Today we have excellent joviality from Josh, plus some commercial video commentary on those poor souls in San Francisco that are about to deal with their first significant snow in quite a long time, which some will undoubtedly view as a “snowpocalypse”. Enjoy!
Sir Paul Nurse is the subject, more on the reason behind this cartoon here.
The SUV haters will love this one:
Please dump this in moderation:
‘quite’ not ‘quit’
REPLY: Dump ???
I saw a cute cartoon that offers a good summary on how AGW Scientists must do their work. š
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20110225/largeimage.14caf2cbfcca5af005f60d114c353959.gif
Facts don’t make cartoons funny. People who ignore the facts make the cartoons funny.
Ferdinand Englebeen should comment on this one.
ABC reported this morning that the massive arctic outflow that has chilled the west coast will reach as far south as LA by Sunday . . . just in time to chill down all the Hollywood prima donnas as they go from the Prius to walk Oscar’s red carpet.
I am praying for snow.
This should be presented to all politicians in the UK and US, an easy to follow and perfect representation of the reality that even thick politicians can follow.
Take away the vast amount of confusing fog of overly complex deliberately confusing contradictory and computer models of the CAGW alarmists and the barest most simple dynamics of the supposed problem with CO2 become crystal clear to all. I look forward to Pauls ideas on earthquakes and how CAGW is to blame, if it makes as much sense as his CO2 fantasies it should make for hilarious reading.
Paul Nurse the alarmist true believer in charge of the Royal Society unable to even work out the correct ratios of atmospheric gases, their relative warming effects? Perhaps he was elected to because of his mindless obedience to the CAGW theology and because he is politically reliable but clearly he is no asset to the alarmist cult if he makes an idiot of himself when he opens his mouth, on second thoughts…hooooray for Paul…you go girl..shoot from the hip…dont think just shout it all out!
I have to say, the “Never Neutral” commercial series has been very funny so far.
The Charger one that makes a vague Matrix reference (the movie, not the Toyota) still gets a chuckle out of me.
So, when Paul obtained his PhD, did that make him Doctor Nurse?
(sorry, it’s been a long week)
For those concerned about his day job, Sir Paul is the president of the Royal Society of Phrenologists.
Totally irrelevant but the voiceover in the ad sounds like Michael Hall from Dexter.
Not so irrelevant: I’ve over 1 million driving miles on snow and ice. I also grew up in hilly country. I’ve only encountered a handful of situation where 4WD would have come in handy. Driving on snow and ice just needs a little common sense. The main thing is to avoid spinning the wheels. This is easier with a manual transmission. Start in fourth gear if that’s what it takes. That’s not the only technique of course but its the main one. Saw a woman get stuck on a 1% grade road once in Chicago of all places. She kept on spinning the wheels instead of easing out.
That ad is close to reality where I live though.
Royal Society of Phrenologists. Say didn’t they have their own journal back in the 1800s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology (subject to sales tax in State of Michigan).
The Dodge commercial shows the thinking of people in the south, where 2 inches shut down central NC for a week in mid January.
Or as my wife says, “Someone threw an ice cube onto the street! WE’RE DOOMED!”
Good point Dav (DAV says: February 25, 2011 at 11:59 am).
I’m a firm believer in winter tires myself – never had a 4WD in Norway or here in Canada, but the extra set of wheels with winter tires on is a must. Of course, you have to have them on the car before the snow falls……
“REPLY: Dump ???”
Pete Olson was meaning that his comment informing you about a spelling correction can be deleted and need not be published at all.
I feel a little sorry for Nurse.
Rarely can a scientist have achieved such a peak of emminence – knighthood, Presidency of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize etc. – only to be almost immediately made to look a complete idiot.
I can only imagine that the euphoria of success and celebrity made him lose his better judgement in this case, to throw himself into such a contentious debate so far removed from his own area of expertise.
And do so without carrying out some elementary research; and then not to preview the result prior to broadcast, to ensure he had his facts right.
I’ll bet he’s never published a learned paper in this slipshod manner.
Is the “Never Neutral” a bit of a dog whistle* (as we call it in Australia) referrence to carbon neutrality?
* A term used predominantly in politics… saying one thing, but intending a second message to the true believers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
Amusing but:
AWD can do more harm than good if the driver doesn’t know how to use it properly- don’t lift in a skid, you will spin etc.
I used to live in Banff, AB and after a snowstorm the Trans-Canada highway ditches would be littered with SUVs while I would blast through in my Shelby Daytona (fwd and turbo’ed to near critical mass) front splitter 4″ of the ground made a great snowplow…
mikemUK says:
February 25, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Iāll bet heās never published a learned paper in this slipshod manner.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One would hope not, but after the scores of published papers I’ve read, I can tell you there is no guarantee.
4WD is a bit like a spare tire or some money in the bank. I’ve never regretted having it when I didn’t need it – the regret kicks in when it’s the other way ’round. Bravo if you’ve never found yourself in that situation and can reasonably expect that you never will.
The one thing that fools with 4wd never seem to figure out is that it doesn’t do a thing to help you stop.
(yes, I have paid my dues on ice and snow. )
One of the objections that I often get when I present the argument that Josh used in his cartoon is that CO2 contributes much more to warming than some of the other gases… what I’m wondering is what is the alleged warming contribution by each GHG based upon it’s volume (rather than it’s percentage of the total GHG in the atmosphere)? Also which papers attempt or assert that they substantiate such claims?
Driving in the snow ….
People who need 4WD only in the winter are missing the funnest part!
We just got another BIG shot of snow here in western New Hampshire (about 8″ – 10″). I have snow canyons around my house up to my shoulder now. I don’t EVEN want to think about mud season…
I’m in the San Fran area. It’s warmer today than was forecast. No snow fell at all. But they are still saying Arctic cold will hit, tomorrow.
mikemUK says:
February 25, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I feel a little sorry for Nurse.
Rarely can a scientist have achieved such a peak of emminence ā knighthood, Presidency of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize etc. ā only to be almost immediately made to look a complete idiot
Steven Chu is not doing much better here in the USA. These men have strayed from they area of learning.
Bulldust says:
February 25, 2011 at 1:39 pm
The concept of dog-whistle politics is interesting. However, the link seems to be (in typical Wiki fashion) left-slanted propaganda. In particular, I greatly object to the use of a Lee Atwater quote to attack Reagan. The implication being that Reagan used coded racism in his politics. Ridiculous.
Racism was open and clear on the other side. Republicans were founded as the party to abolish slavery, and later worked hard to get voting rights for women. The 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed without the overwhelming support of Republicans to break the filibuster by former KKK member, Senator Robert Byrd, a Southern Democrat. Atwater, a southerner himself, was likely speaking about southern politics and the tactics of the other side, which he knew quite well. Reagan would have supported the idea that states should have a large degree of sovereignty, and not be crushed by the Federal government. That is what the South was really fighting about during the Civil War. Reagan, a closet racist? Preposterous.
Wiki is OK sometimes, but it is not an objective source of information. There is already enough politics surrounding climate that we don’t need to inject more. I just wanted to set the record straight, whether or not I was successful.
That one is great Josh!!!
Have a great weekend.
At least you have all four seasons, snow season, mud season, bug season and prepare for the snow season š
Sam Hall says:
February 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm
The one thing that fools with 4wd never seem to figure out is that it doesnāt do a thing to help you stop. (yes, I have paid my dues on ice and snow. )
=============
Heh. Got that right. We take our 4wd SUV (mud and snow tires) through plenty of snow, sometimes towing people out from where they got stuck. Put a bit of ice on the road and that 4wd is no help at all. Fortunately for us, all of our ice slides have been at very low speeds.
You must appreciate CAGW in one aspect.
It is an endless subject of humor.
John
Run water from a tap into a basin with a small hole.
Adjust the rate until inflow=outflow
(==Natural CO2 cycle is in balance)
Throw in a cupful of water (==CO2 from volcano) and the water level will increase as will the outflow rate. Eventually it will reach equilibrium again (the level will be similar to the initial condition).
Turn the tap on 3% faster the water level will rise until the increased pressure causes the inflow rate to equal the outflow rate. This is a fixed rise, and will not lower unless the hole is made bigger (==more plant growth/sea water absorption perhaps).
If the outflow is fixed then it does not matter how little the inlet is turned up the basin will eventually overflow.
The very small increase in % of atmosphere is just about irrelevant (remember that O3 is even lower concentration but stops just about ALL sw UV reaching the ground.
I liked the graphic depiction in Josh’s cartoon of the percentage of man made CO2. My favorite is this you tube video that used rice grains to help us get perspective.
Great cartoon. Every discussion I have with an AGW supporter where I state the % of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activities is trivial compared to natural sources, I always receive the same responce “Its not the % man adds to the total which is significant. Its the % increase from the re-industrial age to today which is important.” The ~40% increase over the last ~150 years which is dangerous, apparently, but it is a bigger, scarier, number I guess. Also, which worries me, ALL AGW supporters I have spoken to still claim that CO2 is pollution AND “traps and stores” heat.
Caught the tail end of a program on ABC here in Australia today. According to the interviewed expert, the recent floods in Queensland never happend before to the same extent and recent bush fires in Western Australia (WA) were a result of climate change. La Nina was mentioned too, and, yes, you guessed it. More severe La Nina events will be come more frequent due to climate change. Clearly he’s not kept up with actual observations, in particular WA. Those fires were started deliberately. Maybe arsonists are caused by climate change?
As to AWD/4WD vehicles in the ad, I’ve driven 4×4’s, (Parttime 4×4, fulltime 4×4, systems with locking and/or limited slip centre differentials, tourqe biasing couplings, manual and automatic transmissions) practically all my driving life and too in motorsport, in all weather and surface conditions. Even with the weight penatly and drag on power, I know what works and I know what I’d stick with.
“walt man says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:26 pm”
Are you suggesting the atmosphere has a limited, fixed, capacity like a basin? That’s quite a bit misleading.
Ed Mertin says:
February 25, 2011 at 10:26 am
Ferdinand Englebeen should comment on this one.
Thanks, that is what I will do here…
Ladies and gentlemen, the cartoon of Josh is funny, but completely besides the question. As walt man already replied: it is completely irrelevant how much in % the human additions are. What is relevant is the total balance of CO2 in the atmosphere: a net gain of some 4 GtC (2 ppmv) per year (measured). Humans add 8 GtC (4 ppmv) per year (based on fuel sales). Whatever reasoning you try, natural inflows and outflows represent a net loss of 2 ppmv (4 GtC) per year. Thus while nature adds some estimated 150 GtC within one year, in the same year it removes 154 GtC out of the atmosphere. It is completely irrelevant if the estimate of natural emissions in this case is 1,5 GtC, 150 GtC or 15000 GtC per year. In all cases the natural removal is 4 GtC more than the natural emissions (because that is calculated from fuel use and CO2 measurements in the atmosphere).
The net result is that humans are responsible for (near) the total increase of CO2 in the past at least 50 years and most of the increase in the past 160 years. No matter if the human addition is only 0.03%, 3% or 300% of the natural addition. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
pwl says on February 25, 2011 at 2:28 pm:
One of the objections that I often get when I present the argument that Josh used in his cartoon is that CO2 contributes much more to warming than some of the other gasesā¦ what Iām wondering is what is the alleged warming contribution by each GHG based upon itās volume (rather than itās percentage of the total GHG in the atmosphere)? Also which papers attempt or assert that they substantiate such claims?
===========================
Check out: “Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers” by Monte Hieb, an engineer employed by the WV Office of Miner’s Health, Safety and Training.
The article is vailable at:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
This is a very well-known article and has been cited many times on many blogs.
However, I have found some suspicious numbers for the emission of CO2 in Table 1.
Although he cites the sources in ref 1, the report “Greenhouse Gases and Climate” Change” costs $400 for those who are not a member of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R & D Programme. Wow! What a paywall!
Although the amount of CO2 produced by combustion of fossils fuels can calculated with reasonable accuracy, the amount produced by other activitives of such as deforestion, combustion of fire wood and agriculture operations cannot.
For example, plowing and tilling of soil exposes organic material to the air and this undergoes slow oxidations. Fertilization will enhance the growth of soil organisms such as bacteria, fungi, nematodes, worms, insects, etc, all of which respire and release CO2. Killing weeds and insects with pesticides results in the release of CO2 from their decomposition.
Large amounts of CO2 are released by farm animals. Calculation of the amount released by the animals would be difficult for countries like China, India, and Indonesia, Brazil, etc which have large and diverse rural populations and whose populations of animals are not exactly known.
Another sources of CO2 is fermentation. In advanced countries this is recovered and used for carbonation of many beverages suchas a soda pop. In many countrys, the CO2 is released into the air. Presently there is a shortage of beverage grade CO2.
Heib is an engineer and he develops a proceedure and template that is easy to follow and understand. His calculations are for October 2000 but could be easily updated by using new data.
“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:25 am”
Great post. Questions. Is this rise in A-CO2 emissions damaging and disruptive to and/or changing climate on the planet?
Harold Pierce Jr says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:26 am
Check out: āGlobal Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbersā by Monte Hieb, an engineer employed by the WV Office of Minerās Health, Safety and Training.
Monte Hieb is using the percentages of “human” CO2 in the total carbon cycle. Which is quite different than what is its impact on the total increase (which is currently around 30%). Further, while most of the radiation impact is from water vapour, CO2 acts in a part of the spectrum where water vapour is not active. Thus his percentages of impact don’t add up (if you use Modtran which takes that into account).
You have a fountain where a pump drives the circulation over the fountain from the reservoir at the foot with 1,000 liter per minute and you add a small flow of 1 liter per minute via a hose. No matter how much is circulating over the fountain, no matter how low the percentage of the extra flow (in this case 0.1%), the increase in level of the fountain base is 100% the result of the extra inflow.
Patrick Davis says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:35 am
Great post. Questions. Is this rise in A-CO2 emissions damaging and disruptive to and/or changing climate on the planet?
As far as there is an influence on climate, it would be mostly beneficial: least impact near the equator, most impact towards the poles: longer growing seasons from the mid-latitudes to Siberia and Alaska… Much depends on the feedbacks, but history shows little influence of (relative) huge CO2 changes.
walt man:
At February 25, 2011 at 9:26 pm you assert:
āNatural CO2 cycle is in balanceā
No. It never has been and it never will be āin balanceā.
I wonder where you obtained such as silly notion as the āNatural CO2 cycle is in balanceā.
Richard
“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:16 am”
Thanks for the reply. Why aren’t you applying for the position of IPCC chair?
Patrick Davis says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Thanks for the reply. Why arenāt you applying for the position of IPCC chair?
Big Oil pays better…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:10 am
Hmm. The unspoken assumption there is that all other things are equal. What if the CO2 release increases as a result of the rising temperatures? (Drying peat bogs, melting permafrost, etc.)
Disputin says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:02 am
Hmm. The unspoken assumption there is that all other things are equal. What if the CO2 release increases as a result of the rising temperatures? (Drying peat bogs, melting permafrost, etc.)
There is no assumption about other things necessary: we know the emissions with reasonable accuracy (maybe somewhat underestimated) from fossil fuel sales inventories (taxes!). We measure with good accuracy the increase in the atmosphere. The difference is the net balance of all natural flows together at the end of the year.
Take that in a certain year there was a huge CO2 emission from a volcano (Pinatubo,…) this could deliver an extra 2 ppmv in 1992 (extreme example, reality is a factor 100 lower). In 1992 we have 3 ppmv of calculated emissions and the measured increase is about 0.5 ppmv. That makes that:
increase in the atmosphere = natural inputs + 2 – natural outputs + human input
or
0.5 = natural inputs – natural outputs + 2 + 3
or
natural inputs – natural outputs = -4.5 ppmv
Thus some 4.5 ppmv (9 GtC) was absorbed more than emitted by natural sinks/sources. No matter the real hight of the natural in/outputs were in that year or how much these changed from the previous year(s), as long as the emissions are larger than what is measured as increase in the atmosphere, the variability of the natural inflows is completely absorbed by the natural sinks and the human emissions are the sole contributor to the increase.
In case you wonder why the sinks increased during the Pinatubo eruption: the ash cloud did cool the earth with about 0.6Ā°C, which led to more CO2 absorption by the oceans, overwhelming the increase of CO2 caused by the same volcano… An additional effect seems that scathering of incoming sunlight by the volcanic aerosols leads to more effective photosynthesis of leaves which are (part of the day) in the shadow of other leaves for direct sunlight.
Forgot to add:
The previous interglacial was average 2Ā°C warmer that the current one, including 5-10Ā°C warmer temperatures in Alaska and Siberia. Permafrost probably all gone, ice free Arctic, halve Greenland melted. CO2 levels: 290 ppmv, methane: 700 ppbv. Current CO2 levels: 390 ppmv, methane: 1800 ppbv…
ATTN: Ferdinand Engelbeen
The GHG concentration data is valid _only_ for purified dry air (PDA) which does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised only of nitrogen, oxygen, and the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and carbon dioxide. At STP, one cubic meter of PDA has 390 ml, 17.4 mmoles or 0.000766 kg of pure CO2, and has a mass of 1.2929 kg.
Monte Hieb has done a “snapshot” calculation for a one dimensional earth under constant illumination and with a optically-clear (i.e., no clouds or aerosols) atmosphere of uniform composition. He did not specify temperature, pressure and specific humidity.
Please go to Universl Industrial Gases Inc.’s website, print out and study
the tables, snd learn how temperaure, pressure and humidity affect the physical properties and composition of air.
http://www.uigi.com/air_html
If one cubic meter PDA at 30 deg F (ca 0 deg C) and 1 atm pressure is heated to 90 deg F, the amount of CO2 declines from 17.4 mmoles to 15.5 mmoles, but the conc is still 390 ppmv. If the air becomes saturated with water vapor (50,800 ppmv) the amount of CO2 declines to 12.6 mmoles (282 ml) and conc of CO2 drops slightly to 282 ppmv for this hot wet air.
If one cubic meter of PDA is cooled -53 deg C, the amount of CO2 is 22.0 mmoles but the conc is still 390 ppmv.
Why do I mention all of this? In real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the gases in space and time and in particular that of water vapor and CO2. Monte Hieb’s calculation is merely a “cocktail napkin” calculation unless temperature, pressure and humidity are specified. What would be CO2’s contibution to the so-called greenhouse effect for the hot wet tropical air?
EB says, “…CO2 acts in a part of the spectrum where water vapour is not active. Check out: “Water in the Atmosphere” by Joel Kauffman at:
http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~3b1740/greenhouse/H2O_FEL_LAEROBOK.PDF
Presumably, you are referring to the feeble CO2 peaks centered at ca 670 wave numbers. The center peak has an net absorbance of 0.025. If this summer air were in cell with a pathlength of 280 cm, 99% of the IR light would be absorbed and rapidly thermalized by collisions with nitrogen, oxygen and water molecules and with argon atoms. The shoulder peaks have a net absorbance of 0.01 and 99% of the IR light would be absorbed and thermalized in a cell with a pathlenght of 1,400 cm. If the conc of CO2 is doubled, the pathlength for 99% absorbption of the IR light would be halved. These data lend support to
proposal the CO2 IR bands are saturated.
EB says, “Monte Hieb is using the percentages of āhumanā CO2 in the total carbon cycle. Which is quite different than what is its impact on the total increase (which is currently around 30%).”
If PDA is used as a reference for the increase of CO2 since pre-industrial times (ca, 1800) just how much of that 100 pppmv of CO2 is due activities of man? How much is due to final end of the LIA (ca 1900) and the slow warm up of the earth? I don’t know.
CO2 Wildcard: How much CO2 is in the water droplets of clouds? It is not zero and most likely lots.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
February 27, 2011 at 8:56 pm
To begin with the last remark:
If PDA is used as a reference for the increase of CO2 since pre-industrial times (ca, 1800) just how much of that 100 pppmv of CO2 is due activities of man? How much is due to final end of the LIA (ca 1900) and the slow warm up of the earth? I donāt know.
The impact of temperature on CO2 levels is pretty well known from ice cores: about 8 ppmv/Ā°C. That holds for glacial/interglacial intervals over the past 800,000 years as good as for the MWP-LIA cooling (the latter in the high resolution Law Dome ice core). Currently the short-term response to temperature changes is about 4 ppmv/Ā°C around the trend.
That means that for the warming since the LIA the maximum increase of CO2 was 0.8×8 = 6.4 ppmv. The total increase in the same time span is 100 ppmv. Humans emitted some 200 ppmv CO2 in the same time span. Thus at least 93.6 ppmv increase is caused by the human emissions, or about 30%.
CO2 in water drops seems very minor (I have seen the calculations somewhere, but forgot them as unimportant). Anyway, if it rains, that gives no measurable changes in CO2 levels, while increasing temperatures at ground level and evaporation should increase the CO2 levels if it was important.
————
As (retired) chemical engineer, I have some (rusty) knowledge of gases behaviour and even rustier knowledge about radiation budgets… Monte Hieb did lump all air layers together to calculate his CO2 contribution to the GHG effect. But we have quite good laboratory test based calculations of line by line absorption/emissions bands for different gas pressures and constituents content, integrated over any height/pressure and over all wavelengths, including water vapour changes, cloud cover, CH4,… for parts of the earth (tropics, mid latitudes, polar) or earth total. See:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html
Modtran is a simpler program, with a rougher integration of wavelengths than Hitran, which was developed by the US Army (if I remember well). But it shows the result of different changes quite well. Just try the difference in total outgoing radiance for the standard atmosphere for 290 and 390 ppmv CO2.
Hello Ferdinand
I am an retired organic chemist [B.Sc. (Hon). ’67 U of Ill; Ph.D., ’73 UC Irvine]. I was in researcher in Prof J. H. Borden’s insect pheromone group at SFU in Burnaby for 30 years. Our group isolated and indentified pheromones of pests of forests, stored products commodities (grain and food) and agriculture. I did pheromone isolation, identification and synthesis. Google H. D. Pierce, Jr. for a quick look at the bugs we worked on.
Did you check the Kauffman article? The spectrum is only one I seen of a sample of real air and shows that CO2 is indeed an minor GHG. A spectrum is empirical data and it trumps the fancy computer programs. BTW Kauffman is an organic chemist and earned his Ph.D. at MIT.
The major and fatal flaw in climate calculations is the wrong metric for CO2 is used. As I mentioned, CO2 concentration data is valid only for PDA.
Weather maps show there is no uniform distribution of mass in the atmosphere. High pressure cells have more regional mass and drier air than do low pressure cells which bring weather like rain, snow, tropical cyclones, and tornados.
Clouds are real trouble makers and the climate scientist’s worst nightmare. The water droplets are contain CO2, and as they move about they constantly altering the amount of CO2 and water vapor in the local gas phase. How do the models take this into account?
You should check out Alan Cheetam’s website:
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming
This is _the_ one stop, shop-until-you-drop store on global warming and climate change info. In particular, scroll down and check the entry re FAO report on climate cycles and fish production.
This article shows that there is a 60 year climate cycle which has a cool and warm phase of about 30 years each. The cool phase started in ca 2000 and will last another
20 years. Its going to cold like real cold.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
February 28, 2011 at 6:11 am
I have read the comments of Kauffmann. His comments are spot on, but incomplete. He measured the impact of water vapour and CO2 at sealevel, where CO2 absorbs about 8% of the energy and water 92% and in his spectrum the CO2 peak where water vapour is not active is clearly visible.
The percentages are right at sealevel, but change completely when you go up in the atmosphere: CO2 (PDA) remains constant, but RH remains (more or less) constant too, while maximum humidity goes down rapidely with temperature. That means that water is fast reducing in molar/mass ratio to the rest of the molecules the higher you go in the troposphere, while CO2 molar/mass ratio increases. That influences the balance towards proportionally more absorption by CO2 and less by water vapour.
The Modtran program integrates all constituents (water, CO2, CH4, O3) for all (average) pressures between the surface and 70 km high. One can choose between constant RH or constant % water for the calculations. Constant RH seems more appropriate, at least for the lower troposphere. Modtran is based on real absorption lines for lots of variations in water vapour, CO2 and others for different air pressures. It is not based on PDA CO2 levels, but of course calculates the real mass of CO2, based on PDA, absolute humidity and pressure.
As said before, I haven’t seen any problems for CO2 and water drops/rain. What I have read some time ago is that water drops contain only minor amounts of CO2, which cause no changes in CO2 levels when falling down on earth (thus probably little/no change where they are formed). Of course, clouds have a huge impact on radiation budget, which causes troubles to find the best estimates for the “standard” atmosphere with averages for all latitudes and averages for all cloud combinations.
I think I have the same objections against climate models as you have, although I doubt that they only use PDA levels for their calculations (don’t they use Hitran for their radiation budget calculations?). And I am aware of the impact of longer cycles like PDO, NAO, etc… on the water vapor/radiation burget, thus on temperature…
Hello Ferdinand!
In the IR spectrum note the water vapor peaks from ca 600 to 400 wave numbers. These are absorbing most of the IR energy in the 700 to 400 wave number range. The maximum in thermal emission of the earth’s surface for ca 15 deg C is about 500 wave numbers. The spectrometer cuts off at 400 wave numbers but water absorbs below 400 wave numbers and CO2 does not.
BTW the P-E Spectrum 1000 FT-IR has range of 4,500 to 400 wave numbers with resolution of 1 wave number. The coupled rotational-vibrational P and R branches from 2,000 to 1400 wave numbers are spectacular.
“What I have read some time ago is that water drops contain only minor amounts of CO2, which cause no changes in CO2 levels when falling down on earth (thus probably little/no change where they are formed). ”
That is rank speculation by the climate scientists. I live in Burnaby BC right next door to Vancouver. During the rainy sseason (Nov- Mar) the sky is often grey overcast for a week or more, and there can be steady rain for days on end. This rain will certainly wash CO2 out the air. Annual rainfall is about 1200 mm at the airport. However, on the north shore mountains rainfall is several meters.
I’m going to ask Roy Spencer about CO2 in clouds.
I don’t know anything about Modtran and Hitran because I don’t design heat-seeking missles. As I mentioned in real air there no unifrom distribution of the mass of atmosphere and of clouds as shown by weather maps. I can’t imagine these computer programs taking this into account as well as atmospheric tide effects which alter the mass distribution of the atmosphere.
You should check out:
“Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity” by L.B. Klyashtorin and A.A. Lyubushin. The English translation can be downloaded for free thru this link:
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes__and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
NB: This mongraph is 224 pages. This book is not about climate scientist.
By analyzing a number of time series of data influenced by climate, they found that the earth has global climate cycles of 50-70 years with an average of about 60 years which has cool and warm phases of 30 years each. They summerize most of the studies thru 2004 and early 2005 that show how this cycle influences fish catches in the major fisheries.
The last warm phase began in ca 1970-75 (aka the Great Shift) and ended in ca 2000. The global warming from ca 1975 is due in part to this warm phase. A cool phase has started and they predict it should last about 30 years.
Just downloaded the first 2 chapters unless you are really keen on fish. Check
Fig. 2.22 where they show that increasing world fuel consumption does not correlate with cool and warm phase of the 60 year cycle.
During the cool phase La Nina years usually out number El Nino years as was the case from ca 1940-70. EL Nino years were more prevalent from 1975 to 2000 and especially in the 1990-2000 decade.
If the Russians are right, it is going to get cold like really cold.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
March 1, 2011 at 8:25 am
The measured IR spectrum shown by Kaufmann is at sealevel only. That doesn’t tell us anything of what happens at higher elevations. The Modtran program, does calculate the integrated spectra bottom to height (or reverse, backradiation) for 100-1500 wavenumber. That shows the real absorption for CO2, water vapour and others, for different fixed parts and total atmosphere.
The only critique that Steve McIntyre had is about the fixed atmosphere, as the presence of CO2 in fact influences the temperature profile. See:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/14/from-lacis-et-al-1981-to-archer-modtran/
Indeed Modtran (and climate) is about averages…
I don’t think that important levels of CO2 are washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Most water vapour comes from warm oceans where water and extra CO2 is emitted together, going up to the height were water condenses, absorbing (some) of the extra CO2. But ask it Dr. Spencer.
For the rest, I do agree with the inability of climate models to take into account (or even “project”) natural cycles at all…
Wow, we emit so little! I wonder what made CO2 concentration get so high after we started burning coal, then…
IĀ“m somewhat puzzled how this cartoon could ever be put up as an honest argument on WUWT. Mr. Watts, you are, as far as I know, perfectly aware of both a) that manmade CO2 constitutes about 100% of the increase in CO2 since about 1750, and b) that it makes no sense to state that “CO2 is only 3% of the greenhouse gases”, since the spectral absorption lines of different gases overlap, and the putative individual contributions thus are not additive. And that is before we start to consider the fact that water vapour is a feedback effect and would not be able to independently force a temperature increase, or that even if we tried to assign individual percentage contributions, that of CO2 would still be 10-30%. As Mr Engelbeen has, once again, stated unambiguously, there is no point to this cartoon. The apparent logic behind it is one of the most basic schoolboy howlers (ignoring the carbon cycle and the net transport), and neither Paul Nurse nor anybody else with some basic scientific training would have the slightest trouble producing the obvious counter off the top of their heads, were they to be confronted with the cartoon argument.
Is this site about trying to present serious scientific objections that will make the real climate science community worried, or is it about providing cheap laughs for the more gullible parts of the less insightful WUWT readers?
@Christoffer Bugge Harder
Well stated, Christoffer. You might notice that the original post is tagged as “humor” & “satire” … but, as you’re well aware, the underlying message is a favorite “skeptic” canard. The high number of “gullible/less insightful” reader comments makes it clear how the cartoon is really viewed by many here, and why your message is spot-on.
I find this type of WUWT reader reaction disturbingly typical and, believe me, that reaction is not discouraged.
Now … prepare for being accused of having no sense of humor …
Thank you, Jack. At least, I am happy to see that a) at least one insightful reader noticed my comment, and b), so far, no “you have no humour” accusations have appeared. š
But honestly: In Danisch, there is a proverb saying something like “If you take serious matters only seriously and humorous matters only humorously, then you have understood both matters poorly”. As you correctly note, the supposedly serious part behind the apparent fun in this cartoon is not serious at all – and the truly funny part of this (at least, for every honest and remotely insightful reader) is really to see someone seriously presenting such a breathtakingly naive and so easily dismissed argument as a perceived “gotcha”. It reminds me of Ali G dismissing the danger of fire when he smoked in front of a chemist by telling him that there was no oxygen in the studio anyway – “Gotcha”! (and then the chemist pointed out that that Ali Gs cigarette was already on fire, and of course, Ali G was scared to death).
I actually once had some of my shy pupils/students having found this site and asked me about the content – I think it was Roy Spencer singing the same “CO2 is natural”-tune. I told them this was complete nonsense and repeated what I had taught them about the carbon cycle. They were actually surprised to discover that they themselves could see the gaping hole in the argument by diagrams in a simple secondary school textbook (this is, of course, a very happy moment for every science educator, and in this regard, I am actually albeit backhandedly grateful to WUWT).
But they were also sceptical about their own insight and asked me “If WUWT is a science blog, why do they then present information that is so apparently easily disproven as false?” I was at a loss back then and told them to make up their own minds. But now, when you see this again (and again) – and when you consider the fact that Engelbeen (and, I think, even otherwise ignorant people as Willis Eschenbach) have pointed out the obvious many times, then one is left to conclude that Anthony Watts does not much care whether anything presented here is true or not.
For the record, I can reveal that I – under the nome-de-blog “Loquor” – wrote approvingly about the polite tone and how the commenters in the Spencer “CO2 is all natural!”-threads set Spencer straight. This was the first time I read this blog, and back then, I was honestly impressed. Now, unfortunately, upon seeing this (and more easily refutable) nonsense again and again, not so much. I am not a regular reader and I do not know if WUWT has taken a turn for the worse since then, but there is no doubt that the owner of this blog must immediately stop this if he wants to be taken seriously by anyone who has ever heard of the carbon cycle. Even if it will be at the expense of the more gullible readers cheap sense of humour.