JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au
Statistics
It’s a battle at last over CO2 origins. Finally we may see some debate between scientists.
Dr Ed Berry is being challenged on his stand that CO2 increases are natural and proof is in C14, using radio carbon dating to date the air itself! This was my own idea a decade ago. I wrote this to Selby as well.
Consider that if the CO2 was zero fossil fuel there would be zero C14 in the air. The proponents of the 50% increase being man made mean that fossil CO2 is 33% of all CO2. So C14 levels should be 66% of what is normal. As it is, C14 levels in 1958 and again in 2023 are almost exactly the same for the last 20,000 years including the current time. In fact the rapid drop from the doubling in 1965 proves that the C14 has disappeared into the ocean. It can go nowhere else. And the time to be absorbed postulated by Fergusson has been confirmed.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/berry-vs-andrews/
Dr Andrews is releasing a paper at the same time arguing that Berry and Murry Salby are completely wrong.
From myself, I have no doubt at all that CO2 is 97% natural and that nothing has changed since 1958 when fossil fuel was 2.0% of total CO2 before the nuclear blasts doubled C14. There is no problem with ’emissions’ as they go straight into the oceans.
152
The significance of this is that if the CO2 is not man made, reducing emissions does nothing. Carbon credits are meaningless. And China is right. And this subject has almost been forbidden world wide. According to Dr Berry the Heartland Institute and most sceptics still accept that the 50% increase in CO2 is man made.
“The CO2 Coalition and Heartland Institute agree with Andrews, but they censor and ignore the messengers who oppose them”
However if the CO2 increase is almost entirely natural and fossil fuel CO2 is still under 3%, the whole man made thing is a fraud quite regardless of whether CO2 actually produces additional heating. So its about $15Trillion so far for nothing. China is not so crazy.
191
Yes, TdeF that is one aspect but more important is (engineering) thermodynamics by which it can be shown there are no greenhouse gases which radiate back to the Earths surface. Firstly, there is the lapse rate (6 to 9.8 K/1000m) which shows everywhere in the atmosphere is colder than on the surface (eg Mt Everest, Mt Kilamanjaro on the equator or Mt Erabus in Antarctia -one of the coldest places). Then the second law of thermodynamics- heat on flows from hot to cold. The sun and clouds control climate and weather. Also, read Z&Ks explanation for average surface temperature of planets with an atomosphere. The average surface temperature is related to the surface pressure and the distance from the sun.
71
cementafriend. Just to be exactly accurate — Technically, radiation is a net flow in both directions — always more photons leaving the warmer zone, but still some coming from the colder zones. Photons go randomly in every direction. Greenhouse molecules — CO2, H2O, O3 etc, do emit towards Earth almost as often as they emit towards space.
See the posts I did on The Second Law here and here.
111
Net radiative flux (which is all that’s important) is governed by the temperature difference between points. (S-B laws)
The temperature gradient in the atmosphere is governed by the gravity based lapse rate with H2O the only molecule that can alter that lapse rate, due to its latent energy characteristics.
There is no possibility of an increase in CO2 “back radiation” without a change in the atmospheric lapse rate.
CO2 cannot affect the atmospheric laspe rate.
52
Don’t be so sure;
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/monday-open-thread-30/#comment-2635032
Things are not always what they seem.
02
Not only that, but Wil Happer has explained that basically all energy absorbed in that tiny frequency band of CO2 is converted by conduction to the rest of the atmosphere thus becoming part of the energy balance of the atmosphere, controlled by the lapse rate.
(proven by measurements that show the decrease in OLR in the CO2 radiative band is more than balanced by a increase through the atmospheric window.)
https://i.ibb.co/h2dR1bd/radiative-change-2.jpg
There is no possibility of CO2 causing warming or “trapping energy” like a blanket.. LOL. !
.. It is just another conduit for energy balance in the atmosphere.
32
Jo, I first thought you had left out the “sarc” word but it seems you are serious. I am a registered professional engineer (Chemical) and also a certified professional metallurgist. I have done thousands of measurements and heat balances never have I come across any back radiation or heat flow from cold to hot. Firstly, there are doubts about photons. Nobel Physics prize winner 1955 wrote a paper “Anti-photon” Applied Phys B60 1995 (I have a copy). There is another paper in my files by Jacques-Moret Bailly with the same name “Anti-photon” arXiv:10099.5119v2 (physics-gen ph)Nov11, 2010 which extends Lambs findings and explains radiation (including light) in terms of electro-magnetic waves) Then there is Wien’s displacement law (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law) which relates temperature to wavelength as does Planck’s radiation law. If you want to know more about the second law of thermodynamics I suggest you read some this site https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/search/label/2nd%20law%20of%20thermodynamics. Somewhere Prof. Claes Johnson also has a good proof why there is no back radiation.
Talking about heat balances have you read the following https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2015/09/. There is no back radiation. Trenberth is wrong and should apologise. A little experiment for you -open the door of a freezer, where is most of your heat going and in what direction? It is nonsense that heat flows equally in all directions. CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb radiation of a wavelength of 14.8 micron equivalent to about 200K but it only radiates to space.
40
Sorry, never good at editing. I forgot the Nobel prize winners name Willis Eugene Lamb Jr 1955.
20
No sarc intended. I think you may be misunderstanding me. I have never, and would never say heat flows equally between hot and cold things. I’m only saying the tritely obvious, that photons can’t steer, they don’t think about “where” they are headed (and therefore do not know if they are going towards a hotter or colder object).
I’m merely pointing out that hot things emit more photons and cold things less, but some photons travel in all directions. Therefore, obviously there is “backradiation” flowing from any object above minus 273C. When any molecule warms up then it follows that there will be more backradiation coming off it.
The second law is not broken by Greenhouse gases. They just slow the exit of radiation off the planet.
My position on this remains 100.00% identical to what it was in 2010. I found those threads pretty disappointing in that 3,000 comments achieved no reconciliation of the two opposing ideas, not even a tiny bit. I had hoped we would find some common ground, common definitions, or at least acknowledgement that photons come off everything and have no ability to steer themselves. Alas, it appears the “backradiation” debate is really a debate about whether photons exist or not, and if that is the case, I wish those arguing it would call it that, rather than talking about the second law or back radiation.
I’ve not been impressed by Claes-Johnson. He seems to misunderstand the second law and argues on a semantic error that NO heat can flow at all from cold to hot, rather than about whether overall NET heat can flow from cold to hot (which it can’t). Am I wrong? Definitions are crucial, and if he can’t start with a definition of “the second law” that makes sense in the reality I live in, then I can’t see any reason to pursue his other ideas. If the second law means that photons can only steer towards “colder things” then they need advance knowledge of where they are headed, and we need information from the future or quantum entanglement type spooky science.
When I stand next to someone I can feel the backradiation coming off them. I don’t need any equipment to measure it. My reality is that standing next to a person at 37C feels different to standing next to a wall at 25C.
There is undoubtedly a big debate to be had about wave-particle duality, and questions about what a photon means, but that is entirely different and has nothing to do with the second law and backradiation. David and I were discussing the concept of photons yesterday. Fascinating but useless in the public battle over CO2.
So can we at least agree that IF photons exist, greenhouse gases absorb and emit them, and the second law is not breached and backradiation also exists? Given how much of the world around us appears to be explained with the hypothesis that there are photons, it appears to have awfully big predictive power.
If photons don’t exist, and that concept is wrong, that’s a whole huge and entirely different debate and someone has an awful lot of observations and data to explain and come up with a better hypothesis for. It is all very interesting in an abstract way, but is useless for public policy debates on climate change.
If Claes wants to convince people, he needs to sort out his definition of the second law, and reconcile it with my day to day reality. The idea that photons can steer is too big a bridge for me to cross…
Perhaps if he redesigned his whole site, dropped all mentions of climate change, 2nd law and backradiation, and just talked about photons (or whatever the alternative model is) it would have some credibility? First he needs to start with a page on the observations that the photon theory doesn’t explain. Then he needs to predict things in the real world with his hypothesis that we can measure…
51
Good, thanks. There may be a problem with regard to what are called The Laws of Thermodynamics. These statements are not laws, they are postulates. Of course they work perfectly well for steam engines, but applicability to radiation can be questioned.
It is said, back radiation does not exist as it has not been detected. Perhaps, after leaving a source, it meets the incoming radiation and if of consistent frequency, cancels out leaving only the (net) amount of radiation incoming.
30
Yet I can feel it. With no equipment and my eyes closed — I can tell when a warm object, say 60C is near me. It radiates.
If I leave the warm object there and replace me with, say a hot water bottle, does the warm object switch off its radiation, or does it continue to blindly send that radiation towards a hotter object which is also sending radiant waves back (and more of them).
I have a major problem imagining how complex these radiating atoms are if they can detect coldness at a distance.
Radiation can be detected by our skin. “Backradiation” is just radiation. So I do not understand these claims that it has not been detected.
Occams razor is calling me…
31
Hi Jo, perhaps the person standing next to you and hot water bottle analogies could be causing the misunderstanding.
Those two items constantly radiate energy until equilibrium is reached with the surroundings.
The analogy is breaking down because the energy in CO2 orbitals is locked up and only drawn out by an energy potential that has enough pull.
e.g. CO2 will lose photons when the atmospheric temperature drops to about 243K. That’s minus 30°C or about 11,000 metres above the earth.
That orbital barrier is the key.
Back radiation is junk science and that’s a fact.
13
Jo, maybe it is better to comment on a new post on entropy, heat transfer and radiative heat transfer. As Lucky, below, says the so-called laws of thermodynamics are postulates that define certain states and the relation between them. In this post, https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2014/04/ I have copied the 5 postulates of Thermodynamics out of my Chemical Engineering Handbook 7th Edition. Postulate 2 has been called the first law of thermodynamics, postulate 3 defines Entropy and postulate four written in terms of Entropy has been called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
As Prof Claes Johnson writes few people understand entropy, which those that think they do, usually relate to a state of order. Maybe you did not read the link I gave to Prof Claes Johnson’s series of posts on the second law of thermodynamics. In that he mentions that he has come up with new thoughts based on Euler equations. Here is one of his small posts https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2022/07/similarity-between-fluid-turbulence-and.html The following is the last paragraph of this post “There is a connection to the 2nd law of thermodynamics with the transformation of large scale motion into heat energy as small scale unordered motion, is irreversible. In radiation it means that heat energy transfer is one-way from warm to cold.” He has clearly defined the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I know you have little time but maybe get your husband to read it. I know Electrical Engineers are good at maths (I did engineering maths3 with electrical engineers at Uni.). Prof Claes Johnson is one of the foremost mathematicians in the world. He also is good at defining many engineering subjects. He was awarded the Prandtl medal for proving Prandtl was wrong about boundary layers. He has modeled lift on aeroplanes. I suggest he deserves a Nobel prize for his computational mathematics and it use in physics and engineering problems. Have a look at the right site of page on his posts.
[Will leave this comment here so the host will see it.]AD
20
Sigh. Cementafriend, Thanks for your patience. I had hoped to give you a proper answer but it won’t be tonight, so I will set this free and hope someone else can. For what it’s worth, I did look at your Claes Johnson link before my last reply.
I need my question addressed to begin with. If we are going to toss out whole working systems of Thermodynamic Laws, equations, philosophies, I need a reason. I can theoretically give up “the old ways” but only if there is a benefit. Which problems does the new method solve that we can’t already solve? Which observations does it explain that aren’t already explained?
And if this is his version of the 2nd law: https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2014/04/
The entropy change of any system and its surrounds, considered together, resulting from any real process is positive, approaching zero when the process approaches reversibility (Also known as the second law of Thermodynamics)
It does not stop a photon from travelling from a colder area to a hotter one. The entropy change of the system is exactly what I’m talking about. The NET change. 10 photons go from a cold marble to hot one, and 100 flow back the other way, and entropy is positive… Perhaps we agree and you didn’t realize?
Unfortunately his qualifications are not going to win me over. I am after all a skeptic.
20
Who is Claes Johnson?
Science is in trouble when people misrepresent things.
11
Stand firm.
“My position on this remains 100.00% identical to what it was in 2010.”
But it is 2023
11
Keith, please, don’t waste our time. Read Cementafriends comments before you comment on them. If you know nothing about the discussion, you don’t have to say anything.
My position is open to change, but not with argument from authority or indignation or insults.
I repeat x 4: Which *observations* does this new hypothesis explain that aren’t already explained?
In 13 years no one has been able to answer that.
31
Reply Jo.
, perhaps the person standing next to you and hot water bottle analogies could be causing the misunderstanding.
Those two items constantly radiate energy until equilibrium is reached with the surroundings.
The analogy is breaking down because the energy in CO2 orbitals is locked up and only drawn out by an energy potential that has enough pull.
02
Sorry Cementa, was busy until late last night and missed this.
My own little summary is below;
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/monday-open-thread-30/#comment-2636162
I finally gave up and reverted to sarcasm, watch your shoulder.
Where did this concept of photons being sprayed 360 come from? Bizarre. Maybe people are getting mixed up with electrons which are conceptualized as particles? Photons are the energy associated with the movement of electrons within the atom.
02
Thanks Cementa,
Came across this written back in 2014. I hadn’t seen it before but can’t fault it.
“There can be no radiation heat flux from a cool gas 1000′s m in the atmosphere flowing to a surface which is at a higher temperature. The basic premise of AGW with regard to CO2 is nonsense.”
The big question is; how has the Algoreythm managed to convince the world otherwise.
02
Hi Jo
This is a wonderful science blog, but at the risk of being persistent, it needs to be resolved.
The small amount of ground origin PW-IR that’s maybe taken up by low level CO2, less than 30 metres altitude, is then locked in and there’s a barrier that stops its removal.
The concept of “back radiation” is a politically based concept invented to mislead and control the thinking of the tax paying masses who underwrite the lavish lifestyle of the UNIPCCC new world order; it may be accepted in Disneyland but it should be taken for what it is here on this great blog and given its deserved acknowledgement.
The truth will set us free.
11
The truth will set us free, but KK, you need to persuade me, not just say say so.
What observations does your hypothesis explain that I cannot already explain?
31
Very sorry Jo, I apologise and will never contradict you again.
03
“Very sorry Jo, I apologise and will never contradict you again.”
Coward.
Live dangerously – you only get to do it once.
21
MV,
I had half a dozen posts “sequestered” over this and I’ve learnt from that.
04
Only six? – Trivial. Gird up your loins, lad, and once more into the fray.
Time to start worrying when your comments cease to be simply moderated, and you and your posts are completely “disappeared” for a few weeks until you learn you are no longer welcome here.
Yes, it happened, once, long ago. I speak from experience.
11
Regarding slowed comments. Three of KK’s posts were identical. Then I replied personally to two.
I repeat: KK What observations does your hypothesis explain that I cannot already explain?”
This was a sincere question that goes to the heart of any science discussion and yet you have not even tried to answer politely?
The blog filter was set up to catch this topic ten years ago because conversations on it were repetitive and mostly pointless. Did I make a mistake allowing it back?
MV: If I recall, you were aggrieved at moderation a long time ago and chose to disappear yourself. I wrote to you several times in the next year to hear your concerns and invite you back and didn’t get a reply? Or are you thinking of something else?
10
Hi Jo,
You say;
” So can we at least agree that IF photons exist, greenhouse gases absorb and emit them,
Nobody has ever said that photons don’t exist and nobody has said that greenhouse gases don’t absorb and emit.
To say that is a misrepresentation because I have commented on this to confirm it.
The issue that I and several others have is when and how these things occur.
The PW-IR emitted from ground level may be taken up by the CO2 in the first 30 metres above ground. From then on the gas laws rule and the energy taken in will only be released under the right trigger.
As Will Janoschka put it, there are various potentials at work which may tempt the photon to leave its home atom but that event will not occur until the lower potential exceeds the orbital energy of the electron in the CO2 atom.
I think that a low temperature of about minus 30°C is needed.
Once the electron falls back the orbital energy (photon) is drawn towards the lower trigger potential.
It moves towards deep space, not ground because the energy can only move down the energy gradient.
That’s why true scientists like those who have commented here say that the Unmentionable Construct is false. It’s an IPCCCCC fake concept.
KK
32
If one really wants to go down the quantum proton road …
… one has to realise that the direction of re-emission is a function of probability.
And the probability of re-emission against the net energy flow, (which is from warmer to cooler, ie upwards) will be very small indeed.
The net energy flux is determined by the energy difference, that gradient is determined by the lapse rate …
… and increased atmospheric CO2 makes no measurable difference to that energy gradient.
Only H2O has the ability to do that, because of its latent heat characteristics.
21
Probability of Up v Down (depending on altitude) ~ 51 to 49 or something like that. (Curvature of the Earth)
The net energy flux is determined by the emission heights of the atmosphere at every different frequency which does change according to the concentration and temperature of each GHG at each height.
20
Yes Mr b, we have essentially said the same thing, but you obviously have a better grasp of the science in that area than me.
02
Kieth says “Nobody has ever said that photons don’t exist”
Keith, are you reading this thread? Cementafriend started it, provided most of the ideas, links and content and linked to Claes, and talks about doubts about photons and anti-photons #1.1.1.1.3.
Actually I’m holding a comment from him, and he’s being very patient. No complaints at all from him. I’m hoping to reply to him properly (apologies Cementafriend).
Meanwhile I see you still haven’t even tried to answer my one line sincere question. “KK What observations does your hypothesis explain that I cannot already explain?””
30
Hello Jo,
I had never heard of Claes until he became a point of argument here.
Wouldn’t it be better to focus on what highly qualified people in this area are saying?
I’m sure that the “photons going out in all directions” thing was just a preliminary attempt to describe what’s happening, or possibly a misrepresentation involving the UNIPCCC.
More informed people know that energy movement has rules that determine what’s happening.
I have written answers to your questions in my posts.
I would Never attempt to lecture you on sub microscopic biology because I would look foolish in the eyes of other competent biologists.
01
Konrad pushes the need to confront the mechanism.
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-9-error-3-all-radiation-imbalances-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/#comment-1750699
A good summary.
00
Keith, Konrad says nothing in that comment that answers my question or relates to anything I have said. Talking about “Highly qualified people” is a argument from authority. It doesn’t mean anything.
Science is about observations. Can we talk about them? Everything else is timewasting. Like, again the vague allusion to mystical rules by higher authorities. EG : “More informed people know that energy movement has rules that determine what’s happening.”
If you have answered my question, I sincerely cannot see where. please repeat it. I see sarc, dissembling, fallacies and insults but zero observations. You, I and Cementafriend all have different views, perhaps you are mixing up my reply to his words with yours?
For goodnesssake, “Photons going in all directions” is basic quantum physics. Neils Bohr. Not the UN?
30
“Then the second law of thermodynamics- heat on flows from hot to cold”
… unless energy is supplied which counters that direction of heat flow.
Heat in a thermodynamic system is energy associated with the kinetic energy of the matter in the system. A photon, being massless, is not matter. It has energy and momentum but no mass.
Transfer of energy by a photon in isolation is not heat transfer but work.
31
If the CO2 is natural, why is it so high now? For over a million years co2 seems to be have been between 150ppm and 300ppm. Now it is 420ppm.
Also C14 was delta as percent of all CO2 was slightly negative until around 1900 when it started going strongly negative – right as humans start burning coal and oil. Atom bombs then screwed everything up. It will be over 100 years before C14 is even close to being ‘back to normal’ to use a measure of how much fossil sourced CO2 is in the air.
Also even if it is natural, that is completely seperate argument: Who cares. Its 420 and rising. The question is does this impact anything, not if the CO2 is ‘natural’ or not.
23
mundi, CO2 levels for the last million years are in theory measured only by ice cores.
Are we sure there is no mechanism where ice bubbles limit the CO2 levels, smoothing out the highs? Other proxies give higher results, and we accept those other proxies before and after the ice cores, but not when they conflict.
The ice cores are sacred but not necessarily right.
40
Consider this from Andrews’ paper
“Papers in Science of Climate Change such as (Harde and Salby 2021), (Berry 2021), and (Schroder, 2022) and in Health Physics(Skrable et al. 2022a:2022b) conclude that human emissions have made a relatively small contribution. While these papers have no impact on mainstream climate science, they may confuse lay readers who read their conclusions and do hot have the tools to critically analyse them. Most active climate scientists ignore such papers if they are even aware of them.”
So there you have it. Equally or even better qualified scientists are wrong because his arguments are irrefutable, he claims. And even skeptics have cancelled any authors or papers who state otherwise. Salby was fired while giving lectures in the UK. And it is claimed Tim Flannery who is no scientist had a hand in his firing.
For my part, Berry and Salby are right. You could add G. J. Fergusson 1958 as published in the Royal Society long before they became Climate Woke. No one bothers to refute Fergusson, but he was prophetic. I was going to do the work myself until I found he had proven the case fifty years before. It should have been game over for man made Climate Change aka Global Warming.
And while the spike in C14 after 1965 told us a great deal about the entire system of CO2, it was clear in 1958 when C14 was extremely stable, that two world wars and more than half of the 20th century and all of the 19th century had only increased CO2 by 2.0%+/-0.15%.
120
The Core, The Core and The Core.
Irrefutable.
40
Im just writing this to get in early for next week.
06
Use up your “mindless, empty post” quota early, hey !
I hope that means we will not see your attention-seeking tripe later in the week !
60
TdeF,
You can add another (me) to the list of those who await proof of significant man-made change in atmospheric CO2 abundance.
When you have mixed with top geologists for a few decades – they love to debate the multitudes of unsolved geological problems – you gain the impression that it is quite hard for the human mind to understand and accept the very large time scales, the very slow processes, their inexorable progress, the natural reversion to stability and similar matters.
When CO2 was born again as a potential global threat in the 1970s, no geologist friends did more than yawn. By 2000 or so, most observational field geologists (as opposed to book-learning academic geologists) were firmly sceptical of global warming threats. Past evidence was substantial. Temperature change led temperature change in time, sea level responded to more than temperature, field observations of treeline changes and many other factors were convincing about the puny part mankind played versus the forces of nature.
Geologists and hangers-on like geochemists (me) and geophysicists are at the leading edge of supporters of the main experienced climate specialists like Richard Lindzen and Will Happer and many others who are well-qualified and well-known despite despicable attempts to silence them.
Earth sciences have massive unknowns. My former boss John Elliston AO, who rode on ahead a year ago, published a large book of observations showing the likelihood that colloidal processes, not melting, better explain the nature of many common rock types.
Climate research has yet to mature, ditto many in the screeching banshee group of followers. Geoff S
90
I have the greatest respect for physicists like Lindzen an Steven Koonin and listened to their conversations with the brilliant logician Jodan Peterson, minds so sharp they are dangerous. However with very exceptions no one questions man made CO2 in the air is nearly 33%. It’s not and I have no idea why this subject is de facto forbidden.
As you and everyone would know, CO2 is highly polar and therefore so soluble, compressible. That is why it’s natural habitat is in water and it is the gas which powers all life as we breath and combust carbohydrates and sugars and generate CO2 which is exchanged at the ultra thin membrane in our lungs over 400m2. Water one side, air the other. The solubility of CO2 itself is intrinsic to all life on earth, solar powered by photosynthesis.
But we are asked to suspend belief and accept the IPCC declaration (it is their standard) that the half life of CO2 to dissolve in the water is 80 years. That is insane. For 70 years we have known it to be around 5 years. (time for half the CO2 in the air to exchange with the CO2 in the water)
My idea many years ago was to date the air itself, measure the age of the CO2 and settle the question. But it was already done methodically at 2.0+/-0.15% in 1958, G. J. Fergusson Royal Society. Now it is just under 3%.
And now we are asked to believe 80 years by the IPPC. Without proof. It is also mentioned in another place in the reports as ‘thousands of years’. It cannot be both and it is neither.
I have been waiting for scientists to listen. I wrote to Lord Monckton but he wanted to write a paper. Salby did not reply but he has accepted the idea wholeheartedly and written his own papers. Some others. But they have been ignored totally by almost all scientists and Dr.Berry says that includes the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute. That is a surprise. It is clearly unacceptable to question the consensus. It is possible Andrew’s attack on Berry will open up the debate, for the very first time!
100
And Geoff, as a geochemist, equilibrium of dissolved gases at the air/water interface and Henry’s law would be second nature. I am appalled to be asked to pretend CO2 is not in rapid equilibrium between air and sea. After all O2 is what every creature breathes and fish breathe, but O2 is only 1/30th of the solubility of CO2. So clearly if O2 can go into and out of the water so rapidly, CO2 is even faster. But the IPCC effectively say it is insoluble except on a hundred year timescale? Those fish would drown.
I also detest this statement by NOAA “The ocean has absorbed enough carbon dioxide to lower its pH by 0.1 units, a 30% increase in acidity” At around 8.0 the oceans are alkali and all of the limestone/coral in the world would have to vanish to become acidic. This is so wrong it has to be classified as an outrageously misleading statement intended to deceive. As if spending $1 means you are heading towards bankruptcy.
130
Spot on, TdeF. Just one point: –
Next time somebody starts rabbiting on about CO2 “emissions”, just ask them –
– -“What about Henry’s Law?
Their blank, glazed over stares will tell you everything you need to know.
80
MV,
Classic Henry’s Law studies used closed systems in labs. Measured volumes of gas and water, often vigorous stirring, no gas escape, derive some “constants”.
The oceans are rather different, having a huge volume of water that can move to the surface and exchange gas. This upwelling water can be rich or poor in gas content depending on its history. It is not a system to be easily compared to lab experiments. It also has living creatures with their own CO2 cycles.
While I like the contributions of fellow chemist Ferdinand Engelbeen, who has proposed a tiny limit on the amount of CO2 ocean exchange, I suspect he has assumed too simple a natural system. Most climate researchers do.
See discussion on Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit dated Nov 29, 2007. Geoff S
20
Despite the area, there isn’t much water at the surface of the oceans. This non scientist would have expected the working interface would be in the clouds and the rain.
00
“I also detest this statement by NOAA “The ocean has absorbed enough carbon dioxide to lower its pH by 0.1 units, a 30% increase in acidity””
Science defines acidity in terms of the activity of hydrogen ions in solution and not the concentration.
The NOAA propagandists know this but deliberately misinform- or more correctly disinform.
The organisation also implies that the measured increase in the surface pH of seawater reflects a similar increase at greater depths when in fact there has been no pH increase at the mean depth of the oceans (the oceans tend to be more acidic at depth than near the surface).
Increase the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean-atmosphere responds by proportionately increasing sequestration.
The increasing pH at the surface is due to the increasing rate of absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere- that phenomenon described by Henry’s Law- a change in the equilibrium.
51
Except that a compendium of all ocean surface pH readings shows no change in surface pH.
https://i.ibb.co/bF18sDm/ocean-PH-all-surface-readings.png
20
“CO2 is highly polar”
No, because the oxygens are opposite each other in the linear molecule and their polar moments cancel each other. Water, on the other hand, is bent like a banana and can carry a charge difference at each ‘end’.
I figure anyone who needs to understand the solubility versus temperature of CO2 just needs to drink a Coke..
20
Agreed. Linear double bonds. I had thought tetrahedral or bent like SO2 which would explain the solubility. But still 30x the solubility of O2 alone. Why? How does that work with a linear symmetric molecule?
As far as I can tell only 1% become carbonic acid, so that’s not it. However the story is that the ends of the two Oxygen atoms carry an effective negative overall charge and this produces a sort of chelation by very polar water molecules which surround the carbon dioxide molecule. I had not heard of that phenomenon. Usually polarization is the key to solubility in water.
00
.
Mid afternoon Tuesday and Monday’s open thread just goes up.
It’s a time warp I tells ya.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdbLirsZ_4Q
30
Busy celebrating I hope. Putting perhaps ten thousand of hours into hosting a debate on the fraud of man made CO2 and CO2 made warming is a valiant effort and huge sacrifice. And you get a T Shirt and a plaque. And appreciation.
It would be nice if Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Gas actually funded their own defence of CO2 and denial of man made CO2 and man made Global Warming, but the millionaires who runs the businesses are too Woke. But it would be nice to see very hard and selfless work financially rewarded.
70
Yes. OK. That was wierd. Sorry. I programmed all these in early Jan and must have screwed up the date.
90
“It would be nice if Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Gas actually funded their own defence of CO2”
Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Gas actually fund the “CO2 emissions” scam because it helps maintain high prices for their products.
As far as Big Business is concerned, when it comes to a choice between truth and profit, profit will win hands down every time.
70
Re https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/monday-open-thread-30/#comment-2634974
Hi Cementa, I didn’t believe in the “photons are real” and coming at us theory until just two months ago when a very unusual event during a storm laid me low for two weeks.
10
” a very unusual event during a storm laid me low for two weeks.”
Tell us more! Struck by lightning for doubting global warming?
30
Hi KP,
I was walking along the beachfront on the concrete pathway mid afternoon.
The southerly buster had arrived from Sydney to cool things a bit.
The abnormal thing was the late afternoon rush of air that came from the West and intersected the southerly at right angles.
The point of intersection was almost overhead and a funnel type vortex became evident as the sky darkened noticeably.
I hurried towards my car, still a ten minute walk away, and noticed the vortex begin to glow overhead; never seen anything like it.
Without any warning there was a sudden downwards impact on my left shoulder that started to hurt badly.
Felt the spot and thankfully there was no blood, just a small 3 mm hole in my shirt and skin. The locus of pain was in my shoulder muscle and I panicked and drove to the outpatients reception at the local hospital.
A high energy scan brought up a 3 mm diameter glob that had never been seen before but after 5 minutes in the active scanner it disappeared leaving us all puzzled. The hospital agreed to send all of the details of the scan to my email and when I got home I sent them to an acquaintance in Melbourne who is a radiologist.
He was amazed and thought that the object was almost certainly downward moving photons that had been agglomerated by the vortex and later dissipated by the X Ray energy.
The vortex must have gathered millions of photons in this almost unbelievable event that proved that downwelling photons are real as hell.
While it’s not possible to tell if these photons were from H2O or CO2, they were real.
We live and learn.
KK
40
“Struck by lightning.. ”
Well… close! Kalm.. not so much! That is amazing, I wonder how often it happens?
40
Well, not very often.
Obviously it’s just b.s. that was written out of frustration with the constant barrage of “science” that claims that photons are emitted equally and undiminished in a spherical pattern around the CO2 molecule as it does its greenhouse act.
Many like Cementa and myself have tried to gently prod for this concept to be reconsidered but to no avail.
Once at altitude the CO2 molecule can only lose this energy down the energy gradient towards space; not towards Earth.
The CO2 molecule has its energy topped up near ground level by PWIR and once at altitude this quantum cannot shoot back at the warmer target below.
10
So KK, you were not hit by lightning, you don’t believe photons exist?
00
Hi Jo,
Certainly photons exist and my only wish is that they be understood.
Many scientists would be familiar with the ring of 2 8 8 18 etc and spdf.
Those terms are used to help describe the orbital paths taken by electrons around the nucleus of an atom.
When fully pumped up with energy the electrons can move up to specific orbitals and when they move to a colder location can achieve equilibrium with the surroundings by “losing” a very specific amount of energy by dropping down to a less energetic orbital below.
The energy lost by the atom is very specific and referred to as a photon. That photon, unlike a proton, neutron or electron is not a particle but a quantity of electromagnetic energy.
When the energy leaves an atom it moves according to the concepts of thermodynamics and atomic physics.
As Will Janoschka so eloquently described it, there is a potential which acts to draw “photons” out of the atom. I believe that the electron will only fall back to a lower orbital and release the energy when the lower potential, e.g. deep space, is greater than the difference in orbital energy.
CO2 can only lose this energy to space where the temperature difference gives enough “pull” .
The Earth is too hot to attract the photonic energy from CO2 at altitude.
Maybe Mr b.nice, MV, Cementa and a few others could add to this.
Regards
KK
20
And that’s why my description of being hit on the shoulder by a bunch of photons is fantasy.
00
I apologise profusely for being immoderate.
00
Very interesting, sounds like there might a way of increasing the efficiency of electric cables by running power in both directions.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/monday-open-thread-30/#comment-2637430
Just love modern science.
00
“Photons going in all directions” is basic quantum physics.
In a vacuum in a single atom.
Died: November 18, 1962, Copenhagen
I stated years ago that that occurred.
BUT the exit of that photon had to be triggered so immediately after exit that burst of energy must be drawn to the trigger point.
20