Open Thread Weekend

I’m offline this weekend with travel and other projects.

Discuss anything with limits of the WUWT site policy. This will remain a “top post” for the weekend. Some auto-scheduled stories will appear below this one. Don’t forget to observe Earth Hour Human Achievement Hour 8:30 PM local time in your time zone.

About these ads

216 thoughts on “Open Thread Weekend

  1. Here’s a great carbon sequestration scheme being touted by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/scientists-urge-rethink-on-power-station-sales/3924406

    (It’s a video, and I don’t have a transcript, but there are presentations at http://www.dutptyltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DUT-CCSS-AIE-17-10-2011.pdf and http://www.dutptyltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UNSW-CCSS-AIE-17-10-2011.pdf)
    Called “Carbon Capture and Solar Sequestration” (CCSS), it involves turning the CO2 emitted by coal-fired power stations into methanol, and bingo! you have stopped all that nasty CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and you have a clean fuel for your transport system.

    Sounds too good to be true?

    Let’s have a look at it in a,little more detail:
    Solar energy is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then combined with power-station CO2 to form methanol. So the full set of chemical equations is as follows:
    2CO2 + 6H2O
    => (split the water) 2CO2 + 6H2 + 3O2
    => (make methanol) 2CH3OH + 2H2O + 3O2
    => (use the methanol as fuel) 2CO2 + 6H2O
    So you end up with exactly what you started with. In particular, there cannot have been any net gain in energy and the exact same amount of CO2 still goes into the atmosphere.
    What you have actually done is to use solar-generated electricity in a roundabout way to power your transport, instead of using it as electricity. Fair enough if you’re that desperate for transport fuel (they claim that it deals with the Peak Oil problem), but it’s a con if it’s being touted as either an energy source or as carbon sequestration.

    The total amount of solar panels needed to process all of Australia’s coal-fired power-station CO2 emissions – as touted – is, um, rather large. At least they admit that the investment required would be “huge”. But hey, it may have a place in a few hundred years’ time, when we have run out of fossil fuels ….. oh dear! then there won’t be any CO2 from power stations to feed into the process.

  2. http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/

    Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com
    Friday, March 30, 2012

    “Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

    Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.”

    ====================

    http://www.infowars.com/un-backed-scientists-call-for-mega-city-population-lockup/

    Jurriaan Maessen
    Infowars.com
    March 29, 2012

    “In a recent statement put out by “Planet Under Pressure” several scientists call for denser cities in order to mitigate worldwide population growth. When in doubt that UN’s Agenda 21 is not the Mein Kampf of our day, one should consider yet another in-your-face confession from yet another certified biocratic control freak

    According to an MSNBC article one of the scientists while speaking about human populations worldwide, stated:

    “We certainly don’t want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].”

    Insisting the world’s population be locked up within the confounds of mega-cities, the elite realizes that if the herd is to be properly controlled walls are needed- thick walls, and by constructing these walls, making the masses go this or that way will be made easier.. ”

    =================

    http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/pr_27_03_12_options_opportunities.pdf

    The conference ran from 26th-29th March 2012

    “PRESS RELEASE
    Embargo: 09:15 GMT / 10:15 British Summer Time, Tuesday March 27, 2012″

    The actual conference was from the 26th.

  3. It seems to me that the focus has switched away from the science and much more towards the social engineering aspects of the climate debate.

    I don’t see as many papers discussing CO2 levels as I do on exactly which way the link between ‘global warming’ and extreme weather should be marketed to the masses.

    The very unscientific but very public Fakegate affair may have strengthened this impression in my mind.

  4. the CAGW party is over, read all:

    31 March: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: Carbon ‘Like Titanic’ Sinking on EU Permit Glut
    The plunge in European Union carbon permits is putting prices on course for their longest-ever decline and shows no sign of ending as member states wrangle over curbing a glut in the market.
    EU allowances for December fell 5.2 percent this year, extending a streak of quarterly losses stretching back to March 2011. Prices may drop a further 50 percent and lawmakers will probably fail to cut supply in the world’s largest emissions market through a so-called set-aside process, according to UBS AG…
    “Unless EU governments come up with a surprise decision to strongly support the set-aside or ambitious mid-term emission- reduction targets, I don’t see prices moving up much over the coming months,” Tuomas Rautanen, head of regulatory affairs and consulting at First Climate in Zurich, said by e-mail…
    Prices will probably fall to about 3 euros before lawmakers are able to tighten the bloc’s emissions targets, a process that may take “years,” Per Lekander, UBS’s Paris-based global head of utilities research, said in a phone interview yesterday.
    “It’s not that I’m skeptical on the set-aside, it’s just not going to happen,” he said. “It’s going to get blocked.” Utilities including RWE AG (RWE), based in Essen, Germany, will probably buy allowances in high volume should prices drop near 3 euros, the analyst said…
    “It’s a big challenge to re-design the ETS and make it a system that would reward both energy efficiency and pure emission reductions, but you can’t avoid it,” he said today by phone. “It’s like being on the Titanic and seeing the iceberg in front of you; either you make a U-turn or crash.” …

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/carbon-like-titanic-sinking-on-eu-permit-glut.html

  5. Back radiation

    I have to admit, that I’m still not sure if I really understand how the warming through back radiation from atmospheric CO2 really works. Can someone direct me to a website where they explain this (and don’t come up with cars parked in the sun)?

    1. I understand back radiation from the sky does not warm the earth, it just reduces the heat loss: the earth cools slower especially at night.
    2. I understand gases absorb and emit at the same wavelengths. The sun is much brighter than the earth at all wavelength even infrared. And the sun has always more than half of the atmospheric CO2 in view. Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?
    3. Most back radiation from the sky is probably due to clouds and water vapor. How sure are we that we can measure the back radiation from increase in CO2?
    4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?

    Thank you very much for your replies!

  6. Mike Jonas says:
    March 31, 2012 at 12:37 am
    “Here’s a great carbon sequestration scheme being touted by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/scientists-urge-rethink-on-power-station-sales/3924406


    Very shallow pie-in-the-sky presentation with no numbers.
    Last thing I heard is that Carbon Capture technologies consume half of the energy you produce in the coal power plant, so you’d have to burn twice as much coal for one net unit of energy.
    Next, they want to run it as a state-run industrial-research conglomerate. So I think I can safely say, it will NEVER make a profit. They’ll make sure.

    That being said, one could of course imagine such an electrolysis and storage process to be useful, e.g. for excess wind and solar energy (makes you wonder why you built those wind and solar generators in the first place, but hey, if you are left with them say due to political mistakes in the past, or because they’ve come down in price enough to be irresistible, or you just have absolutely no better use for a piece of land, and not even environmentalists run around on it, you could just as well use it for power generation), so if you happen to have such energy, why not electrolyse water, but that would then be a RATIONAL decision – what the Oz boffins propose in the video is a state run economic disaster.

  7. Rick Bradford says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:45 am
    “It seems to me that the focus has switched away from the science and much more towards the social engineering aspects of the climate debate.

    I don’t see as many papers discussing CO2 levels as I do on exactly which way the link between ‘global warming’ and extreme weather should be marketed to the masses.”

    That’s an afterglow of the rush to the CAGW trough. More funding was made available than could be consumed by climate scientists, so millions of ethicists, sociologists, biologists and polsci’s rushed to partake in the feeding frenzy, and they’re still all busy dutifully churning out their BS papers.

    Give’em all IgNobels so they feel recognized.

  8. ‘GLobal Warming is Over Hansen proving right all along”
    Arctic sea ice rebounds to closely match the average extent for the satellite record began in 1979. Antarctic sea ice extent continues to increase. Penguins, Polar Bears and Harp Seals Safe.
    Despite record increases in CO2 emissions the rebound is spectacular. Professor Mansen said ‘This is exactly the sort of climate change I have been predicting for many years and it is worse than we expected” Sorry I have to leave now visiting time is over! Oops I mean you have to leave”

  9. Came across an article today which shocked me:

    Climate-change scepticism must be ‘treated’, says enviro-sociologist

    “Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South..”

    PR: http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons

    I couldn’t find the paper “Climate change and cultural inertia” or any video of the panel.. if anyone knows where it is please post links!

    thanks/BillT

  10. Physical analysis shows CO2 is a coolant for the atmosphere

    There is a fallacy dominating the way of our thinking in current climate research that radiative gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour are regarded greenhouse gases that trap heat and warm up the atmosphere. Physics analysis of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen molecules, however, tells a different story: carbon dioxide is cooler than, gains heat by molecular collision from, and dissipates heat by radiation for nitrogen and oxygen. Indeed, CO2 is a coolant of the atmosphere, and it is nitrogen and oxygen gases that award the Earth a warm liveable near surface atmosphere.

    The physical principle behind the analysis lies in the Kirchhoff’s law of 19th century radiation physics, which can be restated in plain English as: an object that absorbs emits and an object that emits absorbs. Absorption and emission are two inseparable equivalent identities of the same physical essence. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared therefore it emits as well thermal radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb, therefore do not emit. CO2 approaches 0 K because of its emission if there is no radiation source; absorption of the thermal radiation from the earth ground surface rises CO2 temperature from -273.15°C to -78°C only. CO2 gains heat by colliding with warmer nitrogen and oxygen to rise its temperature further, which can be measured by spectroscopy.

    We will have a better understanding of the physical principle if one notices that a computer case is often designed black. This is because a black surface emits more heat out so the computer will be cooler. On the other hand, an industrial boiler is usually painted silver to reduce thermal emission to reserve heat.

    With this alternative interpretation, we have a better explanation of the temperature-altitude profile of the atmosphere; in particular, a better explanation of the existence of the thermosphere where the molecular temperature of residual oxygen gas is well above 100°C ¾ CO2 gas is sorted out in the thermosphere due to its heavier molecular weight.

    http://www.jinancaoblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/physical-analysis-shows-co2-is-coolant.html

  11. bair polaire says:

    March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
    “Back radiation

    I have to admit, that I’m still not sure if I really understand how the warming through back radiation from atmospheric CO2 really works. Can someone direct me to a website where they explain this (and don’t come up with cars parked in the sun)?”

    Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

    Tom Vonk

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

    HTH

  12. Planet Under Pressure Conference/Drought in Southern England/ IPCC SRex

    The PUP conference has been running all week in London, yet seems to have attracted very limited coverage in the MSM with none of the usual emotional headlines. Obviously, the 4 day gabfest was a bit dull but even so, this must be a sign. Also Southern England facing a hosepipe ban from next week but no mention of CC even in BBC reporting where the focus is more on the competence of the government and the problems with leeks. Naturally, we have the solution in the Easter holiday where torrential rain must be a are thing.

    Lastly, SRex seems to have sunk without trace. No hysterical headlines.

    Regards Paul

  13. Jinan Cao says:

    March 31, 2012 at 3:25 am

    “Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared therefore it emits as well thermal radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb, therefore do not emit.”

    Gases only emit on distinct wavelengths, the same on which they absorb – so they can’t emit random frequencies or a blackbody spectrum. They can only rid themselves off energy via radiative means if they have enough energy to emit a photon on one of their absorption/emission spectral lines.

  14. bair polaire says:

    March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am

    Back radiation

    Have you seen any proof that the planet is cooling slower at night, because all the CET data I have looked at seems to show that there is no comparable rise in night temperatures?

    The minimum seems to vary between 40% and 50% of the maximum with 2010 having the greatest cooling of 40.2%.

  15. bair polaire says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
    “Back radiation
    I have to admit, that I’m still not sure if I really understand how the warming through back radiation from atmospheric CO2 really works. ”

    bair, to my understanding the main problem that creates the misunderstanding is to take “back radiation” out of context of heat transfer through radiation and trying to compute something based on it. It makes no sense. Back radiation exists in the heat exchange through radiation between the 2 bodies and not separate of it.
    A change in a way how one body radiates may change the way how the heat transfer happens, but the heat transfer needs to be recalculated based on the overall heat transfer equation and not based on one factor from within it.
    Whereas proper calculation of heat transfer is more difficult a “forcing” approximation can give the modellers a fast and easy answer to tune models and may give right results for small variations but it leads to aberrations for longer time scale, large variations which is what we see.
    From what I understand climate models use a parameter to give a certain increase of Watts from radiation between atmosphere and ground for a certain increase of CO2. It is clear that such climate models will automatically forecast warming for increased CO2. If one adds a positive reaction of the system – it is clear what the next forecast will be.
    It is interesting to see that models are not corrected based on effective satellite and terrestrial measurements of outgoing/incoming radiation – I never saw such – possibly due to insufficient data and precise measurements.
    If you check the measurements of TSI – incoming solar radiation – you will better understand the discussion about calculation errors and variability:

    http://www.acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm

    Btw I am not a climate scientist… I am just a person who tries to understand the problems based on the laws of physics, so if somebody has a better knowledge or understanding please correct me would be happy to learn.
    I could find very useful information at Daly’s site, I very much liked his scientific approach. See also some additional sites:

    http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=483

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/12/heat-transfer-and-the-earths-surface/

  16. bair polaire says: March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am asks :
    1. I understand back radiation from the sky does not warm the earth, it just reduces the heat loss: the earth cools slower especially at night.

    It is best not to get too tied up in semantics. Does wearing a fur coat make you warmer? The heat source that warms the |Earth is the Sun. If that goes out no amount of greenhouse gas will keep it warm. However, the presence of greenhouse gases make the surface of the planet about 33K higher than it would otherwise be.

    2. I understand gases absorb and emit at the same wavelengths. The sun is much brighter than the earth at all wavelength even infrared. And the sun has always more than half of the atmospheric CO2 in view. Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?

    You understand wrong. Less than one billionth of the Sun’s power reaches the Earth and by that time the amount of long wave infrared (longer than a wavelength of 4 micron) is negligible compared to the radiation that the Earth emits itself. The Sun’s radiation reaches the surface through an ‘atmospheric window’ and very little of it is blocked by CO2. Compare graph of solar radiation at top of atmosphere to that reaching the surface. Some is taken out be ozone in the upper atmosphere, some by water vapour but very little by CO2 (because the CO2 absorption bands do not coincide with the solar spectrum).

    3. Most back radiation from the sky is probably due to clouds and water vapor. How sure are we that we can measure the back radiation from increase in CO2?

    Measurements of back radiation are made by a network of monitoring stations around the globe. When these measurements are made at cold locations on a clear day, which means no water vapour is present because of the arctic conditions, we can see that back radiation is predominantly from the CO2 absorption band around 15 microns.

    4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?
    Yes, it’s all around you.

    The best unbiased website for those who really wish to learn is undoubtedly ‘Science of Doom’. http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
    This is a balanced site that tries to avoid complicated mathematics and seeks to address popular misconceptions. The question is – do you really want to learn or would you prefer not to believe?

    You see, I think that sceptics should be better informed rather than looking foolish by arguing against that which can be easily proven, as some here choose to do. So, good luck to you.

  17. Open Thread days are good days for everyone to review the top and right navigation bars. Even us longterm denizens can benefit from a refresher.

    My favorite link is a bit selfish (but I do use it!). I think the overall favorite is the Sea Ice Reference page.

    What’s yours?

  18. Paul Maynard says:

    March 31, 2012 at 3:44 am

    Planet Under Pressure Conference/Drought in Southern England/ IPCC SRex

    The PUP conference has been running all week in London, yet seems to have attracted very limited coverage in the MSM with none of the usual emotional headlines. Obviously, the 4 day gabfest was a bit dull but even so, this must be a sign. Also Southern England facing a hosepipe ban from next week but no mention of CC even in BBC reporting where the focus is more on the competence of the government and the problems with leeks.

    Whats the problem with leeks? are they withering?

  19. Recent BBC article “Climate change tree test begins”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17534587

    “European forestry scientists have begun a multi-national field trial to identify trees that will thrive as predicted climate change develops.”
    “In Wales, a cleared area of the Crychan Forest about the size of five football pitches is being planted in a carefully mapped grid system. The saplings going into the ground have been imported from the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, California and beyond.”

    I was puzzled as to what will be understood by this experiment as if it will unearth something unknown.
    For a small amount of money the researchers could visit most of the 55 botanical gardens in the UK and see how non native trees have been getting on, such a Kew Gardens in London, or teh sub tropical Inverewe Gardens in NW Scotland, started in 1862. Thanks to the Victorians the UK has an enormous range of non native trees and plants. The trouble is it would mean conversing with Botanists and what would they know about climate?

    Here is a list of UK botanic gardens (not including other gardens such as Sissinghurst, Scion Park, Stourhead etc.)

    Abbey Gardens, Tresco
    Abbotsbury Subtropical Gardens
    Batsford Arboretum
    Bedgebury National Pinetum
    Bicton Gardens
    Birmingham Botanical Gardens
    Bodenham Arboretum
    Borde Hill Garden, Haywards Heath
    Bristol University Botanic Gardens, Bristol
    Calderstones/Harthill estate, Liverpool
    Cambridge University Botanic Garden, Cambridge
    Chelsea Physic Garden, Chelsea
    Derby Arboretum
    Eden Project
    Exbury Gardens, Exbury
    Firs Botanical Grounds Fallowfield
    Fletcher Moss Botanical Garden Didsbury
    Harcourt Arboretum, Nuneham Courtenay
    Harris Garden, University of Reading, Reading
    Jodrell Bank Arboretum
    Lost Gardens of Heligan
    Moor Bank Garden, Newcastle University
    Museum Gardens, York
    Ness Botanic Gardens
    Paignton Botanical Gardens
    Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
    Royal Horticultural Society Gardens, Wisley
    Sheffield Botanical Gardens, Sheffield
    Southport Botanic Gardens
    Thenford House Arboretum, Thenford
    Thorp Perrow Arboretum, Bedale
    Tortworth Court Arboretum
    University of Durham Botanic Garden
    University of Leicester Botanic Garden, Oadby
    University of Oxford Botanic Garden, Oxford
    Ventnor Botanic Garden, Ventnor
    Wakehurst Place (outstation of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew)
    Wavertree Botanic Park and Gardens, Liverpool
    Westonbirt Arboretum, Tetbury
    Winkworth Arboretum
    Winterbourne Botanic Garden, University of Birmingham

    Crarae Gardens, Inveraray
    Cruickshank Botanic Garden, Aberdeen
    Dawyck Botanic Garden
    Dundee Botanic Garden
    Glasgow Botanic Gardens
    Logan Botanic Garden
    Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The main site is in Edinburgh at Inverleith, with three “Regional Gardens”:
    St Andrews Botanic Garden
    Younger Botanic Garden Benmore

    Aberystwyth University Botanic Garden – Penglais
    Belfast Botanic Gardens, Belfast
    National Botanic Garden of Wales

    Treborth Botanic Garden – Bangor University

  20. Welcome to the WUWT Sports channel! For the debut game we have “The Cause” vs. “The Skeptics”:

    First inning: Gavin Schmidt is up to bat for “The Cause”.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/

    Norman Page steps to the mound and blisters one in:
    “what year would you reconsider the CO2 – Warming paradigm if the CRU Global annual mean temperature is cooler than 2005 – 2009…?”

    Schmidt swings:
    “You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 - 0.3 deg/decade]”

    And it’s a miss! A decade +1 of essentially no trend (slight cooling):

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend

    Strike 1.

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019Note

    Page steps down to give John Henriksen a chance; He gives it all he’s got with this pitch:
    “what would FALSIFY [linking CO2 to ‘warming’]?”

    Schmidt swings again:
    ”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”

    And it’s a miss! The stratosphere hasn’t been cooling in over a decade:

    http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.ls

    http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf

    Strike 2.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/comment-page-4/#comments

    Richard Wakefield steps up and pitches:
    ”How many more years of no acceleration [in SLR] will it take to abandon AGW theory?”

    Gavin swings:
    “AGW is based on the radiative impact of CO2 and other atmospheric constituents – none of those things depend on sea level rise.”

    Hit……..Foul Ball. Misdirection doesn’t answer the question. SLR is one of the claimed major impacts of AGW and often presented as evidence for GW. If sea level rise remains constant or drops I find it hard to believe that wouldn’t damage the AGW case among both laymen and impartial scientists considering how many times temperature increase has been connected to sea level rise and the “it’s accelerating” touted as proof it’s anthropogenic. Later in the same thread: “Do you have peer reviewed papers that shows that the cause of B (sea level rise) is because of AGW?” — Wakefield; ”Response: Yes. Domingues et al (2008). – gavin”. So, if SLR is caused by AGW and SLR stops where does that leave AGW? A cause without its signature effect? LOL.

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013

    Now, Steve Shaw takes the mound, digs in, and throws a curve ball:
    ”To clarify what I am wrestling with, whether CO2 warms the planet isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we have enough information yet to say authoritatively that the next 40 years will be more like 1980-2000 than like 2000-2010, in the amount of increase. This is fundamental to determining appropriate public policy. ….. I just need some specific aspects pinned down.”

    Schmidt doesn’t swing:

    It’s in there, right through the strike zone into the catchers mitt: Obviously, this question is absolutely germane to the “debate”, if we can’t answer “yes”, and explain why in a Willis type elevator speech, then, what the heck is all the hullabaloo about? But instead of commenting with what should be an “easy” answer, this question is relegated to The Bore Hole (#383).
    Strike 3; You’re OUT!

    Next up at bat its “The Mann” himself and “The Skeptics” are in disagreement over whether they really need to send a picture up to the mound. But we’ve run out of time ….. signing off.

  21. I made my first comment on R/C in response to their piece about dishonesty in data reporting. It seemed innocuous enough, but apparently anything other than a chorus of assent gets censored.

    >>>>•A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer time axis.

    Sorry, but that one’s just laughable. You think that the deniers have stretched the horizontal axis, but the standard presentation of global temperature data routinely expands the vertical axis by a factor of about 100.

    I understand why it’s done, and scientists are able to discern the difference between temperature and anomaly, but when you put graphs out for the public that show a massive spike in global temperature, do you think most of them realize that it’s a change of less than 0.5%? Wouldn’t it be more honest to occasionally show an actual temperature graph alongside the presentation of the anomalies?<<<<

    I'm a heretic for suggesting that an accurate graph be included in non-science publications that would show the true scale of the temperature anomaly?

  22. bair polaire asks @ March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am

    How sure are we that we can measure the back radiation from increase in CO2?

    I would suggest, in a very dry area, such as the North or South pole in winter, when there is no incident solar radiation, you point a radiometer in the 15um wavelength band at the zenith.

    Has anyone done this?

  23. Ric Werme says:
    March 31, 2012 at 5:12 am

    Open Thread days are good days for everyone to review the top and right navigation bars. Even us longterm denizens can benefit from a refresher.

    My favorite link is a bit selfish (but I do use it!). I think the overall favorite is the Sea Ice Reference page.

    What’s yours?

    I really like the new “Transendental rants and far out theories” section. A couple of good site links there. I’m thinking of adding a “lukewarm junkscience” section on the Talkshop. ;-)

  24. @vukcevic March 31, 2012 at 3:43 am

    Hi Mango
    Common sense and sense of humour are not tolerated under any circumstances.
    I see you fared only a bit better

    I thought that was a pretty reasonable question, but got a “No, because I’m a genius climate scientologist” type answer from Mann

  25. MangoChutney says: March 31, 2012 at 1:24 am
    @vukcevic
    your comment is in the hilariously named “borehole”

    Thanks for the info, I just looked in there and found lots of my ‘lost’ comments with many of other sensible and to the climate science important contributions. It is good that Gavin & Co. keep that section alive, soon they will need to re-educate themselves and most of other commentators, particularly two regulars Hank Roberts & John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) continuously yapping from sidelines, I compared them to Statler and Waldorf , the muppit characters .

  26. Jinan Cao says:
    March 31, 2012 at 4:11 am
    “DirkH;
    Don’t you realise that CO2 will emit thermal radiation as long as its temperature is not 0 K?”

    Gases don’t emit a continuous blackbody spectrum. Energy received via collisions with neighbouring gas molecules eventually leads to dethermalization and emission of a photon on the absorption/emission frequency lines of that particular kind of gas, not on arbitrary frequencies. That is what I know – if it is wrong, give me a source link.

    • No, CO2 does not emit a continuous spectrum as a black body does. The absorption bands for CO2 are the 2.7, 4.3 and 15um, with the 15 um one dominantly stronger than the other two. CO2 keeps emission of radiation via the same 2.7, 4.3 and 15um bands as long as its temperature is not 0 K. Employing the Planck’s distribution equation, one can determine how much it emits at any temperature T.

  27. @vukcevic March 31, 2012 at 6:30 am

    LMAO

    At least RC keeps the comments, better than SkS, who just delete comments they don’t like

    What concerns me most is a comment by “Albatross” who stated he followed my comments at the BBC and WUWT and called SkS his “work”. This is the kind of undertone I experienced in the conversation with Albatross

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm#67834

    notice #6 in response to me jokingly asking if they knew where I live (post deleted) – the response from Albatross begins Mango @6,

    I gave up trying to engage SkS in conversation

  28. DirkH says:
    March 31, 2012 at 6:38 am
    Gases don’t emit a continuous blackbody spectrum. Energy received via collisions with neighbouring gas molecules eventually leads to dethermalization and emission of a photon on the absorption/emission frequency lines of that particular kind of gas, not on arbitrary frequencies. That is what I know – if it is wrong, give me a source link.

    Dirk, what do you make of this comment from Ferd?

    ferd berple says:
    January 9, 2012 at 1:23 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 9, 2012 at 12:55 am
    ferd, the N2 is the most unlike the others because the line strength is many, many orders of magnitude weaker than that of the others.

    Perhaps you misread the reference? From what I see, N2 line strength is 10-28, CO2 is 10-23, which is 5 orders of magnitude. However, N2 has 10 times wider spectrum (600 cm-1 versus 50 cm-1). In addition, there are 4 orders of magnitude more N2 in the atmosphere than CO2. So, on this basis it is hard to see that N2 absorbs/radiates significantly less than CO2.

    In contrast to CO2, H2O line strength is 10-19 which if 4 orders of magnitude stronger than CO2. As well it has a much, much wider spectrum than CO2. The absorption strength and spectra of water so overwhelms CO2 as to make it CO2 a joke when you consider the amount of H2O in the atmosphere as compared to CO2.

  29. DirkH says:
    March 31, 2012 at 3:41 am

    Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

    Roy Spencer observes that his isolated aluminum plate got warmer just before sunrise and assumes the reason was middle level clouds coming over. His plate warmed from 73 F to 76F and he believes the clouds were just 50F. If this is right, than I was mistaken: A colder body can heat a warmer body – not just slow down the heat loss.

    This effect should have been scientifically proven a long time ago. Did I miss something?

  30. pat;
    Yeah, there’s no saving ETS schemes. They are flawed and rotten at the root. Let’s start with the presumption that “allowances” are the governments’ property to allocate or sell …

    All will suffer the fate of CCX. Only crooks like Gore will walk away with cash in hand.

  31. @John West;
    Clever and pertinent! But you got right to the last para–and erred, as so often happens:
    “Next up at bat its “The Mann” himself and “The Skeptics” are in disagreement over whether they really need to send a picture up to the mound. But we’ve run out of time ….. signing off.”

    What good would an image on the mound do? Not that AGW isn’t pure illusion …

  32. @John West;
    Actually, 2 errors: “up at bat its “The Mann” …”
    That would be “it’s”, as in “it is”.
    ;p

  33. tallbloke says:
    March 31, 2012 at 6:57 am
    “Dirk, what do you make of this comment from Ferd?”

    Yes, the N2 lines are spread over a much wider part of the spectrum, and they are much weaker. The argument that there is far more N2 and that this compensates for the lost order of magnitudes is interesting, I didn’t think of that. But the absorption spectrum of N2 looks like a comb of needle peaks separated by quite a distance… the area under the absorption spectrum is what counts and looks much lower than for CO2 or H2O… I still think N2 is very weak. Has to do with the possible vibrational modes of a 3-atom molecule I think, they kinda allow for “detuning” and smearing of the lines into a continuous spectrum – for absorption as well as for emission… in the cold stratosphere, this smearing is reduced and the absorption spectrum becomes needle-like for CO2 and H20 as well. The temperature of the molecule plays a role.

  34. Tallbloke, Tyndall found that oxygen and nitrogen were like a vacuum to absorption.
    By the way, I saw your sugestion that I write a humorous post about my experiences with Wiki. I will see what I can do.

  35. bair polaire says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
    “Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?”

    Maybe because the 15um range where CO2 radiates is the radiation of a -75°C body?

  36. Bair polaire

    You interpreted Spencers diagram incorrectly.

    Spencers plate gets colder than the local air temperature when the plate, which is painted with a good emitting paint, can cool to the colder higher atmosphere by radiating thru the warmer but not very intensely emitting local air, even though the local air is heating the plate while it cools towards the colder higher atmosphere .

    Once the cloud comes over the plate no longer cools as rapidly and because it is heated by the local air it warms up.

    Cold cannot heat hot.

  37. Lars P. says:
    March 31, 2012 at 4:46 am

    Lars, I am not interested in the problems they have with modeling the climate. (I just wonder that they call model runs an “experiment” – even Judith Curry does that…)

    My problem is more basic: how do they think the greenhouse effect works.

    My understanding is: from the viewpoint of the CO2 molecule in the atmosphere
    1. the sun is always brighter than the earth at the absorption/emmision wavelenghts
    2. more than 50% of CO2 molecules are bathed in sunlight, less than 50% are in earth’s shadow
    3. Almost all CO2 molecules see more sky than earth.

    As gases absorb and emit at the same wavelength, the sun (mostly) and the earth (a little) heat up the CO2. By absorbing incoming heat the CO2 shields the earth from the sun’s heat more than it is heating the earth through reemission or back radiation. Because on average most of the reemission of the heated CO2 moelcules goes to space not to earth. Thus CO2 can slow the heating and cooling of the earth but not make it warmer.

    What am I missing?

  38. bair polaire says:
    March 31, 2012 at 7:28 am
    “Roy Spencer observes that his isolated aluminum plate got warmer just before sunrise and assumes the reason was middle level clouds coming over. His plate warmed from 73 F to 76F and he believes the clouds were just 50F. If this is right, than I was mistaken: A colder body can heat a warmer body – not just slow down the heat loss.

    This effect should have been scientifically proven a long time ago. Did I miss something?”

    What Dr. Spencer observes there doesn’t make much sense. His instrument is designed to infer a temperature assuming a blackbody spectrum. What he gets from above in IR when a cloud is overhead is a mixture of a blackbody spectrum – from liquid water droplets in the cloud – plus some line-based IR backradiation (from CO2 and gaseous water vapor). I think his instrument misinterprets.

    The temperature he measures for the plate is probably correct as that is pure blackbody radiation.

  39. At least some climate scientists are looking for the real causes.

    “The strong sensitivity of the Earth’s radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000867

  40. Bomber_the_Cat says:
    March 31, 2012 at 5:08 am

    “However, the presence of greenhouse gases make the surface of the planet about 33K higher than it would otherwise be.”

    If heard that before. My question is: How does the presence of greenhouse gases make the surface of the planet warmer.

    “Less than one billionth of the Sun’s power reaches the Earth and by that time the amount of long wave infrared (longer than a wavelength of 4 micron) is negligible compared to the radiation that the Earth emits itself.”

    Is it really true, that the sun is dimmer at the peak of the earth’s black body radiation (around 10 micron?)? I would like to see a graph comparing the sun’s incoming energy at the wavelength of the earth’s outgoing radiation peak. This graph from your link is misleading: they scaled down the sun’s energy by six decimal orders of magnitude:

    “Measurements of back radiation are made by a network of monitoring stations around the globe. When these measurements are made at cold locations on a clear day, which means no water vapour is present because of the arctic conditions, we can see that back radiation is predominantly from the CO2 absorption band around 15 microns.”

    OK. But that does not say that for the globe as a whole most of the back radiation comes from CO2. I would still assume most back radiation comes from clouds and water vapor. Figures?

    4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?
    ” Yes, it’s all around you.”

    Could you name just one were I can easily observe reduced heat loss (and even warming by a colder source??) due to back radiation?

    “You see, I think that sceptics should be better informed rather than looking foolish by arguing against that which can be easily proven, as some here choose to do. So, good luck to you.”

    Not sure if skeptics look more foolish on average and in the long run than believers, but thank you anyway.

  41. Bair polaire

    The hot Sun does not emit much long wave IR radiation, but the cold surface of the earth does. C02 mainly only absorbs in the long wave IR

    Please go back and look at my earlier reply to you about Spencers plate.

  42. bair polaire says:
    March 31, 2012 at 8:52 am
    “Could you name just one were I can easily observe reduced heat loss (and even warming by a colder source??) due to back radiation?”

    Even though Spencer’s temperature readings for those moments where he observed the cloud overhead don’t make much sense, I think the slight waming of the plate in his box (which was designed to let through IR but isolate from convective effects) before sunrise shows that it can happen – moments where a sufficiently cooled down object, emitting relatively little IR blackbody radiation itself, can receive more IR from the sky (blackbody radiation from droplets in clouds plus CO2 / water vapor emissions) and so temporarily gain energy and heat up.

    The blackbody radiation power emitted by an object rises with the 4th power of the absolute temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so an object at +40 C emits three times the energy of an object at -40 C. So it should be much easier to observe in very cold objects. This necessarily means that a hypothetically increased greenhouse gas induced warming MUST reduce temperature differentials across the globe as it would be three times as efficient in winter time Siberia than in daytime Spain, for instance; I say “hypothetically increased warming” because variations in water vapor totally thwart any attempt at measuring the effect of CO2. Water vapor travels in huge plumes and has an average residence time of two weeks in the atmosphere. Is is not well-mixed.

    Nice page about water vapour in the atmosphere

    http://204.38.191.104/robinson/9cl1.htm

    “Sequential water vapor images viewed in rapid succession to detect motion show water vapor transported horizontally as huge swirling plumes, often originating in the tropics and moving into higher latitudes.
    A typical water vapor plume is thousands of kilometers long and several hundred kilometers wide. Plumes supply moisture to hurricanes, clusters of thunderstorms, and winter storms. In spring and summer, such water vapor plumes have been associated with exceptionally heavy rain and flash floods.”

  43. ottot says:
    March 31, 2012 at 2:53 am
    “Came across an article today which shocked me:
    Climate-change scepticism must be ‘treated’, says enviro-sociologist
    “Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. ”

    Well ottot nothing new under the sun, but agree, it is shocking to see how crank these people are.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

    This is in my view the top crank of the year 2012 in the global warming hysteria so far.

  44. Any here who can show and tell how shortwave from the Sun heats land and oceans, go ahead, let’s hear it.

  45. ottot says:
    March 31, 2012 at 2:53 am

    Came across an article today which shocked me:

    Climate-change scepticism must be ‘treated’, says enviro-sociologist

    “Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South..”

    PR: http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons

    I don’t see that quote. Perhaps they changed the press release. The relevant paragraph now reads:

    In many discussions in the last 30 years, climate change has been seen as either a hoax or fixable with minimal political or economic intervention, said Norgaard, author of the book “Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions and Everyday Life” (2011, MIT Press). “This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat,” she said. The discussion, she said, is comparable to what happened with challenges to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.

    Your comment implies what you quoted is from the press release, but given that your quote refers to scepticism instead of skepticism, I suspect it came from a British source, not the professor or press release.

    Google has several hits, it may be the source is from “El Reg” at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/30/climate_scepticism_racism_slavery_treatment/ which has a word-for-word identical quote. That article is referenced in several other sites, including an English language forum at Pravda.ru, see http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/248174-the-looney-globull-warming-cult-wants-people-treated-that-dont-believe-their-bullshit/

    If you indeed found it at The Register, then I don’t see why you were shocked unless you aren’t familiar with El Reg and their style. I don’t understand why you didn’t include a link to that quote. Well, if you found it on Pravda, I could understand….

  46. Hi Bair Polaire,
    I think you misunderstood my comment about sceptics looking foolish. My fault for not expressing myself clearly, mea culpa. I think many sceptics are very good; Richard Lindzen is exceptional. I am sceptic myself (but not up his standard). But all the sceptics who are credible have one thing in common – they understand that the greenhouse effect is real. Unfortunately, there are some in the sky dragon club, who dispute basic physics; I was referring to those.

    To understand how greenhouse gases make the surface of the Earth 33 K warmer than it would otherwise be you need to accept some established physics. You have no doubt heard the arguments before but basically it goes like this. The Earth emits infrared radiation, this is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and they. in turn. radiate back to Earth. This ‘back-radiation’ represents an additional heating flux at the surface. That is to say, without the green house gases it wouldn’t be there. Does this not sound as if the Earth’s outgoing radiation is being counted twice? Is energy being created out of nothing? It certainly sounds like it. How is this possible? Some of the best explanations (in my opinion) can be found from previous articles posted on this site

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/

    Is it really true that the Sun’s radiation around 10 micron is dimmer than the Earth’s radiation? Absolutely! I agree that the graph I referenced can be confusing. It confused someone else. The solar radiation has been factored down by one million to fit it on the graph, but this is the solar radiation at the Sun surface, not when it reaches Earth. I can tell this from the y-axis scale which is consistent with a peak radiation of about 8 * 10^7 W/sq.m/micron ( I can also tell that what he calls radiation flux is not in terms of per steradian). At 10 micron the value is 13,234 W/sq.m/micron – at the Sun surface. To get the 10 micron level at Earth orbit we must multiply this be 0.45 * 10^-9 which gives 6*10^-6 W/sq.m/micron. The corresponding figure for the Earth’s outgoing radiation at 10 micron is 25 W/sq.m/micron, 4 million times higher. There can be no doubt, therefore, that when we see radiation above 4 microns it is from something at ambient temperature. Likewise, when we detect radiation shorter than 2 microns it is from the Sun ( or a rocket motor or a furnace etc.).

    You are correct to say that most back-radiation comes from clouds, water vapour etc. The only point I was making was some of it is clearly from CO2 as well. I have no figures to hand, it varies from place to place and season to season.

  47. bair polaire says:

    March 31, 2012 at 7:28 am

    This effect should have been scientifically proven a long time ago. Did I miss something?

    Convection.

  48. Andrew Judd says:
    March 31, 2012 at 9:30 am

    “Please go back and look at my earlier reply to you about Spencers plate:

    “Spencers plate gets colder than the local air temperature when the plate, which is painted with a good emitting paint, can cool to the colder higher atmosphere by radiating thru the warmer but not very intensely emitting local air, even though the local air is heating the plate while it cools towards the colder higher atmosphere .

    Once the cloud comes over the plate no longer cools as rapidly and because it is heated by the local air it warms up.

    Cold cannot heat hot.”

    Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

    This is exactly how I would interpret Spencer’s diagram. I think his explanation is wrong or easily misunderstood.

    As you say: cold can not heat hot – but a colder object can slow down heat loss of a warmer object.

    (And I don’t agree with DirkH that Spencer’s measurement shows that a colder body can heat up a warmer body. If this were the case it would be a well documented effect, not a single temperature reading in one guy’s backyard.)

    In other words: Cold CO2 in the stratosphere can not make the earth warmer, it can just slow down the cooling a little bit. And this effect should be greatest in cold winter nights at high latitudes.

    Kelvin Vaughan doubts that this effect has been observed:

    Kelvin Vaughan says:
    March 31, 2012 at 4:17 am
    “Have you seen any proof that the planet is cooling slower at night, because all the CET data I have looked at seems to show that there is no comparable rise in night temperatures?

    The minimum seems to vary between 40% and 50% of the maximum with 2010 having the greatest cooling of 40.2%.”

    Any claims to the contrary?

  49. Bair Polair

    It is easier to focus on water and water vapour rather than C02. The effect is fairly enormous. The surface is strongly heating the atmosphere with radiation and convection. If there was no returning energy via atmospheric emission to slow down the heat loss rate it would be enormously colder particularly at night, but even so on hot clear sky humid days as well as cloudy days big difference will be observed between dry and humid weatheri.

    For example an observer reported to John Tyndall on the 2nd of June 1845 it was -11.6C at sunrise and 19.6C at 4pm in central australia where the air was particularly dry. Tyndall reported many other similar extreme temperature ranges around asia and Africa where the air was dry and much smaller ranges where the air was humid. Tyndall discovered that particularly water had an enormous ability to absorb radiating energy.

    C02 is permanently present in the atmosphere but not significant at lower altitudes where water dominates. C02 must make a difference but how much is debateable because of the dominance of water.

  50. bair polaire says:
    March 31, 2012 at 10:51 am
    “(And I don’t agree with DirkH that Spencer’s measurement shows that a colder body can heat up a warmer body. If this were the case it would be a well documented effect, not a single temperature reading in one guy’s backyard.)”

    You misunderstand me. I speculate that the IR meter of Spencer, trying to give an effective temperature for a mixture of blackbody radiation and line radiation when pointed at clouds overhead, gives a wrong reading.

    But Andrew Judd’s explanation also makes sense.

    I agree with the notion that a cold object cannot make a warmer object even warmer. The net flow of energy is from the warmer object.

  51. I’ve advanced the following seminal work to the next level of detail:

    Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. Geophysical Research Letters 37, L15307. doi:10.1029/2010GL043185.

    Under appropriate analysis such as tuned multi-parameter complex wavelet transform the semi-annual variations in earth rotation as indicated by length of day (LOD) records [ ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now ] show decadal-timescale coherence with neutron count rate records [ ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/STATION_DATA/ ] when phase-averaged over interannual variations [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png ].

    The semi-annual variations in LOD are due to hemispheric winter westerly winds [ http://i52.tinypic.com/nlo3dw.png , http://i54.tinypic.com/29vlc0x.png , & http://i51.tinypic.com/34xouhx.png (these climatology animations won't run on all web browsers - Mozilla Firefox works)] and correspond with semi-annual variations in atmospheric angular momentum (AAM) [ ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/geofluids/atmosphere/aam/GGFC2010/AER/ ].

    The natural next level of analysis arising from awareness of the decadal-timescale amplitude coherence [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn1.png ] led me to this [ http://i43.tinypic.com/o52jbd.png ] result which I have neither seen published nor discussed anywhere.

    These results are of definitive importance for characterizing the nature of solar-terrestrial climate relations.

    The Solar Cycle’s Footprint on Terrestrial Climate
    http://i43.tinypic.com/o52jbd.png

    http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20120324%20The%20Solar%20Cycle%27s%20Footprint%20on%20Terrestrial%20Climate.PDF

    http://www.billhowell.ca/Climate%20and%20sun/Vaughan%20120324%20The%20Solar%20Cycle%27s%20Footprint%20on%20Terrestrial%20Climate.PDF

    (There’s a whole other layer which I won’t attempt to discuss now.)

    ———
    Also — a new exploratory article:

    Solar-Terrestrial Resonance, Climate Shifts, & the Chandler Wobble Phase Reversal

    http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20120324%20Solar-Terrestrial%20Resonance,%20Climate%20Shifts,%20&%20the%20Chandler%20Wobble%20Phase%20Reversal.pdf

    (This is the tip of an iceberg. More details will be forthcoming in the weeks & months ahead.)

    ———
    Regards.

  52. (Love these discussions–just proves that Anthony can and should take a day off every week and “let the mice play”. He should know his blog is in good hands and we expect him to enjoy some burnout prevention. Now, back to science.)

  53. Industrial waste to replace wood

    Scientists from Irkutsk, Eastern Siberia, have created a material from industrial waste, suitable to replace wood and plastic in the construction sector. It has qualities similar to that of wood, but is superior to wood with regards to fire and heat resistance, as well as its resistance to cold. The new material is durable and is twice cheaper than wood.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_30/70130031/

  54. Bob Diaz says:
    March 31, 2012 at 10:43 am

    “Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor”

    Projection. What she means is she needs treatment. She has a delusion; she is the one with ‘aberrant sociological behavior’.

  55. DirkH says:
    March 31, 2012 at 11:21 am
    I agree with the notion that a cold object cannot make a warmer object even warmer. The net flow of energy is from the warmer object.

    What’s the mechanism that makes it net hotter to colder?

  56. Bomber_the_Cat says:
    March 31, 2012 at 10:44 am

    “The Earth emits infrared radiation, this is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and they. in turn. radiate back to Earth. This ‘back-radiation’ represents an additional heating flux at the surface.”

    No problem with that. But as long as the greenhouse gases are colder than the surface (mostly they are), they can’t heat the earth, they just can slow down the cooling.

    When is this reduced cooling effect greatest? On a hot summer day at noon in the tropics when a lot of radiation and back radiation is taking place? Or on a cold winter night at high latitudes, when the surface is almost as cold as the stratospheric CO2? I would assume the latter because the difference in temperatures is smaller, and therefore the energy flux is more equal in both directions.

    “Is it really true that the Sun’s radiation around 10 micron is dimmer than the Earth’s radiation? Absolutely! … The corresponding figure for the Earth’s outgoing radiation at 10 micron is 25 W/sq.m/micron, 4 million times higher.”

    This I didn’t know. But I doubt it: Isn’t the black body emission always greater at all wavelengths when the temperature goes up? The sun is definitely hotter than the earth. Of course the surface area of the sun as seen from the stratosphere is much smaller than the surface of the earth. But is the sun really 4 million times smaller? I think with 4 million suns you can cover a lot of sky… The sun covers two degrees of the sky so half the sky is just 90 suns across. With less than 10.000 suns more than half of the sky is covered.

  57. Myrrh says:
    March 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    “What’s the mechanism that makes it net hotter to colder?”

    Blackbody radiation.

  58. Weins displacement law describes how emissions move towards higher frequencies with higher temperatures.

    Also a quite high amount of solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the surface. The suns energy reaching the surface is not significantly warming the atmosphere compared to what the surface provides.

  59. New climatology animation:

    Total Cloud Cover

    For comparison:

    Low Level Cloud Cover

    Monthly Maximum of Daily Precipitation

    Column-integrated Water Vapor Flux with their Convergence:

    Evaporation Minus Precipitation

    Precipitation

    Precipitable Water

    Credit: Climatology animations have been assembled using JRA-25 Atlas [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm ] images. JRA-25 long-term reanalysis is a collaboration of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) & Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI).

    “Apart from all other reasons, the parameters of the geoid depend on the distribution of water over the planetary surface.” — N.S. Sidorenkov

  60. Is Svensmark correct ?
    Here I show data for the last 15 months for the Ap-max index, which when above 50 results in a decrease of the galactic cosmic rays impact, known as the ‘Forbush decrease’.
    Forbush decrease should be most noticeable in the polar regions.
    Also is shown degree of cloudiness (%) for the area from 60N to 90N.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Cl.htm

    Cloudiness should significantly drop during the Forbush decrease. Allowing for variable delay between 3 and 6 days occasional (but not always) small reduction in cloudiness lasting 1-2 days could be observed, but no noticeable correlation can be established.

  61. Is Svensmark correct ?
    Here I show data for the last 15 months for the Ap-max index, which when above 50 results in a decrease of the galactic cosmic rays impact, known as the ‘Forbush decrease’.
    Forbush decrease should be most noticeable in the polar regions.
    Also is shown degree of cloudiness (%) for the area from 60N to 90N.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Cl.htm

    Cloudiness should significantly drop during the Forbush decrease. Allowing for variable delay between 3 and 6 days occasional (but not always) small reduction in cloudiness lasting 1-2 days could be observed, but no noticeable correlation can be established

  62. Earth hour come and gone here in NL.
    I turned on every freaking electric power using thing I have in my house ON.
    Aaaaaaahhhhh, that feels good!
    Warm, dry, cozy comfi because of my friend E.

  63. Don’t think for a moment that the Obama administration & cronies here in Chicago have abandoned their dreams for wind power! Here’s the latest regarding siting wind turbines offshore into Lake Michigan:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-offshore-wind-farms-20120401,0,6369701.story

    How much will these studies cost? Who will pay for them? Will the public have input? I could save them a bunch of time & money and just recommend “don’t bother.”

  64. pat says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:47 am
    “the CAGW party is over, read all:
    31 March: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: Carbon ‘Like Titanic’ Sinking on EU Permit Glut
    The plunge in European Union carbon permits is putting prices on course for their longest-ever decline and shows no sign of ending as member states wrangle over curbing a glut in the market.”

    Perhaps a suggestion should be floated to the EU board that the rich alarmists worldwide will invest their retirement and savings funds in carbon credits. If they’re right they’ll be richer than sin in a few decades… If they’re wrong, well, let’s just say they won’t be funding world takeovers or fakegates anymore. What do you say Phil, Mike, Peter and Mr. Suzuki? Care to wager your money where your mouth is?

  65. Ric Werme:
    I visit your button almost as much as I visit the sea ice, sun status, and blogs of our comrades.

    Maybe, I should’ve said weekly, if not daily.

  66. Andrew Judd says:
    March 31, 2012 at 11:03 am

    “It is easier to focus on water and water vapour rather than C02.”

    Water just makes the back radiation issue more complicated because of convection and phase changes etc. (I know water is much more important than CO2 for earth’s climate.) I just want to really understand the postulated greenhouse effect due to CO2.

    I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet. The warming people always come up with cars parked in the sun (which has very little to do with radiation) and the skeptics come up with complicated thought experiments (that I’m not sure that they are right).

    My questions are:

    1. Is it really true that stratospheric CO2 gets more energy from the surface of the earth than from the sun and the rest of the atmosphere combined? What are the percentages?
    2. What about the “horizon effect”: almost all CO2 molecules see more sky than earth. Thus more than 50% of their back radiation goes to space.
    3. If 1. and 2. are true, what is the effect? Shouldn’t CO2 be considered cooling the earth when it gets most of its energy from earth? Most of the CO2 is close to the warm surface thus helping the earth to radiate energy to space.
    4. What about the “umbrella effect”: As CO2 emits and absorbs energy at the same wavelengths it should to a certain degree shield the earth from the suns heat. Whatever energy the CO2 gets directly from the sun, more than 50% go to space and thus can not reach the earth.

  67. As of today, March 30th The SSN avg for the month is 77.366~7.

    Predicted number was 2012 03 70.8 (high)77.8 (low)63.8

  68. bair polaire says:

    I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet.

    I can assure you there is a co2 effect on the internet. Just look at the number of bytes expended on the subject of this trace gas daily…

  69. DirkH says:
    March 31, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    Myrrh says:
    March 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    “What’s the mechanism that makes it net hotter to colder?”

    Blackbody radiation.

    Please explain in more detail, much more detail.

  70. @bair polaire

    “4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?”

    An old style thermos bottle with a double-walled glass insert has a mirrored surface on the outer glass. This reflects IR from the hot contents coming off the inner wall back to the inner surface. This is also a good example of the insulating power of a vacuum (the glass container has a double wall with a vacuum). The silvery coating on the outer surface ‘back-radiates’ the IR coming off the hotter inner surface. There is no doubt that the outer wall is colder than the inner wall, but the reflector is still effective at keeping the high energy IR photons in for a while longer then they otherwise would have.

    Part of the misunderstanding is that the because the temperature of the ‘colder’ object is colder, people say it can’t ‘heat something that is already warmer’. It is not simply a matter of ‘transferring heat’ it is a matter of the energy of the photons in the IR frequency range. If a high energy photon comes off a surface and is refracted or reflected instead of being absorbed by the colder surface (as a portion are) the same photon can go back to the source and be absorbed. A low energy photon can be absorbed by a hot surface, no problem. Happens all the time between equally hot surfaces, literally.

    The over-simplification of the transfer of heat from one surface to another is misleading. There is a seething mass of photons going back and forth between surfaces at all sorts of different energies all the time. Net, the colder one loses less energy that the hotter one and the two average out after a while. If the cold one has an even colder surface behind it, there is a net heat loss to the third even colder surface.

    It is not like a flow of money from one pocket to another. There is a continuous interchange with a net loss in one direction (hot to cold). ‘Back radiation’ is going on all the time. The insulating effect of placing more ‘mirrors’ if you will, between the surface and the dead cold of space means a slowed heat loss as the photons take slightly longer to work their way out of the atmosphere.

    This effect has been well characterised and is real. The effect from CO2 is no very great. The IPCC reports claim the effect is amplified by water vapour but there is no proof that this amplification is real. The back radiation is real.

    If you see that thin aluminized plastic film (partially mirrored) stuck on office building windows that keeps heat in the building in winter by reflection, that is back radiation by reflection. If it were made of an IR absorbing material, it would have a similar though less effective effect, reradiating in all directions, some of in back into the office. Because it is less effective, they use mirrors.

  71. John West says:
    March 31, 2012 at 5:40 am

    Very nice! I’m eagerly awaiting your next update.

  72. tallbloke says:
    March 31, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    bair polaire says:

    I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet.

    I can assure you there is a co2 effect on the internet. Just look at the number of bytes expended on the subject of this trace gas daily…

    You read my mind! This is exactly my suspicion about the CO2 effct…

    By the way: JRA-25 is fantastic. Here is the net surface heat flux. Any CO2 effect?

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/indexe_surface12.htm

    To bad they don’t have CO2 data. Or have they?

  73. ‘Real Climate’ has reached a tipping point: Now you can learn more climatology from comments banished to the borehole than from those that don’t get censored.

  74. I stopped over to RealClimate to see how the IPCC report is sitting with Gavin.

    It’s pretty quiet there. The bloggers are worried about Pielke’s button getting too much exposure. And one fellow expresses worry: “I am concerned about the blog whats up with that, why is this issue (climate change) such a controversy to them and others?”

  75. I am reading Stand on Zanzibar (1968) by John Brunner. It has a fabulous quote that certain institutions and climate scientists might care to reflect upon: If the evidence says you’re wrong, you don’t have the right theory. You change the theory, not the evidence.

  76. Planet Under Pressure, 26-29 March, declaration, some extracts-

    “Without urgent action, we could face threats to water, food, biodiversity and other critical resources: these threats risk intensifying economic, ecological and social crises, creating the potential for a humanitarian emergency on a global scale.

    “…the continued functioning of the Earth system as it has supported the well-being of human civilization in recent centuries is at risk.

    “…we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene…

    “the international scientific community calls for a framework for regular global sustainability analyses that link existing assessments that build on the foundations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…

    “…current mechanisms for governing global environmental change show why existing international arrangements are not dealing quickly enough with current global challenges such as climate change…

    “…a new contract between science and society in recognition that science must inform policy to make more wise and timely decisions…

    “…input from governments, civil society, research funders, and the private sector.

    “A greater commitment to fund and support capacity-building in science and education
    globally, and particularly in developing countries.

    “Fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions is required to overcome barriers to progress and to move to effective Earthsystem
    governance.

    “the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.

    “…proposal for universal Sustainable Development Goals is needed, as goals for Global Sustainability.

    “The research community should be involved in the development of goals, targets and indicators…They should apply to all levels of governance.

    “Corrective measures that internalize costs and minimize the impacts on the commons need to be identified and implemented through regulatory and market-based mechanisms.

    “The survival of our societies, our civilization and our cultures are dependent
    on a stable climate, natural resources and ecosystem services. We have become a force of nature…

    “We support the concept of a green economy that recognizes the inter-connectivity of economic, environmental and social sustainability. Reforms of governance structures at all scales are critically needed to make sustainable development a reality.”

    And so on and so forth. ‘Carbon dioxide’ is conveniently not mentioned. It’s now about global sustainability, Earth system governance, funding and regulatory corrective measures all building up to Rio+20 in June.

  77. Bomber_the_Cat says:
    March 31, 2012 at 5:08 am
    However, the presence of greenhouse gases make the surface of the planet about 33K higher than it would otherwise be.
    ==========================================
    If you look carefully at the calculations of “33K”, you will probably see a little trick there. First they compare the earth without atmosphere with earth with atmosphere and get the 33 degree difference. Then they simply replace the word “atmosphere” with the words “greenhouse gases” and get (surprise!) their 33K “greenhouse effect”.

  78. On its Web site, NSIDC on March 18 observed that the annual maximum had probably been reached and it was the ninth lowest in the satellite era. It went on to say that taken together, the last nine years have been the nine lowest.

    So a little logic says that 2012, being better than the previous eight, is the highest maximum in almost a decade. That would have been considered newsworthy except that the purpose was to emphasize the decline, even in a year when it’s up.

  79. Right… everything from now should be considered an April Fools joke.

    P.S. Al Gore was right.

  80. U know what i like the most about WUWT and mostly this open thread?

    People speak out.. As the wish for and for what they believe in..

    Thanks everyone.. keep looking up!

  81. Bomber_the_Cat says:
    March 31, 2012 at 5:08 am

    …Sun’s power reaches the Earth and by that time the amount of long wave infrared (longer than a wavelength of 4 micron) is negligible compared to the radiation that the Earth emits itself.
    ============================================
    Let me guess: this idea of yours is based on the measurements of the downward IR radiation AND the assumption, that it comes from the “greenhouse gases”, but not from the sun. This is the same kind of trick the AGW guys use to “prove” their 33K “greenhouse effect.

  82. bair polaire says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
    Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?
    =======================================
    There are a few things the climate “scientists” have made disappear:

    1.The Sun sends a significant portion of IR radiation to the surface.

    2. The air get warm via contact with the surface and convection.

    3. The IR radiation the surface emits is because of (2) very weak and can not produce a significant amount of back radiation.

    http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

  83. Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
    March 31, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Is there a good chart that combines the last decade of cooling with the increase of CO2 during the same period? Basically WoodforTrees with CO2?

    WFT has CO2, in ppm. To plot well with temperature anomaly, you have to scale that and offset it.

    Here’s what it looks with a 20X scale and 275 offset over the last 15 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/scale:20/offset:375/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997

  84. vukcevic says:
    March 31, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    > Is Svensmark correct ?

    I don’t know, there’s ongoing research.

    > Here I show data for the last 15 months for the Ap-max index, which when above 50 results in a decrease of the galactic cosmic rays impact, known as the ‘Forbush decrease’.

    > Forbush decrease should be most noticeable in the polar regions.

    Okay, but Svensmark’s effect should be most pronounced in clean air at low altitudes, in particular low maritime clouds after particulates have mostly washed out and DMS or SO2 is present. (And judging from early CLOUD results, where NH3 is prevalent.)

    > Also is shown degree of cloudiness (%) for the area from 60N to 90N.

    > http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Cl.htm

    That seems pretty high and well into Chinese soot regions. Area-wise, pretty small, too.

    > Cloudiness should significantly drop during the Forbush decrease. Allowing for variable delay between 3 and 6 days occasional (but not always) small reduction in cloudiness lasting 1-2 days could be observed, but no noticeable correlation can be established

    Do you see anything interesting looking at temperate latitudes in the eastern Pacific?

  85. @Greg House

    Your sure are setting them straight. Good for you! Gee, Greg House, I also saw a Ron, brings back very old memories of hand pumped scoters and pulling taffy on 44. Probably just a coincidence… surely… -wayne

  86. In the UK, where weather is a constant subject of conversation, this article shows that it has now become political.

    http://climaterealists.com/?id=9376

    Will, when the Watermelon Dictatorship is established, it become a capital crime to complain about the weather, especially cold weather.

    As for the Hour Of Power, HOP, I even have my microwave on, though I am cooking my dinner on the stove, have my heating and lighting on, although I have doors and windows open. I consider this incredible luxury of cheap energy a boon to humanity. The way to get Africa out of poverty, aside from removing their “strong men”, is cheap, coal fired electricity.

    And those Watermelons want to deny the poorest of humanity the same luxury as they, themselves, experience. I puke upon them. I despise them. They are the enemy of humanity.

    Now, I will calm down and relax with a song by Adele.

  87. Earth Hour, Earth Day, whatever… The first Earth Day (in 1970) and the second used a poster with the theme “We have met the enemy and he is us”, a Pogo cartoon drawn by Walt Kelly.
    images here:

    http://otegony.com/we-have-met-the-enemy

    and a Google image search will find more.

    This theme goes all the way back in the environmental movement and is even stronger today as the meaning of ‘pollution’ continues to expand.

  88. NBC Nightly News had another piece tonight on extreme weather = climate change interviewing someone from NOAA saying it is so because of the massive increase in tornados and record temperatures in the eastern US. I guess he didn’t read the latest NOAA report on tornados. I figured he must have been lobbying for more funding.

    Meanwhile I had another inch of snow this afternoon here at 2500′ in Northern California with a forecast of 52 F. Gotta love those models.

  89. You know the debate over ‘cold’ down welling radiation, reducing the rate of cooling, or not, comes up over and over again and it seems there should have been some serious experimentation on this before now because it is so fundamental. I’ve not been able to find any documentation of such.

    What would comprise a good experimental set up to put this issue to bed?

    I would think you could pretty easily measure the energy flux in a solid target with a known conductivity and a constant energy source buried below the surface. Varying the incident ‘cold’ radiation should produce a measurable flux change in the target.

    Has it been done? If not, why not?

  90. I have a really important question regarding Sea Ice Volume anomaly, I wasreading the Luke Warm blog on Accuweather about how its a better indicator of arctic ice than Extent. He shows that The sea ice volume, which takes into account the area and thickness of the ice is still running well below normal across the Arctic as we continue to lose older, thicker ice and replace it with younger, thinner ice that is much more prone to completely melting away during the summer months. How much of this is important, and which is more important, extent or volume?

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/update-on-sae-ice-volume/63069

  91. Well Earth Hour seems to have done the trick.
    Combined Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Cover is now 253,000 square kilometers greater than the 1979-2008 average.
    Well done people. However don’t carry this too far or Toronto will be back under a kilometer of ice like it was just 10,000 years ago.
    Once again, well done!

  92. Mike Jonas says
    In particular, there cannot have been any net gain in energy and the exact same amount of CO2 still goes into the atmosphere.
    ———–
    Mike it looks like you learnt chemical equations ok but got confused about the conservation of energy thing.

    There is a net gain of energy because the process has as an input solar energy. You do explain that later on, so it looks like the need to ridicule led to some pretty twisted wording.

    This is a costly scheme, but any energy infrastructure is costly. So it would have been more informative to have said how costly in relation to other energy sources.

    This scheme does solve the “solar and wind” are intermittent” problem so it’s not completely wacky as you are trying so, so hard to portray.

  93. Daniel Vogler says: March 31, 2012 at 7:34 pm
    [How much of this is important, and which is more important, extent or volume? ]

    Generally measurements that can not be verified before 1979 are the most important. A secondary consideration is measurements that occur in the absence of people or measuring devices, both of which increase the importance. The third qualifier is the rate of decline, a high rate of decline (regardless of the time-frame) can often propel a value in to the realm of most important, even if it was actually measured and has a history.

    Since satellites that can actually measure thickness and thus volume were only put in to service last year, volume is currently the most important. This could change if the satellite readings start to get the wrong values in the next few years. If coverage, extent and volume increase at the same time then we should expect people to start digging trees, ships or Vikings out of the permafrost to show us how cold it was in the past.

  94. Mike Jonas says
    At least they admit that the investment required would be “huge”.
    ———
    They reckon around 180 billion dollars.

    A replacement set coal power Stations would cost?

  95. Daniel Vogler says:
    March 31, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    > I have a really important question regarding Sea Ice Volume anomaly, I was reading the Luke Warm blog on Accuweather about how its a better indicator of arctic ice than Extent.

    The two metrics are good for different effects. It’s harder to measure sea ice from satellites, and ground (ice cap) studies are expensive and don’t cover a wide area.

    Ice extent does a better job showing how much sunlight is reflected from the Sun now – more ice, higher albedo. Ice volume may do a better job telling how long ice will remain, though I assume thick old ice can be flushed out of the arctic along with thin young ice.

  96. bair polaire on March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am said:
    Back radiation

    I have to admit, that I’m still not sure if I really understand how the warming through back radiation from atmospheric CO2 really works. Can someone direct me to a website where they explain.
    ———–
    Unglazed solar collectors, such as solar pool heaters, depend on IR radiation from atmospheric gases such as CO2 and water vapour for part of their inputs.

    The engineering calculations factor this into the effiency calculations.

  97. “My questions are:

    1. Is it really true that stratospheric CO2 gets more energy from the surface of the earth than from the sun and the rest of the atmosphere combined? What are the percentages?”

    Energy of gases is mostly the velocity of molecules of the gases. But the velocity of gas molecules is not the aspect one is referring to in regard to “greenhouse gases”, instead referring to vibrations of atom and of atoms in a molecule.
    Sunlight is not going add much velocity to gas. If want warm or heat gas with sunlight, the sunlight heating a solid or liquid and these warming gas molecules via conduction and convection would be a more dominate factor.
    An example would be to put hollow glass sphere in space and have a thin atmosphere of gas inside the sphere. The heating of the gas would seem to me to be to mostly caused by the temperature that sunlight warmed the glass of the sphere. Since volume increase more than surface area, the larger the sphere would have cooler air. If sunlight were to significantly warm gas molecules, than larger sphere would get warmer.
    Though sunlight does increase the velocity of gas [the point is how much], one see sunlight accelerating gas molecules by looking at a comet- that is what makes a comet tail.
    But back your point you seem to asking what causes CO2 molecule to vibrate the most- it seems to me the energy of Sun would do this more than energy of radiant nature of earth.

    “2. What about the “horizon effect”: almost all CO2 molecules see more sky than earth. Thus more than 50% of their back radiation goes to space.”

    Especially true at higher elevation. Therefore it seems if CO2 is important in terms it’s “greenhouse effect” it would tend to cool earth.

    “3. If 1. and 2. are true, what is the effect? Shouldn’t CO2 be considered cooling the earth when it gets most of its energy from earth? Most of the CO2 is close to the warm surface thus helping the earth to radiate energy to space.”
    The important factor is the term greenhouse affect- which defined poorly. But it includes water vapor. And water vapor is the more significant factor in causing “the greenhouse affect”.
    And I would say that water vapor causing a greenhouse affect has to do more than it’s radiate properties. There a tremendous amount heat energy stored in the latent heat of water vapor.
    There also clouds- the reason you see clouds isn’t because you are seeing water vapor, you seeing water droplets. So clouds in terms of greenhouse affect are billions of tonnes of liquid water suspended in the form droplets- it’s liquid, not gas. Or look at clouds as machines in which droplets and water vapor are being “processed”.

    “4. What about the “umbrella effect”: As CO2 emits and absorbs energy at the same wavelengths it should to a certain degree shield the earth from the suns heat. Whatever energy the CO2 gets directly from the sun, more than 50% go to space and thus can not reach the earth.”

    Shield is interesting term. Matter is either transparent, absorbs, or reflects. And does all them depending type of radiation and density and shape of the matter. CO2 is a trace gas. But even our atmosphere was mostly or pure CO2, it would not block much of the sun’s radiation. CO2 is a transparent gas. And it’s transparent to most the energy of sunlight.
    It seems to me fairly obvious that somewhere around 90% or more of all sunlight intersecting earth, isn’t “absorbed” by earth. And in terms something like a shield, clouds or other particles of matter are mostly responsible for “shielding” the earth. Clouds are made of transparent water, but because of their size they scatter [bends] light.
    Not including clouds, a clear atmosphere stops [shields, scatters, reflects, adsorbs] about 30% of sunlight from reaching the surface. At Noon in clear day of the 1300 watts per square of solar flux at the top of the atmosphere, only about 1000 watts per square meter reaches the surface. [I would guess if our atmosphere was pure CO2, more energy on a clear day would reach the surface]. Instead at noon, you measure sunlight at the surface at 9 am, one gets about 250 watts per square meter. If looking whole day-lit globe less than 1/2 of it reaches the surface. And because the surface a hemisphere, more half sunlight is hitting the surface of earth at angle greater than 45 degree [spread the sq meter at top of atmosphere area over large surface of a horizontal surface.
    But returning to noon clear day and 1000 watts per square at surface a large percentage of that energy is not absorbed- humans can design systems that capture about 60% of the energy- the natural environment does absorb this much. The earth’s ocean which cover most of surface does do good job of capturing the sun’s energy, perhaps 50% whereas land areas absorb far less.

  98. LazyTeenager says:
    March 31, 2012 at 9:28 pm
    Unglazed solar collectors, such as solar pool heaters, depend on IR radiation from atmospheric gases such as CO2 and water vapour for part of their inputs.
    ==============================================
    Really? If this IR does not come from the Sun, but is just by the “greenhouse gasses” re-emited surfice IR radiation, then they should have turn the collectors in the opposite direction to the surface and get even more, right? But they do not do it, do they? Let me guess why: because the IR comes from the Sun and only extremely little comes from the “greenhouse gasses” or from the surface.

    I strongly recommend to read this: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

  99. Bair polair, Tall bloke

    The surface heats the C02, the C02 returns some energy to the surface.
    If you cannot realise this will slow down the heat loss from the surface and cause the surface heated by the sun to get hotter then nobody will ever explain it to you. This effect is overwhelmingly more important for water regardless of how water is transported into the atmosphere. The surface emits radiation no matter what your opinion or political view on climate might be.

    I have just spent months of my life attempting to explain simple science ideas to people who show no willingness at all to learn.

    And when i tried to get Wiki to have a better explanation of the Greenhouse effect, Wiki banned me. And banned my wife. Wiki want you to believe the moron version that the atmosphere heats the surface or else!

    Evidently it seems important for people to be ignorant and there are limits to what anybody can do to change that against such overwhelming forces.

  100. there are hundreds of MSM articles on this already, with headlines about Carbon Dioxide hospitalising all these people, etc. what to make of it? it looks like a beat-up, or an April Fool’s Day story, and have seen a lot of comments mocking the whole story:

    30 March: KTVU: Carbon dioxide leak sickens dozens of workers in Vallejo
    The lights were back on at a Vallejo food processing plant Friday night as some employees returned to work following a carbon dioxide leak that sent more than 70 employees to the hospital.
    Hospital officials said one worker was in serious condition, showing signs of carbon dioxide poisoning, while dozens of other workers have recovered from exposure to carbon dioxide at Ghiringhelli Specialty Foods at 101 Benicia Ave…
    Ghiringhelli said he evacuated his employees from the building as a precaution.
    “Personally, I think it’s a false alarm,” he said ”I do know when people get nervous and there’s anxiety, and that can be a chain reaction. One thing I can tell you about our company is that we do care about our staff.”
    Vallejo Fire Department Batallion Chief Patrick Dunn disagreed and said something caused people to feel ill.
    “We don’t have 70 some odd people complaining of something, without something happening in there, Dunn said. “We did have some levels, that will be followed up with the investigation.”
    Vallejo fire officials did test the air and found only normal readings, but they said plant operators had already taken steps to air out the building before emergency personnel arrived.
    “There’s an air exhaust system. They had turned that on. Basically, it was a large fan,” one fire official said. “Anything that was in there may have been evacuated before we even got there.” …

    http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/disasters/hazardous-materials-spill-sickens-dozens-vallejo/nLg9G/

    31 March: WaPo: AP: Carbon dioxide leak sends more than 70 workers at N. Calif food processing plant to hospital
    Firefighters said they did not find unusually high levels of carbon dioxide in the air inside the building but told KTVU-TV the doors to the plant had been open for some time when they arrived

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/carbon-dioxide-leak-sickens-more-than-70-workers-at-northern-calif-food-processing-plant/2012/03/30/gIQA6ffvlS_story.html

  101. A Fascinating story on the discovery of the causes of Ice Ages

    Milutin Milankovitch was born in the politically volatile Balkan nation of Serbia—later incorporated into Yugoslavia—in 1879. Milankovitch came from a relatively privileged background. His family owned extensive farmlands and vineyards, and several of his relatives were university graduates. For a time, he gave in to family pressure and studied agriculture in preparation for taking up the management of the Milankovitch estates. But he was more interested in the sciences and went instead to Vienna, where he earned a doctorate in engineering in 1904. After working for five years as an engineer in Vienna, building such things as dams and bridges of reinforced concrete, he gladly returned to his homeland to accept a post at the University of Belgrade. There he lectured on mechanics, astronomy and theoretical physics, and yearned for a challenge that would permit him to make his mark in the world of science.

    In 1911, during an evening of wine tippling with a poet friend, Milankovitch selected his challenge: He would develop a mathematical theory that would enable him to determine not only the temperature of the earth at different latitudes and at different times but also the climates of other planets in the solar system. It was to be an ambitious scientific sojourn in what
    Milankovitch called “distant worlds and times,’ and the young professor had picked an ideal stage of his life to begin. “I set Out on this hunt in my best years,” he recalled later. “Had I been somewhat younger I would not have possessed the necessary knowledge and experience. Had I been older I would not have had enough of that self-confidence that only youth can offer
    in the form of rashness.”

    Milankovitch pursued his goal with single-minded devotion. As he later observed: “When a scholar stands before a scientific problem, he becomes like a hunting dog that has sensed the game.” His first step was to make a thorough survey of work that had already been done in his chosen field. He was fascinated by James Croll’s astronomical theory, but concluded that Croll, for all his considerable accomplishments, had lacked the precise data required to deal adequately with a problem of such magnitude. Luckily, though, Milankovitch came across the more recent studies of the German mathematician Ludwig Pilgrim, who in 1904 had published minutely detailed calculations of the precession of the equinoxes and changes in the earth’s orbital eccentricity and angle of tilt. Indeed, Pilgrim had even gone so far as to chart the relationship between orbital eccentricity and the presumed chronology of past ice ages. Milankovitch judged that Pilgrim’s understanding of climatology left much to be desired, but could find no fault with his mathematics; he used the German’s figures to work out his own calculations of past climates of the earth and other planets.

    His progress was interrupted in the fall of 1912 by the outbreak of the First Balkan War, in which Serbia joined its neighboring allies to expel the Turks from southeastern Europe; a reserve Army officer, Milankovitch was called to active duty with his regiment. Hostilities were short-lived, however, and Milankovitch soon returned to his civilian desk. During the next
    two years he published several papers outlining the emerging results of his work, which indicated that glacial advances and retreats could indeed be brought about by changes in solar radiation due to the precession of the equinoxes and to variations in the earth’s orbital eccentricity. (His calculations became considerably more accurate after 1913, when American scientists at the Smithsonian Institution were able to establish the solar constant, or the intensity of the sun’s radiation.) He also showed that variations in the planet’s angle of tilt influenced climate to a far greater degree than James Croll had believed.

    In the summer of 1914, war intruded once again on Milankovitch’s affairs. He was visiting his home village of Dalj—then a part of Austria Hungary—when World War I began, and was promptly interned as a prisoner of war. But his studies would not be hindered: In his suitcase, he carried the papers on what he called “my great cosmic problem,” and during his first night of confinement, he whipped out his fountain pen and turned to his calculations. “As I looked around my room after midnight,” he recalled later, “I needed some time before I realized where I was. The little room seemed like the nightquarters on my trip through the universe.”

    Milankovitch did not stay long in his cell. Learning of his imprisonment, a Hungarian university professor who knew of the Serbian’s accomplishments prevailed upon the authorities to parole Milankovitch to Budapest, where he could have access to the library at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. There he spent the rest of the war years, developing a theory for predicting the earth’s climate and completing a description of the climates of Mars and Venus. In 1920, his results were published in a work titled Mathematical Theory of Heat Phenomena Produced by Solar Radiation, in which the author demonstrated mathematically that widespread glaciation could be induced by astronomical changes that alter the amount and distribution of solar radiation reaching the earth. He also maintained that it was possible to determine the amount of radiation that had reached the earth at any time during the past. In short, Milankovitch was claiming he could prove that astronomical processes caused ice ages.

    Among the many scientists who were impressed by Milankovitch’s work was the eminent German climatologist Wladimir Koppen, whose son-in-law, Alfred Wegener, had startled the scientific world in 1912 with his theory of continental drift. Now, Koppen and Wegener were in the process of writing a book about past climates. Invited to contribute to this project,
    Milankovitch readily agreed, and set out to plot a curve that would show the variations in radiation that he believed were responsible for the succession of ice ages.

    James Croll had believed that variations in solar radiation at very high latitudes during the winter were the dominant factor in the onset of glaciation. But Milankovitch saw the matter otherwise. After lengthy correspondence with Köppen, he had become convinced that the decisive factor in glaciation is the diminution of summer heat in the temperate latitudes, not a reduction of winter radiation at the Poles—where temperatures even today are low enough to preserve a permanent snow cover. Working from morning until night, he drew curves showing how summer radiation in the middle latitudes—between lat. 55° N. and lat. 65° N.—had varied during the past 600,000 years. Finally, after 100 days, he finished his calculations and mailed the results to Koppen.

    When the German scientist examined the work of his Serbian colleague, he was immediately struck by the marked similarity between the lines on the Milankovitch chart and the sequence of European glaciations established years before by the geographers Albrecht Penck and Eduard Bruckner. Koppen informed Milankovitch that his astronomical theory had thus been confirmed, and asked him to attend a scientific conference to be held in
    Innsbruck, Austria.
    There, as Milankovitch listened from an inconspicuous last-row seat, Alfred Wegener presented a spirited lecture on continental drift and ancient climates, illustrating the section on the Pleistocene epoch with Milankovitch’s painstakingly computed radiation curves. So well received was this new explanation for ice ages that Milankovitch slept that night “on a bed of laurels and soft pillows.”

    Köppen and Wegener included Milankovitch’s work in their 1924 book, Climates of the Geological Past, and many geologists were convinced that the ice ages had at last been explained. Milankovitch, meanwhile, continued to elaborate and refine his theory, computing curves for latitudes both higher and lower than those that he had previously plotted. In 1930, he published his clearest statement yet on the causes of ice ages: Mathematical Climatology and the Astronomical Theory of Climatic Changes. In it, he demonstrated that radiation curves calculated for the higher latitudes are dominated by the 41,000-year tilt cycle, while curves for latitudes closer to the Equator are more heavily influenced by the 22,000-year precession of the equinoxes.

    Aside from the fact that they corresponded with the assumed periods of glacial advances and retreats, Milankovitch’s curves did not offer definitive proof that they delineated the causes of ice ages. But this correspondence seemed far too striking for mere coincidence. Scientists the world over came to accept the Milankovitch explanation for climate changes, and Milutin Milankovitch was convinced that his life’s great work was done. For the first time since 1911, when he had set his lofty goal of scientific discovery, he was without a great challenge to face. “I am too old to start a new theory,” he remarked wistfully to his son in 1941, “and theories of the magnitude of the one I have completed do not grow on trees.”

    Planet Earth
    Ice Ages
    By Windsor Chorlton
    Time Life Boks
    1983

    Milankovitch noted that as the earth spins and moves around the sun, both its orbit and its attitude change slightly. The orbit varies from almost circular to strongly elliptical and back again every 93,000 years or so. The earth’s tilt in relation to the plane of its orbit—the cause of earthly seasons—changes from about 22 degrees to more than 24 degrees and back every 41,000 years. The earth also wobbles, rocking in a circular motion around its axis like a slowing top, and this too has a cycle: One full wobble consumes 25,800 years. By altering the distance between the sun and earth or changing the angle at which radiation strikes particular points on the earth, these moves alter the amount of solar energy reaching certain latitudes in certain seasons.

    Evidence that supports the critical role Milankovitch attributed to these cycles has accumulated steadily. For instance, scientists from the Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory in New York discovered that variations in the type of oxygen and in the distribution of the remains of minute marine life—found in sedimentary samples taken from the floor of the
    Indian Ocean—indicate periodic and severe climate changes. The sea-core record suggests that some of these changes have peaked every 23,000 years, others every 41,000 years and still others about every 100,000 years. It seems highly unlikely that the similarity to the span of orbital variations is mere coincidence.

    Planet Earth
    Atmosphere
    By Oliver E. Allen
    Time Life Books
    1983

  102. Crispin in Johannesburg says:
    March 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    @bair polaire

    “4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?”

    An old style thermos bottle with a double-walled glass insert has a mirrored surface on the outer glass. This reflects IR from the hot contents coming off the inner wall back to the inner surface. This is also a good example of the insulating power of a vacuum (the glass container has a double wall with a vacuum). The silvery coating on the outer surface ‘back-radiates’ the IR coming off the hotter inner surface. There is no doubt that the outer wall is colder than the inner wall, but the reflector is still effective at keeping the high energy IR photons in for a while longer then they otherwise would have.

    Thanks for your interesting comments. But is a thermos bottle really a good example for back radiation? Most (97%?) of the effect comes from the vacuum, the prevention of cooling by conduction. I once had a thermos bottle that “lost” the vacuum. It didn’t keep it. The mirror effect from the coating alone didn’t keep my tea hot. On the other hand: would you really notice if the outer wall was coated or not? Radiation is not a big issue with thermos bottles I assume.

    The challenge is not over: Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?

    (As far as I know parked cars, planet earth, thermos bottles are not…)

  103. @Andrew Judd

    Bair polair, Tall bloke

    The surface heats the C02, the C02 returns some energy to the surface.
    If you cannot realise this will slow down the heat loss from the surface and cause the surface heated by the sun to get hotter then nobody will ever explain it to you. …

    Evidently it seems important for people to be ignorant and there are limits to what anybody can do to change that against such overwhelming forces.

    I have wasted too many days of my life trying to really understand the greenhouse effect. I am easily convinced if I here a good explanation. Drowning polar bears and parked cars are not. Neither is a greenhouse.

    You say: The surface heats the C02, the C02 returns some energy to the surface.
    I don’t doubt that. I just want to understand how and to what extent. You don’t explain it and you don’t post a link to where it is explained. I have asked my questions several times before:

    1.) How much energy in the relevant wavelengths does a CO2 molecule in the stratosphere receive form a) the surface of the earth, b) the atmosphere, c) the sun.
    2.) What percentage of the radiation that a stratospheric CO2 molecule receives from the surface is radiated back to the surface?
    3.) What percentage of the outgoing radiation of the surface of the earth is it getting back by means of back radiation from stratospheric CO2 molecules.
    4.) How much warmer (and for how long) is the surface solely due to this back radiation by CO2?
    5.) Where is this back radiation effect greatest: Summer, noon, tropics, or winter, night, high latitudes?

    Bonus question: The lower 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere is warmer than the upper 50%. Most of the radiation goes up not down. Why than is a doubling of CO2 not considered to speed up the cooling of the earth? Radiation is faster than conduction.

  104. Ric Werme says:
    March 31, 2012 at 10:40 am

    If you indeed found it at The Register, then I don’t see why you were shocked unless you aren’t familiar with El Reg and their style. I don’t understand why you didn’t include a link to that quote. Well, if you found it on Pravda, I could understand….

    @Ric

    You’re right, it’s from the Reg and I had meant to include the link below the headline of the piece.. don’t know what happened.

    Thanks for posting it.

    I’m still looking for the actual paper and any video from the panel..

    Cheers!

  105. bair polaire says:

    I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet.

    Best explanation is to not think thermal, but to use a more familliar example of the same phenomenon.

    Consider a fluorescent light bulb. In the dead of night turn on the light bulb. Within the tube a Ultraviolet light source excites the molecules in the phosphor into a higher energy state. The Phosphor a short time later then emits the same energy, in this case at a different wavelengths to the source, wavelengths we can see (usually there are three or four wavelengths chosen to make the light appear white). This is the same process that CO2 has, except it absorbs and reradiates at the same (invisible) wavelength.

    Now in the dead of night turn on your fluorescent light and close your eyes. Then turn off the light. open your eyes and look a the light bulb. You will see that the globe will glow for a while even though you took away the energy source, this is reradiation, this reradiation goes in all directions, back into the lightbulb, as well as out into the room and into your eyes. It doesn’t matter whether the stimulus that “charged up” the phosphor comes from within or outside the lightbulb, the excited phosphor will re-emit the energy it absorbs in all directions. CO2 does this with IR, except the time from absorbing a photon to emitting it is a lot shorter.

    Water vapour (clouds) does this very efficiently. On a clear night, the ground (or spencers plate) can radiate directly to the cold of space. With no clouds the outgoing radiation exceeds the incoming radiation by a large margin, the ground or spencers plate can become colder than the air, because the rate of energy loss by radiation exceeds the gain from conduction from the surroundings (deper soil layers and the atmosphere by conduction). The ground can therefore get colder than the air above it, this causes frost when the ground reaches 0c ( wikipedia has a good article on frost ). When the clouds move in, the loss from the ground is absorbed and reradiated by the clouds like the phosphor, there is also a “reflection” (which works a bit differently) this results in a change in the incoming radiation (back radiation) (this effect is sometimes characterised in thermodynamics as “Thermal resistance”). Objects only cool at a rate determined by the nett energy loss (the diference between gain and loss), so the rate at which the ground, or spencers plate can dissipate energy is reduced, and the balance between rate of conductive heat gain, and radiative loss changes. The reduced nett rate of radiative cooling prevents the radiative cooling of the surface from exceeding the conductive gain of the surface (IE from the heat further down below the surface and the atmosphere) and the surface can no longer cool below atmospheric – frost cannot form. Spencer’s plate also heats up from below atmospheric to atmospheric equilibrium.

    Ultimately, this process is very leaky, the incoming energy on average can’t exceed the energy of the source, (unless you were to concentrate it with a lens) – but that changes only the distribution of energy and not the amount, making it hotter one place with a lens, inevitably makes another (larger) place cooler than it would have been. This means that this process will only ever change the rate of radiative cooling, it can’t actually heat the object because the source is the object itself and the recipient can never become hotter than the source. The Object will certainly be hotter than it would have been without the clouds and can warm up, but the reflected radiative energy cannot do that, only slow its cooling, any real heat input has to come from somewhere else (usually by conduction)

    PS same thing happens on a cloudy day from the other side of the cloud but the radiating surface in this case is much hotter than the earth’s surface, some of the reflected/reradiated photons might reach back to the sun resulting in the tinniest reduction in its rate of heat loss (earth warms sun) – the clouds effectively insulate, they slow the nett rate of heat gain/loss per unit time, so over 8 hours of sun, less energy makes it to the surface and the cooling is less (cloudy days are cool, cloudy nights are warm). So does CO2 (though it’s a pretty lousy insulator since it only acts in some very specific very narrow wavelengths)

    Hope this explanation helps

    PS, its clear here by the way that CO2 should reduce day temps and increase night ones such that the average temp might be higher but the diurnal range should be lower. IE a warming world will be more tropical, less dynamic, and safer for all lifeforms. Global warming must reduce the instance of extreme temperatures, either daily max, or nightly mins, has to.

    Consider two climates one ranges from 0c to 40c (Say Melbourne Australia) another ranges from say 6c to 38c like Brisbane Australia – Lets say global warming increases the average temperature making Melbourne like Brisbane (0-40)/2 (20c) to (38-6)/2 (22c) – Which climate would you rather have 0-40 or 6-38, note that the average temp increased by 2 deg C but the temperature has in fact gotten more moderate!

    Little discussed fact this !

  106. Bair Polair
    You began by saying you could not understand Spencers simple experiment and you could not understand why C02 was not heated by the Sun directly.

    Since then we have been thru Wiens law and pretty well everything.

    Now you are demanding precise details

    However even if such details could be provided to you, you appear to be saying you do not have much knowledge of this subject, you are not interested in finding out about it yourself, and you will be ever demanding and never satisfied.

    I am not a warmist. I am just tired of giving explanations to people who always have some agenda behind their oh so innocent questions, where anything i say is like it would have been better i had said nothing at all.

  107. May I draw everyone’s attention to the fact that there has been a major reversal in climate science reported at Realclimate here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11329

    REPLY: This is a badly executed April Fools Joke, ignore it. Here’s why I didn’t do one this year:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/how-peter-gleicks-skullduggery-killed-my-april-fools-posting/

    With so much deception going on, you’d think RealClimate would know better. I guess not. – Anthony

  108. This is about the WUWT website.

    Anthony – I appreciate that you have been ‘forced’ to re-write your website, and maybe other users have pointed out the same thing, but there seems to be some fault that started several weeks ago (possibly co-incident with the website re-coding).

    It manifests itself as follows.
    Open the site, and scroll down three-four times. A few seconds later, the web page goes blank and cannot be revived except via a re-start. Refresh does nothing. It is fully reproducible, and happens every time, every day.

    This manifestation happens to me in IE8 running on XP-pro, and in Avant browser (which is based upon IE internals). It does NOT happen in Firefox browser. My suspicions fall upon the add-ons aka ‘adverts’ you need to have for financial support. I have not come across any other site whatever where the same thing happens.

  109. Bair polair
    >>You say: The surface heats the C02, the C02 returns some energy to the surface.
    I don’t doubt that. I just want to understand how and to what extent. You don’t explain it and you don’t post a link to where it is explained. I have asked my questions several times before:

    C02 is an absorber emitter. You dont need a link from me to google that yourself.

    If the surface radiates then the C02 is heated because it is an absorber and it radiates because it is an emitter. The surface can only cool by radiation by emitting more radiation than it receives. If it receives radiation from C02 it cannot cool as rapidly. And a heated surface that cannot cool as rapidly as before becomes hotter.

    And before you get into latent heat and conduction convenction. The surface is an emitter of radiation and that does help cool the surface. Other cooling effects are irrelevant to the observation that if the surface receives radiation from the sky that it earlier sent to the sky the surface will cool less rapidly for that same temperature. The solar energy keeps on coming in and has to be radiated to space. Therefore the earth system gets hotter until it does radiate all that it receives to space.

    As i said before if you want to falsify C02 warming then begin by falsifying warming by water.

    These are very simple ideas for anybody who wants to google and learn

    Do you want to understand??? Or do you want to falsify without learning??????

  110. Hello All,

    This far down in the thread I wonder if anyone will read this, but here goes.

    There was some discussion of CO2 and the greenhouse effect in general. I have an experiment that I could like to see someone do. (Grant Money! ah, but not for me)

    You find a valley protected from winds. You build two identical “hot houses” but without any roof on either one. You put a table in the center of each with a very accurate thermometer on it that transmits its readings without human intervention. Now; pump CO2 into one and watch the temperature rise. Will the temperature rise? How much? Does it match theory?

    What if you pumped oxygen into the other to decrease CO2 and watch the temperature fall?

    Note: the above description is simplified and the experiment is more complicated; for example, you have to make sure that pumping CO2 in does not change temperature by the very act of adding new gas and so on

  111. evidence.

    Jinan Cao says:
    March 31, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    No, CO2 does not emit a continuous spectrum as a black body does. The absorption bands for CO2 are the 2.7, 4.3 and 15um, with the 15 um one dominantly stronger than the other two. CO2 keeps emission of radiation via the same 2.7, 4.3 and 15um bands as long as its temperature is not 0 K. Employing the Planck’s distribution equation, one can determine how much it emits at any temperature T.

    How hot does the Carbon Dioxide have to be to emit at each of these?

  112. Girma says: (March 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm) A Fascinating story on the discovery of the causes of Ice Ages

    Thank you, Girma. Mind-enlarging.

    Anthony: Worth consideration for elevation to thread status?

  113. @Bobl

    bair polaire says: I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet.

    Best explanation is to not think thermal, but to use a more familliar example of the same phenomenon. Consider a fluorescent light bulb. …

    PS, its clear here by the way that CO2 should reduce day temps and increase night ones such that the average temp might be higher but the diurnal range should be lower. IE a warming world will be more tropical, less dynamic, and safer for all lifeforms. Global warming must reduce the instance of extreme temperatures, either daily max, or nightly mins, has to.

    Thanks a lot for your explanations! This really helps. I think your fluorescent light bulb is so far the best everyday life example of back radiation. Even though the reemission/afterglow does nothing to make the bulb brighter or reduce energy consumption as it is in a different wavelength than the source.

    I would like to read more on your notion that the CO2 effect would make the climate milder and life more pleasant. Is this effect visible in the temperature records?

  114. Let us not forget the mild winter and early spring of 1957 which produced bumper crops. And global warming is meant to be something to be worried about?

  115. “Is the Sun’s radiation around 10 micron really lower than the Earth’s outgoing radiation at 10 micron?”

    I provide Bair Polair with a calculation that shows it indeed is, by a factor of 4 million. He says he doubts it. Now, if I doubted something as fundamental as that, I would immediately check it. I mean it isn’t hard. Planck’s Law is widely available on the internet. All you have to do is plug in a wavelength of 10 micron for the Sun’s surface temperature (5800K) and the Earth’s 288K and see what values you get. Then you need to remember the inverse square law, since the Sun is 150 million kilometres away. I would check these calculations if I had doubts, but Bair Polaire simply says he doesn’t believe it. What doesn’t he believe? Planck’s Law? the formula for the surface area of a sphere? Mathematics in general? or the accumulated scientific knowledge of the last millennia?
    I am willing to help anyone who has a genuine problem understanding but, as Andrew Judd says, Bair Polair like so many others is not interested in finding out. They ask questions rather in the hope that there is no answer and thus they have discovered something that every physicist since Isaac Newton has overlooked. That’s not going to happen.
    Arguing against proven science, that which can be measured and verified, simply gives all sceptics a bad name.
    So, Bair Polair, this puts you firmly in the Sky Dragon cuckoo club. I suggest you visit Tallbloke’s website where I am sure he will tell you exactly what you want to hear.
    Bye.

  116. @Andrew Judd

    You began by saying you could not understand Spencers simple experiment and you could not understand why C02 was not heated by the Sun directly.

    No. I understand his simple experiment. I just don’t believe his claim that night clouds heat up his isolated plate. We all agreed Spencer is wrong or misunderstood. (Bobl has a very detailed explanation above.)
    I still don’t understand why CO2 is not heated by the sun directly. Not even a little bit?

    Since then we have been thru Wiens law and pretty well everything.

    We haven’t been through Wien’s law. You just mentioned it (“Weins”) and I used it against Bomber’s calculation.

    Now you are demanding precise details

    I’ve done this from the beginning. We are 30 years into the debate of global warming and most of what I get is vague analogies, questionable thought experiments and unbelievable calculations or links to scientific papers that deal with one tiny aspect of the phenomenon. Everybody should be able to answer my simple questions in five minutes. Me included, thats why I ask them. We are betting the future of our society on the answers.

    However even if such details could be provided to you, you appear to be saying you do not have much knowledge of this subject, you are not interested in finding out about it yourself, and you will be ever demanding and never satisfied.

    I have spent far too many days trying to understand the greenhouse effect, to get the figures together and the right explanations – to no avail. Please post a link to a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the greenhouse effect if you have one!

    I am not a warmist. I am just tired of giving explanations to people who always have some agenda behind their oh so innocent questions, where anything i say is like it would have been better i had said nothing at all.

    I am tired of people who question my motives when I ask simple questions. I am neither stupid, nor lazy, nor politically motivated. Don’t give me this! I’m just curious and honest. I want to understand the greenhouse effect. Nothing else.

    Asking questions is not questioning answers!

  117. LazyTeenager –
    You say “There is a net gain of energy because the process has as an input solar energy.

    That means the solar energy is an input to the process, not a net gain from the process.

    You say “This scheme does solve the “solar and wind” are intermittent” problem so it’s not completely wacky as you are trying so, so hard to portray.

    It is indeed one such solution, as in “What you have actually done is to use solar-generated electricity in a roundabout way to power your transport

    And I went on to say: “, but it’s a con if it’s being touted as either an energy source or as carbon sequestration.” which is where the ridicule was aimed.

    Later, you say that they put the cost at “around 180 billion dollars” and ask “A replacement set coal power Stations would cost?“.

    Jo Nova puts the coal-fired baseload at 9,800mw, and its replacement cost at $4.8bn.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/lower-co2-emissions-by-wait-for-it-building-new-coal-plants/

    The proposed 900mw Galilee coal-fired power station is estimated to cost $1.25bn,

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/waratah-coals-galilee-power-station-wins-queensland-approval/story-e6frg906-1225771852665

    which would translate to $13.6bn for 9,800mw, but this includes the additional cost of carbon capture and storage. Either way, it’s a lot less than $180bn, and we haven’t even started to add up the inefficiencies in the “CCSS” process, or to see if there’s a more efficient way such as electric vehicles or hydrogen (both of which stop short of the methanol step in “CCSS”).

  118. “I still don’t understand why CO2 is not heated by the sun directly. Not even a little bit?”

    It is.

    from wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

    As for:
    “I have spent far too many days trying to understand the greenhouse effect, to get the figures together and the right explanations – to no avail. Please post a link to a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the greenhouse effect if you have one!”

    Considering the hundreds of billions dollars of public resources spent over the decades on “global warming” and that global tyranny is only “realistic solution” offered, it’s fair assumption this would be available- if the science was already settled.

  119. tallbloke says:
    March 31, 2012 at 6:25 am

    I really like the new “Transendental rants and far out theories” section. A couple of good site links there. I’m thinking of adding a “lukewarm junkscience” section on the Talkshop. ;-)
    ——————————————–

    LOL! Good move, Tall Bloke! Many will chafe at being categorized into the the margins…the Pale of Hypotheses… but will appreciate the offer of a soapbox. At the same time, science purists may grumble over the perceived legitimising, but will enjoy piling into the claims to debunk. Interesting it will be to see if any make it out of the ghetto into the mainstream, or vice-versa.

    Perhaps avoiding the term “junk-science” will calm nerves. A word like “speculative” may be better, I don’t know. I was impressed by the way the late Carl Sagan subtitled one of his books as “speculations.” The one in which he called our brainstem “reptillian” and compared it to Siggy Freud’s Id, the mid-brain to the Ego and what he called the “neo-cortex,” the Super Ego. Plausible and poetic mind-candy and no one got angry or jumped down his throat for that because “speculation” tends to disarm rather than raise hackles, I guess.

  120. David from the UK says:
    April 1, 2012 at 2:56 am

    Anthony – I appreciate that you have been ‘forced’ to re-write your website, and maybe other users have pointed out the same thing, but there seems to be some fault that started several weeks ago (possibly co-incident with the website re-coding).

    It manifests itself as follows.
    Open the site, and scroll down three-four times. A few seconds later, the web page goes blank and cannot be revived except via a re-start. Refresh does nothing. It is fully reproducible, and happens every time, every day.

    This manifestation happens to me in IE8 running on XP-pro, and in Avant browser (which is based upon IE internals). It does NOT happen in Firefox browser. My suspicions fall upon the add-ons aka ‘adverts’ you need to have for financial support. I have not come across any other site whatever where the same thing happens.

    Hmm, I’ve seen that with my very, very ancient Firefox on my main systen that I don’t dare upgrade. On my laptop I bought last year to have current software, scrolling through the main page will trigger a refill that brings in older posts (the old link to older posts is no longer at the bottom of the page).

    Nice to see I’m not alone. Failing in IE8 means that WordPress might get around to fixing it.

  121. @Bomber_the_Cat

    Sorry I made you angry. And thanks for giving more detail on your calculations. I do have a genuine problem understanding. I am not a physicist so I am not familiar with making all these calculations myself as you require me to do. (That’s why I keep asking for a simple comprehensive scientifically sound explanation of the greenhouse effect.)

    My understanding of blackbody radiation is as follows: the higher the temperature, the shorter the wavelength of the emission peak. But nevertheless: the higher the temperature the more it radiates at all wavelengths.
    My understanding of the role of the distance of the radiant source is the following: The further away the radiant source the less radiation is received by a unit area (inverse square law). But: the radiant source does not get dimmer by distance it just gets smaller.

    Everyday life example: streetlights at night. Contrary to common believe the more distant streetlights are not dimmer, they are just smaller. (If this were the case we would all walk in our own spotlight and the world around us would be dark.) Thats why I came up with checking your calculation against the space the sun occupies on the sky. And from that calculation I figured that your claim that the earth is 4 million times brighter at its peak emission wavelength than the sun is a little bit too high. (Any sources besides your calculation? I tried to find it, but did not succeed.)

    You are not right when you say: “I would check these calculations if I had doubts, but Bair Polaire simply says he doesn’t believe it. What doesn’t he believe?”

    I gave my reasons for not believing before and I give them here. I even offered a quick plausibility check. Maybe I am wrong. No problem. I’m here to learn. But please don’t make hurting assumptions about my motives just because I don’t agree with you or don’t understand you. Thank you.

  122. Bair Polair
    The impression you give is that the goal posts change as you get answers to your earlier questions. I explained that your understanding of Spencers explanation and experiment was incorrect. Spencer certainly does not believe that a cold object can heat a hotter object.

    You said earlier
    “2. I understand gases absorb and emit at the same wavelengths. The sun is much brighter than the earth at all wavelength even infrared. And the sun has always more than half of the atmospheric CO2 in view. Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?
    3. Most back radiation from the sky is probably due to clouds and water vapor. How sure are we that we can measure the back radiation from increase in CO2?
    4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?”

    On 2 a few people explained to you that C02 is transparant to the solar energy. You disputed that. I mentioned Wiens displacement law. And no reply from you but the assumption is you have learnt something.
    3. If the amount of C02 increases then backradiation is going to increase because that is just physics. The question though is how much of a difference it makes.
    4. Engineers use backradiation calculations to show heat loss reductions from hot to colder surfaces.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

    Are you wanting to come up with an entirely new theory of the universe? Are you saying the scientific work of the last 200 years is wrong? If so google Doug Cotton and Claes Johnson.

  123. Girma says: March 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm
    A Fascinating story on the discovery of the causes of Ice Ages

    This is the building where Milankovic was a professor.

    Sculpture to the right is of Nikola Tesla, another great Serbian scientist and innovator.
    There are two large theatres where Milankovic gave lectures (capacity about 300 each), btw, where I attended lectures many years later, and laboured through numerous exams as these ‘poor souls’ shown here.

  124. Girma says:
    March 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm
    ————————

    Thanks for posting Allen’s write-up on Milankovich. A truly remarkable chap he was, living in an era where it was perfectly normal for a scientist to get drunk with a poet friend and to launch a monumental study on the resulting hunch, and when intellectuals took pride in ideas, could ignored politics and continue friendships in the midst of wars.

  125. bair polaire says:
    I still don’t understand why CO2 is not heated by the sun directly. Not even a little bit?

    What makes you think that? CO2 will absorb inbound Solar radiation within it’s absorption band, and does, over 85% of inbound energy from the sun and outbound energy in the absorption band is already absorbed and indeed this puts a solid cap of the absolute maximum amount of warming that we may experience even if the whole atmosphere was CO2. CO2 will slow the uptake of energy as well as slow the loss, the system will reach equilibrium potentially at a higher temperature but with a reduced temperature range. However CO2 is already doing 85% of the warming it ever possibly can.

    If you do the math, it works out to be 5.2 degrees including ALL FEEDBACKS when making the assumption that CO2 is the only driver of the temperature rise (valid in a 100% CO2 atmosphere) for any reasonable concentration of CO2 though it’s not the only driver. For the next doubling I figure this works out to about 0.6 degrees max.

    It’s very complicated however, the climate is driven by masses of variables, our atmosphere is a chaotic, open system, with multiple feedbacks working in unpredictable ways. CO2 is only proven to cause warming in experiments in CLOSED, Non-chaotic SYSTEMS. Cooling / Warming of the atmosphere occurs by multiple mechanisms, many more than just radiation. There is in my opinion zero chance of modelling it. CO2 will undoubtably cause some warming but If you want to know what will happen, you should start with observations and work from there.

    For example from the little ice age to now there has been about 0.6 degrees of warming. That’s for and increase of about 110 PPM. Now the Australian Government tries to tell me that for the next doubling they think we will get 6 degrees (disregarding that this is above the max that could ever happen even for 100% CO2). So the government reckons then that the next 110PPM rise in CO2 will cause about 2-3 degrees of warming, but if the last 100PPM caused 0.6 (assuming all the rise from the little ice-age to now is CO2 driven which it’s not), and the relationship is logarithmic (each equal rise in CO2 results in less warming) then it follows that the rise for the next 110PPM CO2 rise must be strictly less than the warming due to the last 110 PPM rise, again run the math and you get a max number around 1-1.5 degree for a doubling of CO2. 2-3 degrees is just ridiculous, it is not in any way supported by any observation of how the atmosphere actually behaves. Conclusion : The Australia Government is WRONG by a factor of about 5!

    Add this to the fact above that adding thermal resistance to the atmosphere serves to reduce the temperature range (lower highs, and higher lows) and you have the recipe for a pretty productive climate if the earth did warm – but unfortunately it probably wont :-(

    =================================================================
    I want you to think about something else, by 2050 the Australian Government at the rate they are spending it will have spent $100 Bn of taxpayer money on this farce. If that money went to feeding the starving millions how many lives would be saved on this earth. If the corn that is turned into ethanol to burn in your car, was sent to africa instead how many deaths would have been prevented.

    Finally, at a carbon price of only $40 per tonne, it becomes more cost-effective to burn flour to produce electricity than coal (similar calorific value – look it up, some great videos on you-tube) – flour, a staple of life, is renewable and can be produced from most carbohydrates (potato, wheat, corn, rice) – this will become viable WELL BEFORE TRADITIONAL RENEWABLES BECOME COST EFFECTIVE and coal station boilers could easily be adapted to run on it – Think about the morality of that before you start agreeing to tax carbon dioxide. Burning food for fuel is morally corrupt!

    Bob

  126. Real Climate has posted an appropriate April Fool’s Joke:

    Stefan Rahmstorf at ‘Real Climate’ reports that the ‘Wrong sign paradox’ is due to a widespread climate modeling FORTRAN variable called “I CHEAT!”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/wrong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/

    A group of Dutch and US scientists, led by Harry Van den Budenmeyer (Utrecht University), has now proposed a surprising explanation. “At first I did not want to believe it”, Van den Budenmeyer explained to RealClimate, “but once we started to pursue this, things just fell into place”.

    The story goes back to the late 1980s or early 1990s (the exact date has not been traced back yet), when a German climate modeller had persistent problems with results of obviously the wrong sign in his model. He was unable to track down the error, so instead he introduced a FORTRAN integer variable called ICHEAT (sorry to get a bit technical, but you really need to understand this) into his computer code, assigned it the value -1 and simply multiplied unruly results by ICHEAT wherever they occurred in his code. Once he’d find the real problem, he would only need to set ICHEAT to +1 and the code would be correct again. But he never got round to fix the problem, his model performed very nicely and over time he forgot about it.

    What he did not consider, perhaps understandably at the time: useful computer code spreads like a virus amongst scientists. The code was free for download, hundreds of other scientists started to use it and many only used bits and pieces – nobody ever starts writing scientific code from scratch if colleagues have already solved aspects of the task at hand and the code is free.

    “At first we were really puzzled when we found a piece of code with ICHEAT that was used in our lab for climate analysis”, says Van den Budenmeyer. “But once we discovered what it was we started to search more systematically and ask colleagues, and by now we’ve found the ICHEAT bug not just in different European countries but also in California, New York, Sydney and even a Chinese climate centre. We’ve only begun to explore the implications, but I am sure that a lot of the wrong sign paradox that has plagued our science thus far will just go away.

  127. @Andrew Judd
    Do you want to understand??? Or do you want to falsify without learning?????

    I don’t want to falsify anything. I just try to ask precise questions. Because after all my googleing and reading blogs and scientific papers I have to admit – ad this was my first sentence – I still don’t really understand the greenhouse effect.

    Everything you say about radiation and CO2 I have read before. I don’t doubt it.
    It would just help me if you could give me a rough estimate of the percentages involved.

    1. What percentage of the total energy the earth is radiating towards the atmosphere is absorbed by CO2? The absorption/emission bandwidths of CO2 are rather small and not at the emission peak of the earth. Plus the CO2 might get input from other sources like the sun and the rest of the atmosphere.

    2. What percentage of that energy received from the surface is re-emitted by CO2 molecules towards earth?

    3. What is the effect of this back and force radiation exchange regarding the temperature of the surface? Time frames? When is this effect strongest? Day, night etc.? (As Bobl pointed out: most likely it makes the climate a little warmer on average but less extreme. Do you agree?)

    4. What about my “bonus question”: The lower and warmer 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere radiate mostly upwards. Why does this not result in cooling?

    Don’t get angry. I’m just trying to learn. If you yell at me and ridicule me I might better give up.

  128. I’m on an open thread roll here. Here’s my contribution.

    The IPCC has already telegraphed its intentions: “sustainable development.” The good news is that it realized that the science is junk, that it has been exposed by skeptics and that it needs to retreat gracefully. On ther hand, by switching battles they will pull the rug under the feet of this and similar sites. They have the money, they have the media, they have the support of governments and some industries. They will try to kill the blogosphere with regulations and controls, knowing that it was the unexpected appearance of the Web and the proliferation of independent thinkers with an instant internation reach that killed their environmental scam. Things don’t look too good.

  129. bair polaire says:
    April 1, 2012 at 12:56 am
    “Bonus question: The lower 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere is warmer than the upper 50%. Most of the radiation goes up not down. Why than is a doubling of CO2 not considered to speed up the cooling of the earth? Radiation is faster than conduction.”

    Without greenhouse gases, the radiation would make it instantly to space. That’s why adding greenhouse gases slows down the radiative cooling through absorption and re-radiation. This effect is of course nearly saturated after you have achieved an average of ONE absorption and re-emission per photon, after that, adding more greenhouse gases changes the behaviour only very slightly.

    It is this very slight change that according to the international AGW reserach funds recipient mafia will trigger a catastrophy.

  130. New Topic:
    Help, Everyone – I had a computer change, and now my Internet Explorer cannot show whatever type of applet / image is used to explore daily global temps at this website:

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    -Can someone tell me what program or app is used for the graph?

    Also – can someone put a note abt how temps were for March 2012? Compared to recent several years, were they low or high?

  131. Bair Polaire

    Lets start with the bonus question first. The C02 does result in cooling of the heated atmosphere. If the GHG’s were not cooling the atmosphere it would be impossibly hot at altitude instead of being cold at altitude where it matters for humans.

    Think about it please. Just once at least.

    1. The surface is continually heating the colder atmosphere.

    2. The atmosphere is continually cooling by emitting radiation in all directions.

    3. The surface receives some of this radiation from the cold atmosphere. But this means some of the energy from the surface heated by the sun has not passed thru the atmosphere to outerspace. If you are heating something and you reduce the cooling it becomes hotter.

    Dont please ask me for minute details about this. What part of the above can you not understand?

    If you heat an object and place a cold object next to the heated object then the hot object heats the cold object and *both* objects become warmer between each other. If the cold object was not continually cooling it would just get hotter and hotter and hotter.

    The atmosphere does not get hotter and hotter and hotter when it is heated by the surface because the atmosphere is continually cooling because it is emitting radiation to space.

    If the atmosphere was not able to emit radiation it would rise in temperature at altitude to tens of thousands of degrees and would still carry on getting hotter until the atmosphere was entirely spread beyond the gravitational pull of the earth.

  132. bair polaire

    Q 1 – As I said in my previous post CO2 intercepts (at current concentration) about 85% of incident energy in is absorption band. About 15% reaches the ground. The Atmosphere is pretty opaque at the wavelengths.

    Q2. one could assume about 1/2 if the radiation is isotropic (all in one direction) and no reflection/refraction occurs and I understand this is the assumption.

    Q3. This question is not satisfactorilly answered, but you can reach some conclusions about this. Since CO2 is a well mixed gas (well it’s not really but lets assume it is) we would expect the effect to be uniform. If we model the CO2 as a thermal resistance or lag, then we would expect the effect to be uniform and acting at all times, however the direction of energy flow and the rate would depend on the time of day. The reason this isn’t quantifiable though is that CO2 is not the only gas acting, humidity (water vapour), evaporation rates and clouds also moderate energy flows. This factors in to the all important discussion on FEEDBACKS.

    Bonus Question. I don’t think that’s right, I am pretty sure CO2 radiates isotropically, but in the lower atmosphere convection dominates as the cooling mode, hot air rises, so most of the heat in the lower atmosphere moves upward. Also when the surface is heated by CO2 wavelengths the surface gets hotter, the rate of convection increases, but importantly thermodynamics tell us that the hotter surface reradiates this energy faster at all wavelengths, most of this energy then can be radiated to space in non CO2 wavelengths. More than 80% of the heating due to back radiation is immediately lost this way. Part of the failure of CO2 theory is that the models forecast that radiation to space from the hotter surface due to CO2 warming will be less (because the CO2/H2O is trapping it), and therefore the radiative balanced has change such that the ratio of incoming to outgoing is higher (and the surface therefore must get hotter – see my frost posting remember it is the ratio of gain to loss that determines the temperature). In actual fact satellite measurements show this doesn’t happen and that emission from the surface increases as the surface temperature increases (thermodynamics lives to see another day). This suggests the models are wrong, and the increased CO2 is not affecting the balance of gain to loss much at all.

  133. Interesting to see how the Arctic and Antarctic are refusing to kowtow to the Warmista’s needs, maybe it is the wrong sort of ice, or cold because of course, it can’t be a modelling fault.
    It is going to be a fascinating melt season in the Arctic, when it starts!
    I used to keep an eye on it over at Neven’s site but he’s gone all politico and seems to be moving away from the ice science, well enough for a worry that observer bias could be creeping in over there.

  134. Can anyone tell me what, exactly, is the deal between Pielke Sr and Jr? I keep getting conflicting ideas about these two. Jr, for example, seems to me to sometimes be on both sides of the fence at once.

  135. Otter says:
    April 1, 2012 at 8:31 am
    “Can anyone tell me what, exactly, is the deal between Pielke Sr and Jr? I keep getting conflicting ideas about these two. Jr, for example, seems to me to sometimes be on both sides of the fence at once.”

    Sr. is more into the hard science questions, Jr. more into the social or science communications aspects so he’s usually making a more political point.

  136. @Andrew Judd

    Thanks for getting back to my questions. I perfectly understand all of what you say. I’ve read this many times before. It’s usually not disputed and I don’t doubt it.

    Now you say:
    If you heat an object and place a cold object next to the heated object then the hot object heats the cold object and *both* objects become warmer between each other.

    And this I don’t believe. “Both objects become warmer between each other?” Most certainly not. The colder object gets warmer, but the warmer objects does not get warmer, it still gets colder. It just cools a little slower than without the colder (and warming) object nearby.

    Maybe I am misreading your statement. Maybe you want to say: If you continually heat an object and place a cold object nearby, it warms the cold object and at a certain point, when the colder object is warmer than the background, the warmer – and still continually heated – object can get even a little warmer than before.

    With this I agree. (Like the earth being continually heated by the sun and is now getting even a little warmer because the nearby CO2 is already warmer than space and now we get more CO2.)

    Then you say: Dont please ask me for minute details about this. Why not? This is exactly what I want to understand. What are the percentages? What do we really know about how big the effect is? Does the heat content of CO2 compared to the rest of the atmosphere play a role? Is CO2 absorbing incoming solar radiation? (You say it is transparent, Bomber says it’s negligible, gbaikie points to a graph that shows its absorbing something and Bobl says yes, a lot – around 85% of all it can take.) There are many more relevant questions. Some of them are not settled.

    We are asked to risk the future of our societies to prevent this back radiation effect from CO2 and I shall not ask for details? Not even rough estimates?

    I don’t think I can agree to this.

  137. My neighborhood has been pretty quite about environmentalism lately, as I dine out every day or two, here in the Upper West Side, listening in, but tomorrow is a busy body gathering of Carbon Squeezers who overlap with a community board. I’m rather apprehensive of ending up on their radar in person though so any party crashing would merely involve a discrete pile of printed cards about, say, how Central Park shows utterly no change in warming trend back to 1825.

    http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2012/02/29/carbon-squeeze-unveils-competition

  138. bair polair
    if you heat a brick in an oven and put it in the middle of a cold room and allow it to stabilise and then place a cold brick next to it then the surface of the cooling hot brick rises in temperature for a minute or so once the cold brick has been heated. They then both cool together with the surfaces next to each other being warmer than the outer surfaces facing away from each other.

    The surface of the hot brick is internally heated by the hotter core. The cold brick is not warming the hot brick. The hot brick just cools more slowly while the surface is heated by the hotter core

  139. @Bobl

    Thanks again for the detailed answers to my questions. Very interesting aspects!

    Just a little clarification on the “bonus question”: I am pretty sure CO2 radiates isotropically
    Me too. Thats why I say more than half of the radiation is to the sky, because most CO2 molecules are (high) above the surface.

    I restate:
    CO2 is radiating isotropically – in all directions.
    Most CO2 molecules are seeing more sky than earth especially at higher elevations.
    The lower 50% of CO2 is warmer than the upper 50% thus radiating more energy. (Even when the air moves up and down by convection this is still true.)
    Therefore no matter how much downwelling radiation from CO2 we measure, there is always more upwelling radiation from CO2 to offset that.
    On top of that, most downwelling radiation from CO2 (80%) is not re-emitted by the surface at wavelengths that CO2 can absorb.
    Thus CO2 is cooling the earth more than it is warming it. And even with more CO2 the earth must still be cooling due to CO2.

    My reasoning is probably wrong, I just don’t understand why. And if I do, I probably understand the greenhouse effect better.

  140. Bair polair

    I already said the C02 is cooling the atmosphere. Please go back to my earlier post where i went into all of this. If the GHG’s were not cooling the atmosphere the atmosphere would be intensely hot at altitude.

    You need to think more or perhaps the word is contemplate more.

    1. C02 is not warming the surface of the Earth at all
    2 C02 is cooling the atmosphere.
    3. The surface of the earth is warming the atmosphere and the C02 in the atmosphere
    4. The surface is warmer because the heated C02 is emitting energy that the surface absorbs.
    5. It does not matter that most of the energy emitted by the surface is not absorbed by the C02 because…………the surface *is* heating the C02 in 3.

    Try and put it all together please.

    You want details but dont understand the basics yet

  141. Bair polair

    And remember that at point 4. the absorbed energy from the atmospheric C02 only slows down the rate of cooling of a surface heated by the sun. Energy from C02 has no ability to warm the surface. More surface energy leaves the hot surface to keep heating the colder C02

  142. I am writing to confirm the observation by David in the UK about the site. This morning (April 1) I scrolled down the page until I arrived at the article on Gavin Schmidt, entitle “No joy in Mudville …”. Once the “continue reading” link appeared in window, the webpage disappeared and an ad for Barack Obama appeared. This occurred many times, sometime with other ads showing up. The page also disappeared. I should say this occurred in Safari, and did not occur in Firefox. I have recorded it in case that is of use.

  143. @Andrew Judd

    C02 is cooling the atmosphere
    The absorbed energy from the atmospheric C02 only slows down the rate of cooling of a surface heated by the sun. Energy from C02 has no ability to warm the surface.

    Now I’m seeing light.

    Thank you all!

  144. Gallery (charts, maps and graphs) Of World Hydrocarbon Endowment & Shale Gas Resources from the Global Warming Policy Foundation:

    http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/5355-gallery-of-world-hydrocarbon-endowment-a-shale-gas-resources.html

    “Keep in mind that resource estimates are not proven reserves, but are rather a guesstimate of where future technologies may eventually lead based upon best available data. Proven reserves have always risen, and continue to do so as discoveries and new technologies warrant.”

  145. Bair polaire
    Good. If you now go to Wiki and try to edit the greenhouse effect page to describe the greenhouse effect as i just described it to you, then you can get banned from wiki like i did

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=592373

    There are some fairly well known climate scientists active on the wiki page, who work very hard to ensure you learn the version of the greenhouse effect that you could not make any sense of, where you are required to believe the backradiation warms the surface.

  146. @Ric Werme says:
    April 1, 2012 at 8:06 am
    “The Heartland Institute announces a new plan for keeping their documents private. In the future, they will send only hardcopy to their board members printed on a new printer they acquired today

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/looflirpa/shrinter.shtml
    ==============================================================
    Yeah, that would work, but I’ve always handled it by choosing ‘White’ for the font color before I print. (BTW if you do it my way, be sure to select ‘Collate’ for multiple page documents. It is a real PITA to sort through the pages after printing.)

  147. Andrew Judd

    I have read your edit war at wikipedia. It’s unbelievable. Keep up the good work!
    Maybe you can write an article on this topic and post it here or somewhere else.

  148. bair polaire says:
    April 1, 2012 at 2:18 pm
    “Andrew Judd
    I have read your edit war at wikipedia. It’s unbelievable. ”

    You must be new. Happens all the time.

  149. “If you heat an object and place a cold object next to the heated object then the hot object heats the cold object and *both* objects become warmer between each other. If the cold object was not continually cooling it would just get hotter and hotter and hotter.”

    If you put a frying pan on the stove, turn the element at low setting so that frying reaches 100 C. Because of low heating the frying pan does get above 100 C.
    Though If you put lid on frying pan the temperature would rise [you are blocking convection] by modest amount- so a few degrees [not doubling it's temperature 200 C]. If put a cold steak on the frying pan or near the frying it would not increase the frying pan’s temperature. After steak as warmed to same temperature and it’s on the frying pan, it would function like a lid.
    If you did this in a vacuum on the Moon- there is no convection, and therefore would warm up as though frying pan had a lid on earth.

    At a set distance from the Sun [say earth distance] the sun can only heat an object to a certain temperature. The hottest temperatures at earth distance can found on the Moon, where surface temperatures can reach around 120 C. Because the earth atmosphere prevent at least 30% of the solar energy from reaching the surface, the highest surface temperature can not match the lunar’s surface temperature. As long as earth atmosphere blocks 30% or more of the energy from the sun this will always be the case. Doubling the mass of earth’s atmosphere would reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface therefore lower possible maximum temperature
    that surface could warm up to. Doubling the mass of earth atmosphere might increase the average temperature or the “greenhouse effect” but not the the surface temperature.
    If instead you reduced Earth atmosphere to the Mars’ thin and mostly CO2 atmosphere, you would cause there to be higher surface temperature, but have less “greenhouse affect”.

    On earth the warmest temperatures are the ground- one can almost fry eggs on a sidewalk.
    And highest air temperatures never exceed [or get close] to the highest ground temperature.

    So frying eggs on the moon would be quite easy. But because of spherical nature of the Moon, when one goes towards the poles, a horizontal [or level] sidewalk would have lower maximum temperature that it could reach. If sidewalk tilted towards the sun, one doesn’t get this reduction.
    On earth [being spherical] one gets similar reduction in maximum temperature the surface can
    reach. But an additional factor on earth as one goes towards the poles is that a sun at a low angle and has to go thru more atmosphere. And therefore with tilted sidewalk one gets a lower maximum temperature.

    Venus temperature exceed it’s maximum temperature at it’s distance from the Sun. It does so because it has a massive atmosphere. If one were to measure Venus maximum surface temperature at an elevation which similar pressure as on earth- had a floating sidewalk- the sidewalk’s temperature would reach around 470 K [470 cubed times .0000000567. which is 2767 watts per square meter in the ballpark of solar flux at Venus distance].
    Whereas near Venus surface at 92 atm it’s air temperature being around 737 K [and the sidewalk would same as air temperature- whether it was in sunlight or not].

    Btw, the floating sidewalk in sunlight would much hotter than the air temperature at that elevation [somewhere around 360 K- a similar difference [though greater] as one can find on earth]. Or if Earth was at Venus distance, mid day surface temperature- easily fry eggs- one could probably cook a pot roast on sidewalk, air temperatures would similar to a sauna. Though one have significant increase in cloud cover which make much cloudier world and vastly more rain. Earth ocean would not boil but there would certainly be an increase their evaporation rate. Earth would still be habitable, it take centuries to warm the oceans. But one would have world in which CAGW would be a more accurate prediction of the future.

  150. gbaikie says:
    April 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm
    “If you put a frying pan on the stove, turn the element at low setting so that frying reaches 100 C. Because of low heating the frying pan does get above 100 C.”

    Don’t confuse radiative energy transfer with conduction. The greenhouse effect describes only radiative transfer.

  151. Tim Blair at the Telegraph has just found the solution to all our problems. Carbon Remover is now available in a can. No need for taxes or Cap and Trade, just open your can and all your worries just fade away!

    Have look at:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/tax_in_a_can/

    Order your can from: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tableau-Carbon-Remover-250ml/dp/B002SPBWKM

    Act fast as stocks are limited and the IPCC is sure to be putting in a big order soon. Costs only $17.00 for 500 grammes.. One can will tackle a medium sized power station for several days!

  152. Joe Bastardi said on his show “Wise Guys of Weather”, that he comes to this site nearly every hour now to check on the rising sea ice. I thought, “Wow, that’s ironic because i do the same thing.” I agree with Ric Werme that this is the best climate blog on the planet, hands down. I was at one time a believer in AGW, but when i saw this site a few years ago, I slowly, but surely became skeptical, and I owe it all to this website, keep up the good work guys!

  153. Well, since this is open thread, …… I’ve just concluded a post on Venus and her CO2 “layers”….. I would consider it pretty damaging to the specific way Venus, her CO2, and how alarmists relate it to Earth’s climate is viewed. I haven’t got a lot of feedback. But, if it cuts the mustard, then I’ll probably submit it for a post here.

    The problem is that they view CO2 as an all absorbing GHG, when it isn’t.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/venus-and-her-layers-of-carbon-dioxide/ Any thoughts would be appreciated.

  154. @bair polaire
    @ Andrew Judd

    Andrew, I think you have had a few too many wars with a few too many people. Understandably you are suspicious of questions like Bair’s, but I think Bair really does want to understand (potentially both sides of the argument). If he can come here for the science, he can get the team view over at Real-Climate and make up his own mind. We can only hope science prevails.

    Bair
    With the Brick experiment Andrew is trying (in a round about way) to demonstrate that the source must always be hotter than the sink, as the back radiation from the colder brick increases (reducing the nett flow of energy from hot to cold) the transfer of energy from the hot interior of the hot brick to the surface needs to meet the nett radiative loss of the surface and so the brick gets hotter. This will actually tend to an equilibrium, where the surface of the brick relative to the cold brick, would reach a temperature where the loss of energy radiatively exactly balances the nett gain of energy by conduction from the bricks interior. The surface of the brick however can never get hotter than the energy source – in this case the centre of the hot brick.

    When you say most CO2 molecules see more sky than earth that is strictly true, but if you look at the depth of the atmosphere relative to the diameter of the earth, you’ll see that the radiation that misses the earth at low angles is not a lot and 50% is probably a pretty good approximation.

    Your reasoning is a little off. The CO2 is cooling the earth, but it is not as effecient at doing it as oxygen, when we take oxygen and turn it into CO2 then we reduce the cooling efficiency of the atmosphere (increase the insulating factor) and (Theoretically) the earth warms – the only problem is the the atmosphere is not a closed system it reacts to imbalances like this. You see it every day, given the right weather conditions, the hot air evaporates and stores water, if there is enough water in the air and a low enough air pressure, storms form and sucks massive amounts of heat upward which is mostly radiated to space. (Because the clouds of the storm are below the energy source now, and clouds reflect IR the radiation is pretty much all outward to space now). Rain falls – interestingly the kinetic (motion) energy in the rain comes from absorbed heat (turned into potential energy in the water vapour). To my knowledge the potential energy absorbed by evaporated water in reaching the troposphere and then expended in kinetic energy is NOT accounted for in any models.

    Anyway, the CO2 cools the earth less efficiently that it’s precursor (oxygen) but any heating of the surface is still very lossy, the broadband emission of the hot solid (the surface) now slightly warmer than the no CO2 case, escapes through the remaining spectrum, 15% escapes through at CO2 wavelengths, some is absorbed in increased evaporation and precipitation, a whole lot goes into heating the oceans, some goes to heating the bulk of the earth. In the end when you spread that tiny bit of extra warming due to the insulative effect of CO2 at three narrow wavelengths across all of the possible ways it can escape, only a fraction of the extra warmth remains, it has to be warmer, because the extraction of energy is driven by the surface temperature, but the equilibrium temperature is far below what you would expect if there were no losses. This is what we would call Negative feedbacks and there are a lot of them.

    There are undoubtably positive feedbacks too, the IPCC contend that the positive feedbacks overwhelm the negative in such a way that the CO2 warming is amplified by three times. Given the scale of the negative feedbacks in the system naturally, the positive feedbacks would need to overwhelm the negative feedbacks by that factor, considering that the negative feedback due to broadband emission BY ITSELF is 5:1 the CAGW proponents are therefore contending that positive feedback is more than a factor of 15!. If this was the case the temperature would be massively unstable and there would be oscillatory behaviour every day at noon, and the temperature will continue to rise for hours after a cloud comes over or the sun goes down. In real life that just doesn’t happen, things are remarkably stable. One can only conclude that the feedback has to be negative.

    Personally I don’t see why this isn’t self evident to climate sciences, it stands out like the proverbial dogs balls to me

  155. Does anyone with Android smartphones have a WordPress loading and the blank screen problem as mentioned with IE8?

    It appears to have occurred since the WordPress rewrite.

  156. I see that Australia is proposing to provide jobs for American skilled workers in Australia on a temporary basis – program was announced jointly today with US Officials and Australian Immigration Minister Chris Bowen. Claimed to cut the red tape out of the immigration process to facilitate employer recruitment of suitable skilled personnel in Civil Engineering, Electrical and Plumbing (though there are different standards, additional wiring and plumbing regulations to comply with. Not sure how this will be received by our highly unionized local workforce. But it will be welcomed by employers in remote industries like mining and exploration sites.

    It might sound like an April fools stunt, but it is not. (what a day to announce a grand scheme!!) I guess it will help your employment or is it making things better looking in the run up to your Presidential election.

  157. Here’s an interesting paper linked by Dr. Curry. Abstract:

    The strong sensitivity of the Earth’s radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.

  158. Re previous on Australian skilled shortage.

    Age Newspaper link

    http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/us-workers-to-fill-aust-skill-shortage-20120402-1w7pj.html

    Have a look at the state of the current Fairfax media polls with the slump in personal support of Julia, and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and no gain at all for Greens. The carbon pill is biting but they are in denial – perhaps that is the reason for today’s announcement.
    The Poll re the problems facing both Obama and Julia is interesting too.

  159. Andrew Judd says:
    April 1, 2012 at 7:09 am

    “3. The surface receives some of this radiation from the cold atmosphere. But this means some of the energy from the surface heated by the sun has not passed thru the atmosphere to outerspace. If you are heating something and you reduce the cooling it becomes hotter.”

    We had a discussion of all of this on a thread here some time ago. I made the following analogy.

    Think of the incoming solar radiation as the source of a river. The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship determines the rate of outflow. Atmospheric gases form a dam across the river, with floodgates at the level where surface temperature absorbs and reemits substantial radiation in the band where the atmospheric molecules can radiate.

    So, the river level (surface temperature) behind the dam rises until the floodgates are activated. Adding more of the gas makes the dam bigger, raising the floodgates, so it will generally raise the level at which the water settles out.

    BUT… suppose there are other radiating gases in the atmosphere, which would be analogous to putting additional floodgates at a higher level. Suppose moreover that the lower floodgates are unable to handle the entire flow, and the level rises until the higher floodgates are activated. Now, what happens when you add additional floodgates at the lower level?

    The water level behind the dam goes down.

    Why is this applicable? Because on Earth, we had substantial atmospheric floodgates at levels dictated by H2O, CO2, and… CH4. The CH4 gates are substantially activated, but they are at a higher level than the CO2 floodgates. Ergo, if you add lower floodgates (CO2), you might well end up lowering the temperature (water level).

  160. http://www.google.com/onceuponatime/tisp/

    Google launches TiSP, wireless internet where it’s needed most

    The people that brought us Google Earth and the Chrome internet browser have developed a new technology that makes use of existing sewer lines to send wireless internet connectivity to places it’s never gone before. According to Google, the new TiSP system “provides in-home wireless access by connecting your commode-based TiSP wireless router to one of thousands of TiSP Access Nodes via fiber-optic cable strung through your local municipal sewage lines.” Google says the new system is not compatible with straight pipe systems or individual sewage treatment systems (SSTS) where wireless connectivity is not already present. Learn more about this new technology by visiting Google. http://www.google.com/onceuponatime/tisp/

    [Posted on 4/1/2012 I notice ...Robt]

  161. @Kelvin Vaughan

    Yes. It’s the maximum temperatures that have risen twice as fast as the minimum temperatures since 1880. Quite the opposite from what I expected to see from a CO2 effect. But that’s just Central England.

    The global picture is different: Since 1900 the nightly minimum temperatures have risen much faster than daily maximum temperatures. The diurnal temperature range has diminished. Exactly what I would expect from an atmospheric CO2 effect. Though other causes like UHI could be more dominant in the data.

    You find a more complete picture here: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/DTR.htm

Comments are closed.