduous trees were numerous, and people depended like
    the Inuits of a diet mainly of protein, and very few carbohydrates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    In Europe (away from the glacial areas of course) deciduous trees were numerous, and people depended like the Inuits of a diet mainly of protein, and very few carbohydrates.

    … and fat, don’t forget the fat. “Rabbit starvation” will mess you up in cold weather mighty fast.

    In the Maritime Museum in Darling Harbour (Sydey) there were photographs recovered from Scott’s failed Antarctic expedition and the photographs were lined up in chronological order down the corridor — made it perfectly clear that something very horrible happened to those guys, quite disturbing. Not sure if the display is still there.

    Many people believe that Scott was destroyed by bad diet. Apparently Scott did bring fat but was short of various vitamins (e.g. vitamin C) and they ran out of fat and started eating the dogs (a short-term strategy at best).

    Hmmm, now I think about it, what do Eskimos do to get vitamin C ?

    Can any human live without this vitamin for a long time ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

    Article about Vilhjalmur Stefansson eating Eskimo food. Does not actually explain where the vitamin C comes from.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Tel: The traditional Inuits diet was plentiful in Vit C. It is available from eating the skin of the Beluga whale, livers,
    stomach contents of seals, and carabou, and they did eat seasonal berries. But their metabolism is different from the rest of us. And they ate some of these raw (yuck?) And since
    they have been introduced to a Western style diet or warm weather people’s diet, they have a high incidence of diabetes.

    I learned this in evolution and archaeological studies. Our lecturer Prof Mike Morewood (The Hobbit fame) told us that humans had colonised most environments but we couldn’t survive
    in cold areas like the Artic circle, because unlike Eskimos
    our natural metabolism and physiology wasn’t or hadn’t evolved
    in Artic regions that lacked a carbohydrate diet. I rang an endocrinologist whom was treating my son for diabetes, and he concurred. He’d worked in Canada. Their traditional diet was mainly protein and blubber, with a few kilos of berries seasonal only, and soups from seals stomachs. Kelp was another ingredient they consumed. And indeed they had developed a different metabolism similar no doubt to the Neandertals.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Aren’t eskimos human?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Matt B! They are cold adapted humans. Didn’t you know?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G

    I found this post very interesting and was hopeful that it would reveal a warmist bias in the science, yet I found an article at a pretty highly regarded climate science site that, if accurate, would seem to entirely disprove this saturation principle as described here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

    Anyone care to address the assertions in this article?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    G:
    March 19th, 2010 at 10:17 am

    G did you read all of Jos post? I also suggest you click on the link under the paragraph headed “Attacks on this page”, which “cares” to address the assertions in the said article.

    Pointing you to the above saves me from lengthy posts and makes YOU do the work to answer your query. Much better way to learn for you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    George E. Smith

    So Jo, while I am on agreement, that CO2 is NOT the enemy; the saturation argument is not a good hill to choose to die on.
    We have in actual measured atmospheric CO2 values, only about 0.3 of one single doubling; anythin ouside of that is simply proxy speculation.
    And as you know ln(1+x) = x for small x, so logarithmic is not distinguishable from linear for small changes, and I submit, that the available measured data sets for CO2 and earth surface Temperature for the last 150 years, are not sufficiently noise free to say that the relationship is logarithmic rather than linear. We can’t even be sure it is non-liear, in fact we can fit it to any mathematical function you like to name; with equal likelihood of being wrong.
    Non linear is NOT equal to LOGARITHMIC.
    Logarithmic means that 280 ppm —560 ppm is the same as 1 ppm —2 ppm or one molecule of CO2 per litre of STP air to 2 molecules of CO2 per litre of STP air.

    We can’t prove that T = T0 + mlog(CO2/CO2,0) rather than
    CO2 = CO2,0 + mlog (T/T0) or that T = mCO2 +c

    And don’t forget that there’s some quite unknown time lag before or after CO2 changes to Temp changes.
    We are in fact just 800 years since the mediaeval warming period. Is it not plausible that it was that warm period that is now causing our CO2 increase.

    Of course Al Gore doesn’t mind an effect that occurs 800 years before its cause.

    The saturation argument doesn’t hold water, because it simply means the LWIR gets absorbed in a thinner layer of air, and then of course is re-emitted isotropically, so about half goes up, and alf goes down, but it is then re-absorbed in another layer of air. So the saturation argument doesn’t fly and is unnecessary.
    It is irrefutable and incontrovertible, that H2O in any phase in the atmosphere ALWAYS absorbs sunlight (solar spectrum energy), which prevents it from reaching the ground, or far more likely the deep oceans wqhere it is stored. Yes that does heat the atmosphere, but at most half of that stopped solar energy can eventually reach the surface as LWIR, so it is always a net loss of solar energy from the earth.
    What CO2 does is quite irrelevent compared to the solar energy trapping of H2O (and Ozone as well).

    IT’S THE WATER !!


    Report this

    10

  • #

    George E. Smith: #164
    July 14th, 2011 at 5:35 am

    IT’S THE WATER !!

    Yes, it most certainly is George. Full agreement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    zeddy

    Since 1960, CO2 has raised by about 25%, and Temperature by virtually nothing. (0.7/300K = 0.23%, and that’s over the whole century)

    We have now burned probably about half of our fossil fuels, and emitted half the carbon we’re ever going to emit. ie the supposed problem is self-limiting.

    If the burning the first half had such a small effect on temperature, why should we expect that burning the second half would have any greater effect? Given that there’s already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb nearly all of the re-radiated IR that there is at those particular wavelengths, the effect ought to be even less.


    Report this

    00

  • #