Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Global warming, the all purpose planetary cleaner!

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 24, 2007 10:03 AM

The two papers measured different things. Salinity has increased at the surface, but it has decreased in the water column as a whole. The reporters were wrong to flatly attribute both effects to global warming, because they are experimental results and not climate models. But it is very possible that global warming does cause both changes.

Those interested in a scientific comparison of these two studies, instead of brain-dead snark from Iain Murray et al, should go to realclimate.org:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/saltier-or-not/

Posted by at August 24, 2007 10:12 AM

Short of building Uncle H.G.'s time machine, can any one the global warming alarmists prove that this isn't a cycle that has been repeating for millions of years? More salinity, less salinity as the ice caps thaw and refreeze? We know that there have been cold and hot periods before, it's a proven part of the geologic record. As that happens the oceans were bound to change salinity right?

BTW, "who" caused those cycles of hot / freezing? If all past cycles were natural, why is this one man made? When Algore and all his Hollywood buddies give up their private jets, I'll buy a hybrid. I am NOT holding my breath.

Posted by Steve at August 24, 2007 10:56 AM

We know that there have been cold and hot periods before, it's a proven part of the geologic record.

That's right, Steve, the geological record is our "time machine". We know that the entire Florida Peninsula was under water for tens of millions of years, in fact for most of its existence.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/guerry/GLY4155/sp35/fig1213.gif

If Florida returned to the ocean, would you just shrug it off as a natural cycle?

BTW, "who" caused those cycles of hot / freezing?

We know who doubled the CO2 in the air this time around. The question is what we have invited with that global alteration. Arguing that the planet was hotter in the past, or that the air was more carboneous in the past, won't make the question go away. Just as, if there is smog in Spokane, you could point out that Mount Saint Helens also cast a pall over that city, but it won't clear the air to say so.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 11:40 AM

You know, whenever I see a reference to realclimate.org, I simply move on to the next commenter. Anyone who hasn't seen the site, I urge you to visit it for yourself and see what I mean...the place is simply one big festival for the greens to drink deep of the kool-aid. The analysis is awful, the methodology fails on so many levesl that I wouldnt accept it from my students in a basic methods course, and most of what they do is a masterpiece of out-of-context quotes and cherry-picking of data.

However, unlike the greenies...I urge you to go see it for yourself, and make your own evaluation...

Posted by Scott at August 24, 2007 11:43 AM

The analysis is awful

Don't just speak in generalities, wise man. Explain the sheer "awfulness" of their discussion of the salinity of the North Atlantic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/saltier-or-not/

If the specific citations to realclimate.org were good, it wouldn't matter what kind of "festival" it is.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 11:53 AM

If Florida returned to the ocean, would you just shrug it off as a natural cycle?

Speaking as a resident, I wouldn't be in a position to "shrug if off," but I'd have no problem believing that it was part of a natural cycle. Are you saying that just because there are dire social consequences for something, that it must be unnatural? If not, what are you saying?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 24, 2007 12:00 PM

Realclimate.org.......Wickepedia.com.

Both caused by Global Warming, as is the billions of dollars of taxpayer money to fund pork projects that don't affect Global Warming. For instance the political push for dropping the tax deferment in one state for house over 3000 feet.

Arguing that the planet was hotter in the past, or that the air was more carboneous in the past, won't make the question go away.

Nope, you're right there, because those that stand to make a profit on hysteria won't let it go away.

Posted by Mac at August 24, 2007 12:19 PM

The point is that it doesn't matter what's "natural" or "unnatural"; what matters is what humanity can cause or prevent. Humanity accidentally doubled atmospheric CO2. Whether "natural" or not, it's a big change and it looks like trouble, because accidental changes to a planet don't usually help its current residents. The question is how much trouble and how soon. It should wake you up that flood maps of Florida sit on the conference table.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 12:29 PM

The point is that it doesn't matter what's "natural" or "unnatural"; what matters is what humanity can cause or prevent.

Well, one wouldn't have gotten that message from the statement that I quoted.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 24, 2007 12:33 PM

Acutally its not double. The current estimate is that CO2 concentration was 280 ppm in the pre anthropogenic era and now is up to about 380 ppm. That is about a 43% increase.

Second, can you describe accurately what the mechanism is how CO2 increases global warming? This has to be done without resorting to realclimate.org

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at August 24, 2007 01:04 PM

Acutally its not double. The current estimate is that CO2 concentration was 280 ppm in the pre anthropogenic era and now is up to about 380 ppm. That is about a 43% increase.

You're right; that was off the top of my head and I misstated it. It is up by almost half as of 2007. Many of us will live to see it double, though; that is what I was remembering. The correct numbers are plotted here.

http://www.greengrasscutters.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/CO2_concentrations.jpg.w560h346.jpg

Second, can you describe accurately what the mechanism is how CO2 increases global warming?

Certainly in outline it's not hard to explain; it's the greenhouse effect. Many people have analyzed the precise mechanism for a long time, and of course that's an open-ended topic.

Since you said, "you", though, you have phrased it as a cross-examination that is supposed to convince you person to person. That is completely the wrong philosophy, because in questions of science, you can win a courtroom debate and still lose in real life.

For instance, when Mount Saint Helens was about to blow, there was a guy who lived near the mountain named Harry Truman. He was waiting for the experts to convince him. He had little patience for "cheesy Democrats" who hawked unproven theories about volcanic eruptions. He blamed media bias too. He won the debate, at least with himself as the audience. Then the volcano buried him.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 01:18 PM

Forgive me if this is a dense question, but:

it's the greenhouse effect.

I see this a lot, and I just don't understand it. The greenhouse effect is caused by sunlight coming in, getting converted to infrared on the ground, and then not being able to escape, right? Well, isn't it a problem that most of the sun's output is in infrared?

I must be missing something, but won't a higher CO2 content atmosphere block more radiation from reaching Earth? So the higher CO2 goes, the cooler Earth gets because it is effectively shut off from half the sun's heat.

For a real greenhouse, this doesn't happen of course - the atmosphere has already blocked the IR, so only the escaping IR has changed. But when you talk about changing the entire atmosphere, surely that analysis changes dramatically?

Curious if someone can point out the flaw, here.

Posted by David Summers at August 24, 2007 01:25 PM

Methane, on the other hand, has fully doubled.

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/images/ave_methaneconc.gif

Of course, it points to trouble in the same direction as the CO2.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 01:25 PM

Acutally its not double. The current estimate is that CO2 concentration was 280 ppm in the pre anthropogenic era and now is up to about 380 ppm. That is about a 43% increase.

Actually, that's about a 35% increase.

Second, can you describe accurately what the mechanism is how CO2 increases global warming? This has to be done without resorting to realclimate.org.

Effect at ground level is minimal. But reduces somewhat the amount heat higher in the atmosphere radiating into space which warms the entire atmosphere somewhat. There may be measurable secondary effects like increased plant cover (photosynthesis tends to be more efficient at large CO2 concentrations, excluding possibly C4 and CAM photosynthesis); the broadening of spectrum absorption of CO2 and other atmospheric molecules (as described by Dennis) from increase in temperature; and changes in sea acidity.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 24, 2007 01:36 PM

But when you talk about changing the entire atmosphere, surely that analysis changes dramatically?

Of course it changes the analysis dramatically. The right way to do it is to measure the radiation transport from top to bottom, in both directions, and take the difference. They measure it with cameras with thousands of spectral channels. That is what the AIRS satellite instrument does in the outward direction. Other cameras measure the solar spectrum before it hits the atmosphere, as well as when it hits clouds and the ground.

When you put together the balance sheet is that no stage of it is clear vs black; it's all a game of fractions. If you add more CO2, a fraction more radiation is caught on the way down; a fraction more is caught on the way up. The result is more net heating, unless other changes to the ground or air cancel it.

Curious if someone can point out the flaw, here.

The flaw is your supposition that scientists don't know to deploy spectral cameras and make a balance sheet.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 01:38 PM

As for entering into a debate with the anonymous one regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of realclimate, I decline. Anyone who cannot be troubled to give a name (hiding much?) obviously has little to offer in the way of debate. Much more to the point...never wrestle with a pig, you get filthy, and the pig enjoys it...

As for the merits...I repeat my suggestion to all here...go see it yourselves...

Posted by Scott at August 24, 2007 01:50 PM

Dear nameless,

If Florida returned to the ocean, would you just shrug it off as a natural cycle?

That's pretty simplistic, but yes. What choice do I have? The true believers in G/W have said we can't stop the rise now anyway. If ocean levels rise to levels that threaten humans, it won't happen during tonights 6 o'clock news. If it happens over 100 or 1000 years, depending on who is right in your camp, then folks will move away from the encroaching water. Just like they have in history past because of climate or natural changes. Human migration never ceases. Sometimes it's voluntary, sometimes it's forced.

We know who doubled the CO2 in the air this time around.

We do? No the global warming alarmists say we do. Your argument is circular. I'm right because I say I'm right, still doesn't make you right. It doesn't work for those of us who doubt any human influence, why does it work for the believers?

Posted by Steve at August 24, 2007 03:00 PM

When Algore and all his Hollywood buddies give up their private jets, I'll buy a hybrid.

Can't you do the right thing anyway? Why be so knee jerk reactive in your decisions?

This has to be done without resorting to realclimate.org

Can't handle it Dennis? Come on aren't you the guy with the Quantum feathers? You can strut around them surely with your fancy nutty theory on CO2.

Posted by Offside at August 24, 2007 05:35 PM

"The right thing" is... what exactly?

What am I to conclude about the private jet flyers, when they tell me not to emit so much CO2?

Are they hypocrites? Liars?

Are they akin to the wino who tells me not to drink alcohol to excess?

When the elites start to behave like there is really a problem, then I will pay more attention to their demands. Not before.

Posted by MG at August 24, 2007 07:12 PM

Are they akin to the wino who tells me not to drink alcohol to excess?

And you'll keep drinking to excess until the wino stops drinking?

Posted by Offside at August 24, 2007 07:40 PM

Certainly in outline it's not hard to explain; it's the greenhouse effect. Many people have analyzed the precise mechanism for a long time, and of course that's an open-ended topic.

The purpose of the question is straightforward, that is to see if you actually understand what is going on with CO2. It turns out that you don't or at least are unwilling to give details beyond "its a greenhouse gas" while following up with a complete non sequitor argument that is is crafted to exhibit your superiority while denigrating anyone who does not agree with your position on the subject.

How about we try again. Do you understand the exact mechanism related to increased CO2 that produces greater warming? This is a question that is crafted to see if you understand what you are talking about or are just parroting someone else's talking points.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 24, 2007 07:50 PM

The flaw is your supposition that scientists don't know to deploy spectral cameras and make a balance sheet.

The flaw is that the scientists are comfortable within their stovepipes and do not consider possible influences from outside of their areas of expertise.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 24, 2007 08:00 PM

Can't handle it Dennis? Come on aren't you the guy with the Quantum feathers? You can strut around them surely with your fancy nutty theory on CO2.

Well Mr. anonymous coward lets see you lay out the calculations related to doppler broadening, and pressure broadening and show where there is no temperature dependence.

They can be obtained from any textbook on the quantum theory of light.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 24, 2007 08:03 PM

The flaw is your supposition that scientists don't know to deploy spectral cameras and make a balance sheet.

Actually, no, the flaw is you saying it is a simple greenhouse effect when it is not. Perhaps a complex greenhouse like effect - but it does not seem to be something you can just wave your hands at and say it is obvious...

Posted by David Summers at August 24, 2007 08:21 PM

Actually, no, the flaw is you saying it is a simple greenhouse effect when it is not.

As I said, in outline it is simple. Although it is true that much of the sun's radiation is infrared, an even larger fraction of the outgoing earthshine is infrared. So infrared absorbers like CO2 block more of the rays going out than the rays going in.

In order to understand this story, you only have to see that there are ratios, that the fraction of one thing is larger than the fraction of another thing. You don't even need to know what the ratios are, although of course for a precise calculation you would want to know.

If you want a more precise version of the story, the question is not what fraction of solar or earthshine radiation is infrared in general. The question is what part of it is in the CO2 absorption bands, which are only part of the infrared range.

http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png

It isn't "most" for either solar radiation or earthshine, but it is a larger fraction of the latter.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 09:40 PM

If you take a look at your own graph you will see that 100% of the radiation in the bands absorbed by CO2 is already been absorbed. There are caveats to this and that is where the controversy is today.

Also, if you look at your own graph the amount of energy absorbed by water vapor is far more than that absorbed by CO2. As the graph goes to the left the greater the energy content in the emitted radiation, so water covers both the higher end and lower end of the spectrum (up to about one micron).

I still have not seen if you understand what the exact mode of CO2 absorption is. It is clear that you don't see in the graph that you produce that water vapor absorbs more energy than CO2 by a wide margin.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 24, 2007 10:11 PM

If you take a look at your own graph you will see that 100% of the radiation in the bands absorbed by CO2 is already been absorbed.

And re-emitted. If you wear good thermal underwear, then it will absorb almost all heat from your torso. But you will be much warmer still if you also wear an overcoat, because the underwear emits its own heat. The atmosphere has a dry "overcoat" on top of the wet, lower troposphere. At those high altitudes, CO2 doesn't compete with water vapor for absorption, and its own absorption isn't saturated either.

You keep bringing up an 80-year-old argument that conflates underwear with overcoats. It certainly isn't where "the controversy is today". The controversy that you have in mind ended 50 years ago, when scientists first made altitude-dependent radiation models.

It is also true that water vapor produces more total greenhouse effect than CO2. But humanity has radically changed atmospheric CO2 and it has only barely changed atmospheric water vapor. Just as, if you overheat because you put on too many coats, then fixed reasons that you are hot --- for instance because mammals are warm-blooded --- are not the issue.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 11:21 PM

Another way to say it, Dennis, is that the graph that I linked before shows the total absorption of a sun ray in a straight line to the ground, without adding re-emission. Here is a graph of the earth's radiation spectrum from space.

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/habitable-planets/images/ra5in12-earth-spectrum.jpg

As the graph shows, the spectrum isn't black from carbon dioxide. There is a dent in the intensity in the 15 micron absorption band, but it isn't all the way to zero.

You're basing your conclusions on the wrong graph.

Posted by at August 24, 2007 11:37 PM

If all the CO2 is reemitted it does not contribute to a temperature rise can it. CO2 has an effect on temperature because it translates radiant energy into mechanical motion, hence a temperature rise.

Your little homilies mean nothing here as they have no correlation to reality.

If what you are saying about CO2 in the stratosphere is happening, why is it not warming at those high altitudes? The only way that more absorption can contribute to warming of any type is by the translation of that radiation into mechanical motion. That is not happening.

The argument is not 80 years old as current textbooks on infrared spectroscopy still say that CO2 and water vapor are saturated in the infrared and even the graph that you linked to does as well.

How about explaining with some physics the exact mechanism whereby increased CO2 contributes to warming, not more parroting of what someone has told you.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 24, 2007 11:42 PM

As the graph shows, the spectrum isn't black from carbon dioxide. There is a dent in the intensity in the 15 micron absorption band, but it isn't all the way to zero.

You're basing your conclusions on the wrong graph.

Nice graph. However, there is no context to that graph at all so what the heck are the conditions under which that absorption spectra was taken?

Also, just in case you did not notice, the absorption of water vapor is much more at wavelengths much more energetic than the 15 micron CO2 band.

Under what conditions was that spectra taken? What time of year? What area of the world? What time of day? What altitude?

Without context there is no science. Your original graph is the one that is reproduced in infrared spectroscopy text books and the spectra were taken at ground level. You have to do much better than what you are doing. You still have not provided any information on what drives CO2 absorption resulting from and increase in the partial pressure of CO2.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 24, 2007 11:50 PM

If what you are saying about CO2 in the stratosphere is happening, why is it not warming at those high altitudes?

Except that I didn't say "stratosphere". CO2 in the stratosphere does heat it there, but it has to compete with thicker CO2 in the upper troposphere. A warm overcoat has a cooler surface than a light overcoat, and that is exactly what you see in the stratosphere. Global warming warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere. The greenhouse effect strengthens in the upper troposphere, even though the lower troposphere is blacked out by water vapor.

The argument is not 80 years old as current textbooks on infrared spectroscopy still say that CO2 and water vapor are saturated in the infrared

As well they should, if they are talking about the ground. But they don't describe the upper troposphere that way, because it would be false.

Posted by at August 25, 2007 12:05 AM

The greenhouse effect strengthens in the upper troposphere, even though the lower troposphere is blacked out by water vapor.

Ok how about some definitions.

What is your definition of the upper troposphere? What altitude?

What is your definition of the troposphere?

Again, what is the exact explanation for the increase in warming with the increase in CO2. Use physics, not quaint metaphors.

Any kind of warming will warm the troposphere so that is a non sequitor.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 25, 2007 12:50 AM

Every time this comes up here, I ask:

Whatever happened to "The Coming Ice Age," and "Acid Rain?"

Any takers this time?

Posted by Norm at August 25, 2007 02:32 AM

Offside,

Nice non-sequitur!

I was asking, and non-rhetorically, what moral standing I should give to global ____ alarmists, when they don't practice what they preach.

I offered three alternatives:

Liar

Hypocrite

Someone who is so damaged by the activity that they can't stop, but are an effective example of what not to do.

And from that, you assert that I propose to keep doing the damaging activity?

WTF?

How about you pull your head out of your fourth point of contact, and offer a REAL reply.

Posted by MG at August 25, 2007 03:21 AM

Greenhouse warming occurs for the same reason it happens in a real greenhouse.

The peak of solar radiation is slap in the middle of the visible spectrum - which, incidentally, is pretty easy to understand; wouldn't you expect eyes to use the radiation in greatest abundance?

A fraction of the visible light is absorbed; some is reflected. That portion of it which is absorbed is re-radiated at much longer wavelength, in the infrared band, which CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapour absorb. The more total absorbing molecules, the more gets re-absorbed in the atmosphere.

Simple really; of course the devil is in the details. I don't believe that anyone is saying that CO2 is going to cause catastrophic effects by itself. What they are saying is that increasing CO2 raises temperature, which raises the levels of all three of the others by various mechanisms, which increases temperature...

This is an example of a positive feedback loop, which any control engineer will tell you is undesirable. Of course, there are competing negative feedbacks, such as higher water vapour leading to more clouds and thus more reflectivity and less solar radiation reaching ground. There are also reinforcing positive feedbacks along the same lines - higher temperature leads to less snow and ice cover which leads to more absorption...

Which is why we really don't know what increasing CO2 levels is going to do, in detail. We just plain don't know. Simulations are possible, and will get gradually better as Moore's Law does its work, but the data isn't in yet. The only way to be sure is to do the experiment - which we are de facto doing right now. I would prefer this experiment to stop, as one of the possible results is a much less comfortable world to live in - much more violent and unpredictable, if not actually much warmer, climate and weather.

I would much more prefer it to stop if I lived in Holland, Florida, South-East England, Bangladesh or Tuvalu. Or New Orleans or Galveston, for that matter, for slightly different reasons.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 25, 2007 06:11 AM

Well, I've lived in Florida all my life, but I'm not nailed to the ground here, and in fact I plan to move soon. See, that's the thing -- no one is forced to live in low-lying areas, we choose to do so, and take the consequences instead of screaming that everyone in the world change their behavior so we won't have to bestir ourselves. It's called "adaptability," a trait in humans we used to be proud of. If you ask me the global warming hysterics are nothing but a bunch of unimaginative non-starters (or what Ayn Rand called "second handers" -- people unable to think or do for themselves without direction from others) and therefore should no more be listened to than a three-year old who demands more cookies for dinner should be listened to.

By the way, the idea that Florida's above-water state is permanent is not something I have ever heard or worried about. My father used to rack: "In a hundred years, Florida will be under water anyway so it won't matter." The only thing constant is change.

Posted by Andrea Harris at August 25, 2007 08:01 AM

Andrea, bully for you. Sure, you can move. However, there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who can't - because they can't afford it. Most Bangladeshis for example - who incidentally aren't the cause of the problem but will be the ones to suffer.

So people in that unfortunate country will be punished severely for something someone else did. I thought one of the things America was about was fairness?

And in any case: Sure, you can run away from low-lying areas. But can you run away from the weather?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 25, 2007 08:30 AM

Fletcher

At least you are in the ballpark. However, water vapor absorbs the vast majority of infrared radiation. Look at the numbers for the 290k blackbody curve plotted against the absorption spectra. Also, the pressure increased rate of absorption is calculated against the total atmospheric pressure, not just the partial pressure of CO2.

So if increased CO2 is the culprit then it has to be a highly non linear function, which is highly unlikely or the planet would have gone over the climate edge long ago.

You can actually calculate this function, if you have the right equations and from what I have done already, the energy is just not there.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 25, 2007 10:23 AM

Dennis,
I would hope you understand that the partial pressure of water vapor is dependent on temperature, while that of CO2 is not; and that the troposphere has a finite lapse rate, both in temperature and pressure. Otherwise the source of your studied confusion would be clear. (i.e. the black body temperature of the Earth is 255 K).

Norm,
Please point to the peer reviewed articles predicting a near term ice age. Hint: they just aren't there.

And the absence of acid raid: that would be evidence that imposed Big Government solutions can improve the environment without automatically Bringing America To Its Knees (see the Clean Air Act).

Andrea,
You assume the Canadians are going to let the Floridian Boat People in (aside from the substantial ex-canuck contingent). They take the Stanley Cup seriously up there.

Posted by Duncan Young at August 25, 2007 05:20 PM

I would hope you understand that the partial pressure of water vapor is dependent on temperature, while that of CO2 is not; and that the troposphere has a finite lapse rate, both in temperature and pressure. Otherwise the source of your studied confusion would be clear. (i.e. the black body temperature of the Earth is 255 K).

Are you certain about that? Are you really certain? Absolutely certain? Studied confusion.... Hmmm... Are you quite 100% certain that you are not the one that has not studied all of the physics involved?

You might want to check some of the calculations involved.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 25, 2007 06:08 PM

Fletcher: oh please, try the "poor trapped brown people" ploy somewhere else. Bangladesh is mostly a giant river estuary and as such has never been a flood-free, stable place to live. The Bangladeshis live there because it is also, like most river estuaries, incredibly fertile. In other word, they make a trade-off, the way human beings have throughout history. Don't treat them like helpless pawns that need the White Man to save them.

Duncan: what the hell are you talking about? Who mentioned Canada? Why would "Floridian boat people" go all the way there when we could just float to high ground much closer to us? If that was a joke it made no sense to me.

Posted by Andrea Harris at August 25, 2007 06:52 PM

Andrea,
Thank you for your very wise statement. May I paraphase it?

General Petraeus: oh please, try the "poor trapped brown people" ploy somewhere else. Iraq is mostly a giant religious battleground and as such has never been a violence-free, stable place to live. The Iraqis live there because it is also, like many inhospitable yet well traveled lands, incredibly full of oil/full of slightly different versions of Allah. In other word, they make a trade-off, the way human beings have throughout history. Don't treat them like helpless pawns that need the White Man to save them.

Endlessly recyclable.

And it was a joke - although don't expect Ohio to be of any help ether.

Posted by Duncan Young at August 25, 2007 10:14 PM

Dennis:
I'm 100% sure you haven't reinvented radiative transfer.

The earth has a finite albedo (30%). Given the required energy balance in that case, the appropriate altitude for your calculations is where the air temperature is at 255 K; i. e. about 6 km up.

I think you'll find the absolute humidity is pretty damn low up there.

Otherwise we all burn up or freeze (conservation of energy being what it is).

Posted by Duncan Young at August 25, 2007 10:27 PM

The earth has a finite albedo (30%). Given the required energy balance in that case, the appropriate altitude for your calculations is where the air temperature is at 255 K; i. e. about 6 km up.

Did I say anything about relative humidity? What I said is that the equations governing the only possible method whereby increased partial pressure of CO2 can effect climate is temperature dependent. This underlies the radiative transfer equations. The difference in radiative transfer that is talked about is from the broadening of the CO2 lines. Well guess what that is temperature dependent and the mixed pressure/temperature dependency of the pressure broadened lines are dependent upon the total atmospheric pressure, not the partial pressure of CO2.

Also, 19,000 feet is not that far up, there are extensive measurements at even higher levels and water vapor is still a factor. There is a tremendous body of knowledge taken at 35,000 feet, which was the normal service operating altitude of the B-29.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 25, 2007 10:48 PM

Water still a factor (you are still in the troposphere), but far from radiative saturation. Are you trying to say that CO2 is in radiative saturation throughout the entire troposphere? And thus increases in global CO2 can't raise surface temperatures?

Beause if that's true I got beach front property on Venus to sell you. If a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm can't warm a planet due to self saturation, an increase to 90 bar (at 700 K) won't do anything.

Posted by Duncan Young at August 25, 2007 11:38 PM

Andrea, what you are really saying seems to be that it is justifiable to make unhabitable several entire countries and large parts of others, and displace hundreds of millions of people from their homes, and probably kill a good many of them in the ensuing chaos - so Americans can continue wasting energy.

Or put even more succinctly: "Screw you, we're OK."

Of course, the American Imperium can probably get away with that - for now. However, after you've flooded several countries, don't expect to be safe anywhere abroad UNLESS you are going with the legions.

If humanity is a family, then Americans are a cross between spoiled brats and the school bully.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 26, 2007 12:32 AM

What, I wonder, is the proof that rising CO2 has caused rising temperature, rather than (say) the reverse, or both being the result of some third factor?

Correlation does not causation make, you know.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 26, 2007 01:35 AM

Ah, Duncan. "The Coming Ice Age" came before "Acid Rain," which of course came before "Global Warming," which is now morphing into "Climate Change" (Hey, we had Climate Change this morning! It was colder!) Gotta do better than "Climate Change;" that won't fly far.

Don't know how old you are, but the Coming Ice Age hysteria started around 30 years ago or so. And I did not in fact narrow it down to "near term." I didn't make that particular specification. Don't move the goalposts.

Any of us who are old enough, definitely remember that particular piece of hysteria, as well as the Acid Rain one. But the internet wasn't around (well, Arapanet was, but us civilians didn't generally have access to it), so many related articles aren't available.

But just for the heck of it I did a Yahoo! search for "the coming ice age" and... OMG! look at all these hits! Bejeebus! It's still coming! 2-mile thick ice over Chicago! Boston and NYC gone!

There's so much BS floating around, and there has been for over 30 years, that it would take something stronger than anything I've read so far to convince me. Too many agendas, too many people chasing around government grant money. After going through all these hysterical predictions, we grow a bit more wiser, and question the motives (and money) behind organizations and individuals making these claims.

I can go back farther than The Coming Ice Age. How about the Cuyahoga River catching fire in Cleveland? Now that was a Stunt! Real publicity catcher. Whose agenda did that help? How come more rivers haven't caught fire?

Posted by Norm at August 26, 2007 01:57 AM

Forgot this (senior moment again):
"The Coming Ice Age" had to be debunked to make "Global Warming" credible. That was easy.

So pretty soon we can expect "Global Warming" to be debunked to make room for "Climate Change."

Posted by Norm at August 26, 2007 02:10 AM

If humanity is a family, then Americans are a cross between spoiled brats and the school bully.

Whatever. Now stop whining and hand over your lunch money before we beat the snot out of you.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 26, 2007 02:38 AM

What, I wonder, is the proof that rising CO2 has caused rising temperature, rather than (say) the reverse, or both being the result of some third factor?

We know with certainty the cause of the current CO2 increase. It's largely due to fossil fuel combustion. Not even the fossil fuel companies dispute this.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 26, 2007 04:38 AM

Carl, you did that to the UK sixty years ago.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 26, 2007 05:25 AM

"Of course, the American Imperium can probably get away with that - for now. However, after you've flooded several countries, don't expect to be safe anywhere abroad UNLESS you are going with the legions."
Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 26, 2007 12:32 AM

Like anyone from England can talk about how unfair the actions of the USA are to the people in India. England only has those little guilty pleasures like, genocide, human rights violations, exploitation of labor and resources.

Just think of the head start we'd all have on carbon sequestration if the UK hadn't of cut down all those trees.

Posted by Josh Reiter at August 26, 2007 05:35 AM

Duncan: oh, you're a jerk. That explains it.

Fletcher: I didn't realize you were part of the America-controls-the-world class. The heck with your lunch money - send me all your money. I've got an SUV or two to buy, and keeping those engines going 24/7's gonna take a lot of oil.

Josh: since when did the British engage in genocide? I happen to think that the British Empire was one of the best things that happened to the world, and its collapse one of the worst. The only genocide was engaged in by the leftists that helped bring it down.

Posted by Andrea Harris at August 26, 2007 05:45 AM

It is in radiative saturation in the troposphere. I think that you may have a bit of unstudied confusion about this subject. The principal thesis that I have seen related to the increase in CO2 is that the increase in partial pressure of CO2 broadens the individual absorption lines. However, from what I have seen in the textbooks on pressure broadening, the amount of broadening is proportional to the total atmospheric pressure as well as to the square root of temperature. Therefore an increase in partial pressure from 0.028 percent to 0.04 percent of the total atmospheric concentration is trivial and it is dependent upon temperature as well, which makes it primarily a feedback not a forcing.

Of course increasing CO2 from parts per million to 90% of the atmosphere increases the pressure broadening dramatically.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 26, 2007 09:54 AM

"If humanity is a family, then Americans are a cross between spoiled brats and the school bully."

Is this the SAME Fletcher Christian that has been calling for the whole-scale destruction of Arabia, with nukes, no less?

Tell me, Mr. Christian, what is your conclusion if humanity is NOT a family?

What if humanity is in fact a bunch of warring tribes?

What if the displaced populations occur because of Chinese CO2 emissions, and not because of US emissions? Will you be making it necessary for Chinese legions to assist their citizens across the globe?

To all others, I regret that the O/T interchange is necessary. I have little patience for Brit poseurs projecting their self-loathing onto me and my tribe, the Al-Ameriki. F.C., it isn't the fault of Americans that you English have lost control over your own country.

Lend-Lease (something you griped about before), saved your grandparents. It is too bad you lack the character to honor their sacrifices by growing up.

PS: I, too, want your lunch money. In exchange, I will agree not to burn down my house, and I will issue a certificate of carbon credits, so you can continue to justify your existence to your EU overlords.

Posted by MG at August 26, 2007 10:21 AM

We know with certainty the cause of the current CO2 increase. It's largely due to fossil fuel combustion. Not even the fossil fuel companies dispute this.

Certainty, Bah! Not to Wingo. And in any case 99.99% certain leaves a huge margin for error.

Let's not ruffle Wingo's peacock feathers here. Once he's written his seminal paper concocting how CO2, due to various quantum effects actually acts has a global cooling effect, he will be famous.

Dennis, please hurry up with those calculations will you? The ghosts of Schrodinger and Dirac are waiting in the wings. Please publish it at this site first, so we can share in your reflected glory. I mean, you can surely put off obfuscating every GW thread in the interests of science, can't you?

Posted by Offside at August 26, 2007 12:01 PM

Dennis,
Do you accept that the air gets thinner and colder as you get higher? And that no matter how much you heat the atmosphere, there is always going to be a part of the atmosphere that has low pressure and is cold?

Raising the concentration of CO2 raises the altitude that CO2 desaturates and thus can effectively reradiate to space at that magical 255 K required to maintain energy balance. Just through Physics 101 adiabatic heating, that raises surface temperature.

It's just not that complicated. The rest is details.

Posted by Duncan Young at August 26, 2007 12:32 PM

We know with certainty the cause of the current CO2 increase. It's largely due to fossil fuel combustion. Not even the fossil fuel companies dispute this.

Certainty, Bah! Not to Wingo. And in any case 99.99% certain leaves a huge margin for error.

In the interest of accuracy I have said nothing about the cause of the increase in CO2. This may be another case of unstudied confusion that I am happy to correct for you.

Lets see, how about you provide the calculations and prove me wrong. They are in any textbook related to the Quantum theory of light. Wouldn't this give you more pleasure? You could emerge from the shadows and show the world how wrong I am and how smart you are.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 26, 2007 12:36 PM

Do you accept that the air gets thinner and colder as you get higher? And that no matter how much you heat the atmosphere, there is always going to be a part of the atmosphere that has low pressure and is cold?

Absolutely.

I think that you are confusing adabatic heating/cooling, which is fundamentally a convective process with CO2 absorption and reradiation, which is fundamentally a radiative process. Radiative transfer of energy it based on the difference in temperature between the surface of the Earth and the 4k cosmic background. What you seem to be indicating is that at some point in the upper atmosphere (where CO2 is no longer saturated) that this constitutes a boundary layer. At that altitude it is much colder than the surface so radiative transfer from the Earth's surface continues even though the altitude of that saturation point changes.

The only possible difference is that through more absorption/remission cycles that the mechanical heat transfer increases. This is the pressure dependency and is proportional to total atmospheric pressure not the partial pressure of CO2 so again the effect can only be in the small percentiles. Also, water vapor at the lower altitudes, especially in the 15 micron band will absorb that radiation first. This is also true of the much higher energy bands (of water) all the way to 1 micron.

I think that this is the area where Reid Bryson did the calculations and came up with a similarly small number.

This is an area where there has not been enough research, especially from satellites. I read a paper last year that indicated that the Earth's albedo had increased, which means that the primary energy balance has changed. This does bring up an interesting point about pressure and doppler broadening. The broadening shifts the emission wavelength into a region between the lines in such a way that the remission is now in a completely unsaturated wavelength. It would seem that this would help to reduce temperature.

This also brings up an interesting question in another area. When we design experiments that fly in LEO, the earth albedo temperature is always set to 20 degrees C or 290k for doing thermal analysis. This is why LEO is a nice orbit for flying hardware.

All in all it is an interesting subject that I am still studying but I can say pretty conclusively that these arguments associated with pressure broadening are bogus.

I don't take anything as gospel and will continue working from first principles of physics althought I think that using adabatic heating in this context is slightly out of order.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 26, 2007 02:17 PM

MG: It's more a case of setting an example - or, if Americans don't control their CO2 output, then you won't have a leg to stand on when the Chinese refuse to do anything about theirs. And you can't use your usual bully-boy tactics against China. One; they have five times the population and ten times the army you do. Two; economic warfare won't work either - you owe too much to the Chinese, and they own too much of your country, for you not to lose if you try it.

In addition, Islam isn't part of the family and doesn't want to be - it's more like the lynch mob outside.

Lend-Lease? Well, sure. You only took just about all our overseas bases in exchange - and settled us with a debt that took until the 21st century to pay off. In addition, America took two years to hear the call to arms - just about at the time that you had bankrupted Britain. Coincidence?

Andrea, on one point I agree with you. The British turned India from a set of warring tribes to a (reasonably) modern country which now just happens to be the world's largest democracy. White Americans didn't bother with all that nonsense; they had their own aboriginals, and to a large extent exterminated them - and certainly stole just about all their land that was worth having, and exterminated several species and brought at least one other to the brink into the bargain.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 26, 2007 04:04 PM

Fletcher, all you've done is parrot the well-worn clichés about America and the world, many of which are half-truths at best, or vile canards at worst. Doesn't it bother you that you don't have any ideas of your own? Wouldn't you rather think for yourself instead of just accepting what you're told?

Posted by at August 26, 2007 05:47 PM

Dennis wrote:

I think that you are confusing adabatic heating/cooling, which is fundamentally a convective process with CO2 absorption and reradiation, which is fundamentally a radiative process. Radiative transfer of energy it based on the difference in temperature between the surface of the Earth and the 4k cosmic background. What you seem to be indicating is that at some point in the upper atmosphere (where CO2 is no longer saturated) that this constitutes a boundary layer. At that altitude it is much colder than the surface so radiative transfer from the Earth's surface continues even though the altitude of that saturation point changes.

If the atmosphere is optically thick to the thermal radiation, then the relavant temperature is not the surface temperature, but rather the temperature at the altitude at which the optical depth becomes ~1. On the sun, this point is called the photosphere, and is much cooler than deeper in the Sun's 'atmosphere'. We don't see 10 million degree radiation streaming directly from the sun's core, because the gas above that core is many, many scattering lengths thick for photons.

If we raise the altitude of the Earth's 'photosphere' to higher in the troposphere, we move it to an altitude that is currently colder than the previous photosphere. Therefore, to radiate enough heat, the gas at this altitude has to become warmer. In order to maintain the same heat transfer from the surface to this altitude, which is now occuring through a strict superset of the air through which it was previously being transported, the temperature difference must increase. This is true regardless of whether that heat transfer is by convection, by absorption and reemission of thermal radiation, or some combination of the two.

(Now, this is all somewhat wrong, since at different wavelengths the altitude at which the atmosphere becomes optically thick is different. For some, the radiation comes straight from the ground. But the argument can be carried over to this more general case.)

Posted by at August 26, 2007 08:10 PM

Huh? If your statement about the optical depth becoming ~1 (I am assuming that this means 100 percent transmisivity. If this is what you mean then that altitude is over (if I remember right) 90 miles, which is the CO2 layer where space based horizon sensors are calibrated as the emission layer at that altitude is very well defined.

This is one of the more bizarre explanations that I have seen.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 26, 2007 10:11 PM

That last comment to Fletcher was from me. My computer had a glitch. I blame global warming.

Posted by Andrea Harris at August 27, 2007 05:18 AM

if Americans don't control their CO2 output, then you won't have a leg to stand on when the Chinese refuse to do anything about theirs.

So, we're supposed to slash our output, yet third world countries don't have to do anything? We already lead the world in emission control, but we have to do more, why? Maybe to show you how its done? China will refuse to do anything about their emissions because they know they don't answer to anyone else, including the AGW hysterics.

economic warfare won't work either - you owe too much to the Chinese, and they own too much of your country, for you not to lose if you try it.

Oh, a small nod to the non-existent trade deficit. What do you think China does with all those dollars we give them? They don't put it under their mattress, they invest it....in world-wide stock markets. So, in theory, we in the US are subsidizing the UK way of life through China's investing in the European stock market. We choke off China, and you suffer and blame us more.

White Americans didn't bother with all that nonsense; they had their own aboriginals, and to a large extent exterminated them

Every culture and country has their black eyes. Denmark was a major player in the slave trade. England colonized everything, but refused to give those colonies freedom. As for extermination, there are several examples of American-Indians in our government processes. We've learned that freedom is the greatest thing to give and the most worthwhile thing to fight for. England on the other hand, seems to still think it needs to dominate others and keep freedom to themselves....Falklands?

Posted by Mac at August 27, 2007 06:24 AM

The British turned India from a set of warring tribes to a (reasonably) modern country which now just happens to be the world's largest democracy.

Yet Fletcher wants to nuke the Middle East.

Posted by Mac at August 27, 2007 06:26 AM

Mr. Christian,

We have exchanged comments on Lend-Lease before. Had the US NOT accepted your overseas bases in exchange for the badly needed destroyers the US sent you, those bases would have been subject to seizure by Germany. Y'all were overstretched, and that particular exchange was a two-fer in your favor -- reduced defensive perimeter, and increased naval power.

To what do you object in this analysis?

Regarding indebtedness... it sucks to have leadership (Halifax, Chamberlain) that is strategically inept, and avoids war by appeasing a predator. Without that strategic error by your prime minister, would Lend-Lease have been needed at all? Just think of the WW2 debt payments as useful, enduring, disciplinary measure that (hopefully) helps your leadership think more wisely about appeasement.

Regrettably, the payments are done, and your leadership is appeasing EUrocrats and Muslims, at the expense of the English. That saddens me greatly. I mean, what kind of Page 3 can one get, once EUrabia rules Brittania's waves?

Your comments about "setting an example" intrigue me. Can you point to an historical case of the US "setting an example", and then other states acting against their interests to follow that example?

I can think of Wilson's criteria for peace at the end of the Great War, but as I recall, Great Britain didn't follow that example. Perhaps your historical knowledge is better?

Oh, why bother? You died on some filthy, isolated island in Polynesia 2+ centuries ago. What would you know about the US?

Posted by MG at August 27, 2007 12:02 PM

If your statement about the optical depth becoming ~1 (I am assuming that this means 100 percent transmisivity.)

If you don't know what the well-known technical term optical depth means, you really don't know enough to have an informed opinion on this subject.

An optical depth of 1 is the distance into a scattering medium at which the fraction of unscattered radiation is 1/e. A medium with an optical depth >> 1 is called "optically thick".

Posted by at August 27, 2007 12:19 PM

If you don't know what the well-known technical term optical depth means, you really don't know enough to have an informed opinion on this subject.

Oh I know what it means, it's just your use of it is completely wrong in this context. That depth is different for different molecules. As has been accurately stated by others, water vapor has a different optical depth than CO2, or N2O, or O-3. Also, the optical depth is different at different wavelengths.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 27, 2007 03:26 PM

Mac:

The Falklanders wanted to be British, and still do. They have said so - certainly they have said that they did not want to be part of Argentina. Alright, in an ideal world maybe they would be better off completely independent. Fat chance.

MG:

I dispute that appeasement by Chamberlain was a strategic error. Going to war earlier would have meant losing - it was a damn close thing as it was, and we were frantically rearming. OK, it should have been done earlier - but one has to start with the situation one has.

About surrendering to Islam and the EU - you'll get no argument from me about that. I would favour leaving the EU, making the building of mosques and halal slaughter illegal and chucking out each and every non-citizen Muslim (loosely defined as citizens of states with Islam as a state religion) - and throwing in jail citizen Muslims who preach murder, sedition and treason.

I don't make the decisions, however - and there is no UK party with a hope of winning power that has those policies. Unfortunately, the only one that has (BNP) also has some truly disgusting prejudices against UK citizens who happen to have a different skin colour - and they don't have the chance of a snowball in hell anyway.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 27, 2007 04:46 PM

Post a comment