Biochemist Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 But, this is well-known. CO2 is one factor in many. This doesn't discount the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas—it just makes modeling our climate that much more difficult. ~modestThanks, Mod. Great post.
Biochemist Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 50%? 0.5-1.0? Source? Rise?Sorry FT. Can't find it. I was trying to find the logarithmic graphic (Lindzen did one, I am sure there are many) that showed the potential range of incremental absorption with increased CO2 and its effect on temprature. I could not recover it on Google. Bio
Essay Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 ...its effect on temprature. I could not recover it on Google. Bio...There may be a reason for that deletion! Biochemist: I think you're referring to a brief blip in the denialist's blogosphere, from about a year ago. Hopefully it's not still being promulgated! I could look it up after the Inauguration, if you'd like. It came about [iMHO] because some self-proclaimed expert re-labeled the axes from a textbook graphic.The graph related the absorbance of CO2 with CO2's concentration--a logarithmic function. The bozo had simply scratched out the word "dog," and scribbled "cat" over it, with a crayon!Oh sorry.... The bozo had written "Temperature," over the y-axis label of "Absorbance," with a computer. ...thus erroneously implying a logarithmic relationship between concentration and temp. THis got a lot of circulation in the denialist blogosphere, and even made it onto the realclimate (or climate audit) blogs--whichever is the denialist one (I don't follow too closely).I think I recall that even Steve McIntyre was duped by this one--for about a month--before someone pointed out the fallacy.=== Catch you in a couple of days....Enjoy the festivities! ~ :naughty: p.s. ...thanks Monty Python.
InfiniteNow Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Most of Venus' incremental heat is because it is closer to the sun. This is a questionable statement. I say "questionable" due to your use of the term "incremental." Of course the planets get heated by the sun. The question is, how does that heat influence the planet, and what other factors are at play? If Venus were hot simply due to being "closer to the sun," then mercury would be even hotter, which it's not. MercuryTemperature variations on Mercury are the most extreme in the solar system ranging from 90 K to 700 K. The temperature on Venus is slightly hotter but very stable. Ask an Astronomer for KIDS! - Why is Venus so hot?Venus is so hot because it is surrounded by a very thick atmosphere which is about 100 times more massive than our atmosphere here on Earth. As sunlight passes through the atmosphere it heats up the surface of Venus. Most of this heat cannot escape back into space because it is blocked by the very thick atmosphere of Venus. The heat becomes trapped and builds up to extremely high temperatures. This trapping of heat by the atmosphere is called the greenhouse effect because it is similar to how the glass in a greenhouse traps heat. The greenhouse effect on Venus causes the temperatures at its surface to reach 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius), making Venus the hottest planet in the entire solar system!
Cedars Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Indeed. CO2 does not act as a storage or generation of heat. Even in the dead of the night the atmosphere is absorbing/emitting IR. Remember, heat is not as accurate as IR in this sense.But each time an IR wave hits something, it entrophies some correct? And at night the balance is totally different with it being an all around loss. Hence the averaging of the 1367 W/m2 (or so) of noon sun in July in Minneapolis vs the 382 W/m2 (or so) in the same place at 6pm. The temperature loss (at night) is more rapid in dry climates (with no h20 to retain heat) than in wetter climates (in general). And I do remember in the mid/late 70s watching some show about the changing desert humidity in the US SW due to irrigation, swimming pools and other man made H2O introductions, and a biologist lamenting the change in the desert. So how much of the change in desert temps is related to H20? Which of course brings me back to the pieces of my former post regarding the accuracy of the temperature sources used by the USA to document temps, and just how much of that is influenced by things unrelated to CO2. And you have heard about the warmest October 2008 being influenced by bad data from Russia? Whoops! This is a common misconception. The amount is insignificant compared to the effect. Would you think it was insignificant if I added 38 drops of anthrax per one thousand drops of your drinking water and asked you to drink it? What about 3 drops? :naughty:But your math is incorrect. Its 38-39 drops out of 100,000 drops. And I hate it when people try to use something deadly like plutonium, dioxin, ddt (just some of the unrelated items I've seen in various places) in comparison to CO2. As far as using anthrax, well... "How common is anthrax and who can get it? Anthrax is most common in agricultural regions where it occurs in animals. These include South and Central America, Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. When anthrax affects humans, it is usually due to an occupational exposure to infected animals or their products. Workers who are exposed to dead animals and animal products from other countries where anthrax is more common may become infected with B. anthracis (industrial anthrax). Anthrax outbreaks occur in the United States on an annual basis in livestock and wild game animals such as deer." Disease Listing: Anthrax General Information | CDC DFBMD Lots of people wander around anthrax spores each and every day and do not contract anthrax. Its more like comparing a cup of water sitting in the sun and pouring 3-4 drops of coke in and blaming the coke for the water heating up. In actuality, the current CO2 content in the atmosphere is somewhere around 385ppm which corresponds to 0.000385 parts to each part atmosphere. Insignificant in quantity, but proven significant in effect.All the time. :naughty:Yes, one way to say it is 385 (or so) PPM. Another way to say it is 38-39 pieces in 100,000 pieces of atmospheric stuff. :naughty: Only proven with a constant source of heat as I understand it. Leave the test tube full of CO2 on the shelf and before the next workday starts, the temp in the tube is the same as the room itself (except for the closed environment variables I suppose).
Essay Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Leave the test tube full of CO2 on the shelf and before the next workday starts, the temp in the tube is the same as the room itself (except for the closed environment variables I suppose).Who cares what temp the CO2 is. You're making the same mistake that Engineerdude did with his "measuring the temp. of the golf ball" experiment.=== The question is: what temp would a perfectly insulated room be if it had a window made out of CO2 (which would reflect some of the heat back into the room during the night). So by morning the room would be a little warmer than it would be if the window were totally open to heat loss.
Cedars Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I didn’t read the paper you linked. I started to, but gave up about half way through the abstract when it said something that I knew for a fact was untrue. I assumed the author was an idiot and decided not to read further. I specifically went to your reference of figure 5. I found it on page 6, but it didn’t appear to be anything like what you were talking about which confused me until I found another figure 5 on page 8. There are, in fact, 2 figures labeled “Figure 5”. The fact that the author was unable to successfully count to six reinforced my presumptuous opinion that he was an idiot. See Post # 1175 ...and the pro-AWG people will not acknowledge or bother to critically look at this information. This is probably the most alarming reality of the pro-AGW crowd.I didn’t want to be rude. Your question shows a gigantic misunderstanding of what the greenhouse effect is. Again, my question wasnt about the greenhouse effect, it was specific about CO2 and its heat retention ability
Cedars Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Who cares what temp the CO2 is. So by morning the room would be a little warmer than it would be if the window were totally open to heat loss.Its not a window made of co2, its 38-39 particles of c02 in a window 100,000 particles big.
freeztar Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I always enjoy debating with you Cedars! :hyper: But each time an IR wave hits something, it entrophies some correct? Well, it depends on what you mean by that. In correct physical terms, energy is neither destroyed or created. And at night the balance is totally different with it being an all around loss. Hence the averaging of the 1367 W/m2 (or so) of noon sun in July in Minneapolis vs the 382 W/m2 (or so) in the same place at 6pm.Night=less solar input=less W/m2That's not surprising and would hold true across the globe with a few rare exceptions.The temperature loss (at night) is more rapid in dry climates (with no h20 to retain heat) than in wetter climates (in general).Indeed. This is because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. BUT, it's important to note that it is a positive feedback. It's also relatively stable (in total quantity) in the atmosphere. It's been scientifically noted that warmer air can hold more water, thus perpetuating the positive feedback. In climate matters, when a warming trend results in effects that induce further warming, the process is referred to as a "positive feedback"; when the effects induce cooling, the process is referred to as a "negative feedback". Because water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and because warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, the primary positive feedback involves water vapor. This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by negative feedback, which stabilizes average global temperatures. One primary negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature.[25] And I do remember in the mid/late 70s watching some show about the changing desert humidity in the US SW due to irrigation, swimming pools and other man made H2O introductions, and a biologist lamenting the change in the desert.Do you have a link to this? It sounds hokey to me. It's not hokey that man made water sources influence the local weather and ecology, but quantifying that on a local level can approach impossibility (with any credibility). So how much of the change in desert temps is related to H20?I'm not sure. :)Which desert btw? ;) Which of course brings me back to the pieces of my former post regarding the accuracy of the temperature sources used by the USA to document temps, and just how much of that is influenced by things unrelated to CO2. It's a good question!Since we started looking at climate on a world wide level (about 100 years of research) we have gained enormous amounts of knowledge. We now know that other factors are at play including other GHG (methane and H2O) and solar variability etc. All current models take these sources into account. Are we missing something? Probably. But whatever it is that we may be missing at this time does not appear to be reflected in the climate models. And you have heard about the warmest October 2008 being influenced by bad data from Russia? Whoops!No, I haven't heard about this. Please link me. :lol: But your math is incorrect. Its 38-39 drops out of 100,000 drops. EDIT: Rereading, I notice that you are referring to my quote of 38 drops of anthrax pre 1 thousand drops of water. Whoops. ;) And I hate it when people try to use something deadly like plutonium, dioxin, ddt (just some of the unrelated items I've seen in various places) in comparison to CO2. Well, I hate it when people say that something is so insignificant because of quantity, without assessing the quality. Its more like comparing a cup of water sitting in the sun and pouring 3-4 drops of coke in and blaming the coke for the water heating up.That's not a valid analogy imho. The water is heating up regardless, but the added albedo of the coke can increase this.Only proven with a constant source of heat as I understand it. Leave the test tube full of CO2 on the shelf and before the next workday starts, the temp in the tube is the same as the room itself (except for the closed environment variables I suppose). The molecules/atoms that constitute the bulk of the atmosphere: oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar); do not interact with infrared radiation significantly. While the oxygen and nitrogen molecules can vibrate, because of their symmetry these vibrations do not create any transient charge separation. Without such a transient dipole moment, they can neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant infrared absorbing gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone (O3). The same molecules are also the dominant infrared emitting molecules. CO2 and O3 have "floppy" vibration motions whose quantum states can be excited by collisions at energies encountered in the atmosphere. For example, carbon dioxide is a linear molecule, but it has an important vibrational mode in which the molecule bends with the carbon in the middle moving one way and the oxygens on the ends moving the other way, creating some charge separation, a dipole moment, thus carbon dioxide molecules can absorb IR radiation. Collisions will immediately transfer this energy to heating the surrounding gas. On the other hand, other CO2 molecules will be vibrationally excited by collisions. Roughly 5% of CO2 molecules are vibrationally excited at room temperature and it is this 5% that radiates. A substantial part of the greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide exists because this vibration is easily excited by infrared radiation.Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Essay Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Its not a window made of co2, its 38-39 particles of c02 in a window 100,000 particles big. Back on post 1207, with the graphs, it shows the blue "window" thru which heat escapes....also where CO2 absorbs....water vapor would be the insulating walls of the room. I think the analogy would be better as 100,000 molecules of insulating walls, and 38-39 molecules of window (which allow less heat out, with increasing concentration). p.s. Well really it'd be a better analogy with the fixed blue window getting clogged with 10 or 11 extra heat-reflecting CO2's (38-39 minus the original 28).
engineerdude Posted January 20, 2009 Author Report Posted January 20, 2009 Please don't shout. Solar irradiance is a forcing. Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Hansen et al. 2002 ~modest The link you have referenced above say that they model solar irradiation - not that they take into account real-world changes in it.
modest Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 The link you have referenced above say that they model solar irradiation - not that they take into account real-world changes in it. There is no reliable way of knowing real-world changes in future solar irradiance. There is reliable data from 1979-current measuring irradiance by satellite. The model I linked recycles the solar data from 1989-1998. We include solar variability in our ‘‘alternative scenario’’ for 2000–2050 with 10-year periodicity, cyclically repeating the data for January 1989 to December 1998. Thus there is no long-term solar trend in our simulations.We argue elsewhere [Hansen, 2000] that solar irradiance could be a significant climate forcing in the next 50 years, but as yet we have no reliable way of predicting future solar changes. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Hansen_etal_2.pdf Also, understand, there is a difference between the instantaneous change in a forcing in the model at any particular resolved spot on the model and the overall impact that has on climate. For example, the 11-year solar cycle does not show up on global surface temperature yearly average graph. The model considers both. We calculate both the instantaneous and adjusted forcings for most of the climate change mechanisms that we consider. The instantaneous forcing, [math]F_i[/math], is the flux change at the tropopause that occurs when the radiative constituent is changed, but the temperature is kept fixed throughout the atmosphere. The adjusted forcing, [math]F_a[/math], is the flux change after the stratospheric temperature has been allowed to adjust to a new radiative equilibrium profile. It has been shown that the adjusted forcing in general provides a better measure to judge the expected climate response [RF-CR], so we usually illustrate the adjusted forcing. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Hansen_etal_2.pdf I think what you're trying to say is that climate models do not consider daily changes in solar irradiance *at all*. In other words, the model thinks Greenland in February has the same irradiance as Argentina in August. This is very far from true. Daily changes in irradiance are considered. Models then consider how that change interacts with changing clouds and ozone and a hundred other things for each interval of time at each interval of space. Is this not your understanding? ~modest
Flying Binghi Posted January 21, 2009 Report Posted January 21, 2009 Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees. Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg. Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters. Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters. Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface." ...and whats this all about, Home - apparently most U.S. ground temperature records are crap :D methinks we can remove any so-called 'science' based on these stations from the AGW debate.
modest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Posted January 21, 2009 ...and whats this all about, Home - apparently most U.S. ground temperature records are crap :eek: methinks we can remove any so-called 'science' based on these stations from the AGW debate. FB points out a good link. It looks like work needs to be done on our temperature monitoring stations. Here is a terse description of how the data is handled from NASA's GISS site: This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which has now increased to about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Still further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which shows largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean). Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001), including use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations... The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.) Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) For a more complete look, but not exactly current, there is: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf ~modest
Flying Binghi Posted January 21, 2009 Report Posted January 21, 2009 Not only the U.S. stations are mainly crap, over in Italy there is the same problem. A little research via - SurfaceStations.org: A tour of Italy Watts Up With That? An interesting comment - "Bearing in mind the huge diversity of climate even within Italy it is difficult to choose a single figure that represents Italy and amply illustrates the nonsense of Global temperatures!" modest, via http://surfacestations.org/ there are rural WX stations in the U.S. showing a cooling trend ?
Zythryn Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 FB, I would be surprised if there were not stations showing a cooling trend.You don't seem to understand the idea of GW.GW is theorized to be leading to an increase in the annual global average temperature. Added temperature means more energy in the atmosphere. This means more dramatic weather events and a shift in global weather patterns. Exactly what those are, we don't know yet. They may not be as severe as some are saying, they may be more severe.Now, if you don't agree with that, could you give us your own version of what you believe the GW theory is?
Cedars Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 Well, it depends on what you mean by that. In correct physical terms, energy is neither destroyed or created.First, I am extremely tired so it makes it more difficult to articulate. Not exactly where I was going with this. More like you can reflect a light off a mirror to get it to your plants, but they dont grow as well. Just like you put them outside and they do better than in the window (shaded or not) because the process of going thru the glass affects the light (which is why it is recommended you either supplement light for lizards in captivity or you convert a window to plastic to allow a better quality light through for their needs). Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces. IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect. Do you have a link to this? It sounds hokey to me. It's not hokey that man made water sources influence the local weather and ecology, but quantifying that on a local level can approach impossibility (with any credibility). Volume 12, Issue 3 (March 1999)Journal of Climate AMS Online Journals Display Figures The trend line is there but hard to see in black and white. Urban Irrigation Has Increased Phoenix Area's Rainfall | LiveScience The original author which the above is based on states more study needs to be done to calculate the irrigation effect more accurately.It's a good question!Since we started looking at climate on a world wide level (about 100 years of research) we have gained enormous amounts of knowledge. We now know that other factors are at play including other GHG (methane and H2O) and solar variability etc. All current models take these sources into account. Are we missing something? Probably. But whatever it is that we may be missing at this time does not appear to be reflected in the climate models.Here is where we part ways. All Current models Claim to take these sources into account. What remains to be proven is whether they have correctly assessed these other factors. I do not believe they have. I think (based on real world experience) they under account the UHI. I can tell when the wind is blowing directly over the twin cities to my house when there is a warm front north of me. I can feel the heat difference a few degrees change in the wind brings. To describe this effect a little closer. The road on the south side of my property was tarred two summers ago. My former renter worked outside and was very happy to lose the dust (after 3 full summers of dealing with it). Last summer, his first full summer of tar he commented to me about how much hotter it was. How he could feel the heat blowing off the road. He was approx 60 feet from the road and this heat was passing a tree lined fence (8 foot tall fence). So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)? There seems to be a LOT of faith in the data without real accountabilty. Fact is the earth has been warming (generally) since the end of the last ice age. Theres plenty of studies out there indicating each warming episode has been (generally) warmer than the previous one. No, I haven't heard about this. Please link me. :)And its not the first time skeptics have notified them of problems: GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data Watts Up With That? I posted this in post #1184 regarding surfacestations.org :... as to the quality of data and questionable conditions surrounding these stations who we rely on to provide accurate temperature data. Besides the fact that large numbers of stations have been removed from the grid, I was shocked to see the majority of MN weather stations who provide data on surface temps rated a 4 or lower on the CRN Site Quality Rating. 2 = CRN 5 (error >= 5C)14 = CRN 4 (error >= 2C)4 = CRN 3 (error 1C)4 = CRN 20 = CRN 12 had been closed in the 90s4 not surveyed1 needed re-survey so not included in rating list. And thats just the MN stations. 526 have been surveyed (43.7%)687 need to be surveyed Only 13% come in with a CRN 1 or 2 rating.19% have a CRN 3 rating57% have a CRN 4 rating12% have a CRN 5 rating So 32% of the ratings fall between good and marginal.69% have suspect data (in my opinion). How can you be so sure the warming has been accurately documented? Even if surfacestations exaggerates the problem, half the temp variable and its still alot of stations with questionable data. How exactly are these variables handled? Why are these stations not being improved so data fixing doesnt need to be applied? Why not get quality data at the source? Well, I hate it when people say that something is so insignificant because of quantity, without assessing the quality.So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble? How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT? What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree? And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede. CO2 I see nothing in its chemistry that makes it more heat trapping than any other carbon based particle. Less than I am; being as my external temp has less variability than the average low temp of Minnesota in July. Not only that but I am heat emitting!! See the real answer is cutting back the number of people! This aint CFCs. This aint dioxin. This aint R2d4. Its at best a microscopic piece of soot thats been fused to oxygen via the combustion chamber of my GEO. That's not a valid analogy imho. The water is heating up regardless, but the added albedo of the coke can increase this.Prove it. :) I am not saying it does. I am saying this is the analogy of the OMG were all dying crowd. So lets ban coke! BTW, what will the carbon tax be on Pepsi? That concerns me greatly. OK, Now I am just too tired to carry on. Gawd I hate working for a living!
Recommended Posts