Warming Caused by Soot, Not CO2
From the Resilient Earth
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Wed, 07/15/2009 – 13:19
A new paper in Science reports that a careful study of satellite data show the assumed cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere to be significantly less than previously estimated. Unfortunately, the assumed greater cooling has been used in climate models for years. In such models, the global-mean warming is determined by the balance of the radiative forcings—warming by greenhouse gases balanced against cooling by aerosols. Since a greater cooling effect has been used in climate models, the result has been to credit CO2 with a larger warming effect than it really has.
This question is of great importance to climate modelers because they have to be able to simulate the effect of GHG warming in order to accurately predict future climate change. The amount of temperature increase set into a climate model for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is called the model’s sensitivity. As Dr. David Evans explained in a recent paper: “Yes, every emitted molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) causes some warming—but the crucial question is how much warming do the CO2 emissions cause? If atmospheric CO2 levels doubled, would the temperature rise by 0.1°, 1.0°, or by 10.0° C?”
Temperature sensitivity scenarios from IPCC AR4.
The absorption frequencies of CO2 are already saturated, meaning that the atmosphere already captures close to 100% of the radiation at those frequencies. Consequently, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rise in temperature for a given increase in CO2 becomes smaller. This sorely limits the amount of warming further increases in CO2 can engender. Because CO2 on its own cannot account for the observed temperature rise in the past century, climate modelers assume that linkages exist between CO2 and other climate influences, mainly water vapor (for a more detailed explanation of what determines the Global Warming Potential of a gas see my comment “It’s not that simple”).
To compensate for the missing “forcing,” models are tuned to include a certain amount of extra warming linked to carbon dioxide levels—extra warming that comes from unestablished feedback mechanisms whose existence is simply assumed. Aerosol cooling and climate sensitivity in the models must balance each other in order to match historical conditions. Since the climate warmed slightly last century the amount of warming must have exceeded the amount of cooling. As Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist and former NASA scientist, puts it: “They program climate models so that they are sensitive enough to produce the warming in the last 50 years with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. They then point to this as ‘proof’ that the CO2 caused the warming, but this is simply reasoning in a circle.”
A large aerosol cooling, therefore, implies a correspondingly large climate sensitivity. Conversely, reduced aerosol cooling implies lower GHG warming, which in turn implies lower model sensitivity. The upshot of this is that sensitivity values used in models for the past quarter of a century have been set too high. Using elevated sensitivity settings has significant implications for model predictions of future global temperature increases. The low-end value of model sensitivity used by the IPCC is 2°C. Using this value results, naturally, in the lowest predictions for future temperature increases. According to the paper “Consistency Between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect” published in Science on july 10, 2009, Gunnar Myhre states that previous values for aerosol cooling are too high—by as much as 40 percent—implying the IPCC’s model sensitivity settings are too high also. Here is the abstract of the paper:
In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, the direct aerosol effect is reported to have a radiative forcing estimate of –0.5 Watt per square meter (W m–2), offsetting the warming from CO2 by almost one-third. The uncertainty, however, ranges from –0.9 to –0.1 W m–2, which is largely due to differences between estimates from global aerosol models and observation-based estimates, with the latter tending to have stronger (more negative) radiative forcing. This study demonstrates consistency between a global aerosol model and adjustment to an observation-based method, producing a global and annual mean radiative forcing that is weaker than –0.5 W m–2, with a best estimate of –0.3 W m–2. The physical explanation for the earlier discrepancy is that the relative increase in anthropogenic black carbon (absorbing aerosols) is much larger than the overall increase in the anthropogenic abundance of aerosols.
The complex influence of atmospheric aerosols on the climate system and the influence of humans on aerosols are among the key uncertainties in the understanding recent climate change. Rated as one of the most significant yet poorly understood forcings by the IPCC there has been much activity in aerosol research recently (see Airborne Bacteria Discredit Climate Modeling Dogma and African Dust Heats Up Atlantic Tropics). Some particles absorb sunlight, contributing to climate warming, while others reflect sunlight, leading to cooling. The main anthropogenic aerosols that cause cooling are sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon, whereas black carbon absorbs solar radiation. The global mean effect of human caused aerosols (in other words, pollution) is a cooling, but the relative contributions of the different types of aerosols determine the magnitude of this cooling. Readjusting that balance is what Myhre’s paper is all about.
|
Discrepancies between recent satellite observations and the values needed to make climate models work right have vexed modelers. “A reliable quantification of the aerosol radiative forcing is essential to understand climate change,” states Johannes Quaas of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. Writing in the same issue of Science Dr. Quaas continued, “however, a large part of the discrepancy has remained unexplained.” With a systematic set of sensitivity studies, Myhre explains most of the remainder of the discrepancy. His paper shows that with a consistent data set of anthropogenic aerosol distributions and properties, the data-based and model-based approaches converge.
Myhre argues that since preindustrial times, soot particle concentrations have increased much more than other aerosols. Unlike many other aerosols, which scatter sunlight, soot strongly absorbs solar radiation. At the top of the atmosphere, where the Earth’s energy balance is determined, scattering has a cooling effect, whereas absorption has a warming effect. If soot increases more than scattering aerosols, the overall aerosol cooling effect is smaller than it would be otherwise. According to Dr. Myhre’s work, the correct cooling value is some 40% less than that previously accepted by the IPCC.
Not that climate modelers are unaware of the problems with their creations. Numerous papers have been published that detail problems predicting ice cover, precipitation and temperature correctly. This is due to inadequate modeling of the ENSO, aerosols and the bane of climate modelers, cloud cover. Apologists for climate modeling will claim that the models are still correct, just not as accurate or as detailed as they might be. Can a model that is only partially correct be trusted? Quoting again from Roy Spencer’s recent blog post:
It is also important to understand that even if a climate model handled 95% of the processes in the climate system perfectly, this does not mean the model will be 95% accurate in its predictions. All it takes is one important process to be wrong for the models to be seriously in error.
Can such a seemingly simple mistake in a single model parameter really lead to invalid results? Consider the graph below, a representation of the predictions made by James Hansen to the US Congress in 1988, plotted against how the climate actually behaved. Pretty much what one would expect if the sensitivity of the model was set too high, yet we are still supposed to believe in the model’s results. No wonder even the IPCC doesn’t call their model results predictions, preferring the more nebulous term “scenarios.”
Now that we know the models used by climate scientists were all tuned incorrectly what does this imply for the warnings of impending ecological disaster? What impact does this discovery have on the predictions of melting icecaps, rising ocean levels, increased storm activity and soaring global temperatures? Quite simply they got it wrong, at least in as much as those predictions were based on model results. To again quote from David Evans’ paper:
None of the climate models in 2001 predicted that temperatures would not rise from 2001 to 2009—they were all wrong. All of the models wrongly predict a huge dominating tropical hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern—no such hotspot has been observed, and if it was there we would have easily detected it.
Once again we see the shaky ground that climate models are built on. Once again a new paper in a peer reviewed journal has brought to light significant flaws in the ways models are configured—forced to match known historical results even when erroneous values are used for fundamental parameters. I have said many times that, with enough tweaking, a model can be made to fit any set of reference data—but such bogus validation does not mean the model will accurately predict the future. When will climate science realize that its reputation has been left in tatters by these false prophets made of computer code?
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.
==================================
ADDENDUM BY ANTHONY
I’d like to add this graph showing CO2’s temperature response to supplement the one Doug Hoffman cites from IPCC AR4. here we see that we are indeed pretty close to saturation of the response.
The “blue fuzz” represents measured global CO2 increases in our modern times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Ashby Lynch (07:35:18)…
1) I threw the graph together in Excel in about 15 minutes… It should have PRELIMINARY stamped on it.
2) I haven’t examined Hansen’s trace gas scenarios, beyond just a cursory look.
The CO2 trend data that have been collected since 1985 fit Hansen’s scenario A to a tee. The CH4 data look like they fit scenario C. I don’t really have a good guess on the CFC data at this point.
Just “eyeballing” it… I think the actual total GHG data since 1985 would total about 70% of the radiative forcing that scenario A depicts. If Hansen over-estimated the cooling effect of aerosols, then scenario A might be the best comparison… If his aerosol estimates were good… Maybe scenario B is best.
The data are available and Hansen’s methods are spelled out in the paper; so it ought to be pretty easy for the professional climate science people to figure this out.
@ur momisugly Phil. (08:09:59)…
I think it really depends on how his aerosol effects compare to the real world data since 1985.
If his aerosol effects projections match the data acquired since 1985… Scenario B would be the best choice. If he over-estimated the aerosol cooling effects… Scenario A or something between A and B might be best.
“”” Dave Middleton (03:40:32) :
@Mike N,
That’s certainly possible…But CO2 is the “Big Kahuna”. Even if CH4 has 20X the greenhouse effect of CO2. 1800 ppb is 0.46% of 390 ppm…20 X 0.46% = 9.2%.
When I get the time, I’ll see if I can reconstruct Hansen’s trace gas concentrations relative to the actual data. “””
Well CO2 isn’t even the little Kahuna; it has to compete with H2O which easily wins the top prize. As for the silver medal, I wouldn’t give it to CO2 either, since CO2 is competing for the same spectrum with water vapor.
But there right in the middle of the major atmospheric window, you get Ozone. So why is that in an important slot ? Well because the major radiative cooling of the earth’s surface is going on in the noonday tropical deserts, and at those temperatures, the peak of the emission spectrum is Wien shifted to right on top of the ozone band, and well away from CO2.
But of course we can’t make Ozone a bad guy since we need that to stop the sea level from rising due to too much UV heating.
George
>>Alexej Buergin (01:47:52) :
“George E. Smith
Well Phil, I understand what a log function is; and every log function I’ve ever met was valid for real arguments from -infinity to + infinity, not counting the two end points.”
Didn’t you intend to write 0 instead -infinity ? <<
I don’t know what George intended to write, but you can take the logarithm (and anti-log) of any number in the complex plane (which includes the real numbers out to minus infinity).
For example: ln(-e) = 1+pi*i. It’s a unit vector pointing from the origin to -1 on the real axis. The angle is 180 degrees or pi radians (which is why it’s pointing in the negative direction). You can take the square root of this number (divide by two) = 1/2 + (1/2)*pi*i. The anti-log = (e^0.5)*i. Adding 2*pi*i to the logarithm doesn’t change its effective value, and we get the other root = 1/2 + (3/2)*pi*i. The anti-log of the second value = –(e^0.5)*i.
Jim
“”” Phil. (07:23:11) :
old construction worker (18:51:03) :
Phil. (15:34:08) :
‘What in fact happens in the atmosphere is that CO2 absorbs IR and is vibrationally excited and within nanoseconds this energy is collisionally exchanged with other molecules (heating them up) and dropping back to the ground state. In that case of course it does follow Bohr’s description (but not via radiation) but it doesn’t need to.’
I’m I missing something, aren’t the other molecules just as “hot” as CO2 molecule when they collide? And what molecules are you talking about?
No because the excited CO2 molecule has just absorbed ~0.28 eV of energy which is then collisionally transferred to the neighboring molecules (predominantly N2 and O2). So immediately after absorbing a photon the CO2 has a higher vibrational temperature. “””
Phil I sense there is a general lack of understanding that the CO2 (or other GHG) molecule, acts simply as a transfer agent, capturing the energy in photonic form and then transferring it to the far more abundant ordinary air molecules as thermal (mechanical) energy.
In some sense it it like the role of Helium, in the He-Ne gas Laser, although the transfer mechanism is different. Each CO2 molecule has a 13-14 layer pad of N2 and O2 around it to prevent it from seeing another CO2 molecule.
And because the eventual thermal emission from the atmosphere itself is roughly the same spectral range, as the original CO2 captured radiation, there is this cascade of contiuous absorption, and re-emission, that greatly complicates the whole absorption process.
I’m lost for an explanation of why CH4 is claimed to have 20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. Based on the CH4 absorption spectra I have been able to find, It would seem that methane is of no consequence.
I have two tiny narrow bands for CH4, one at about 3.5 microns, and one at about 8 microns; and both of those are sitting right on top of big fat water vapor bands.
So I don’t get the methane thing at all, and I was also under the impression that methane doesn’t persist for very long before it becomes just CO2 and water.
Hopefully, someone else can make the case for CH4 ?
“”” Alexej Buergin (01:47:52) :
“George E. Smith
Well Phil, I understand what a log function is; and every log function I’ve ever met was valid for real arguments from -infinity to + infinity, not counting the two end points.”
Didn’t you intend to write 0 instead -infinity ? “””
Hooray ! I was actually hoping that somebody would catch that little snafu.
But I will dodge that one by suggesting that pi = -sqrt(-1). Ln(-1)
Now I didn’t say that the logs had to be real; just the arguments.
Sometimes the quickness of the typing fingers outruns the brain.
George
DaveM, focus on the CFCs and other trace gases when you do your analysis.
Steve says scenario A had an effect from those that was higher than CO2, due to the exponential growth.
“”” Donald (18:49:12) :
This site is fabulous but as someone who is not a scientist trying to develop a better understanding of the controversy I have a question. I hope it is not too dumb.
Why can’t CO2 radiate absorbed energy and then become less saturated and thus able to absorb and radiate more energy? “””
Donald, short answer is it can and it does. When the CO2 molecule captures and infrared photon, it starts the molecule vibrating in a particular fashion; which in the case of interest, is a simple bending in the middle. That “excited state” is a bit like having your coffee cup suddenly filled to the brim with really hot coffee, and you are in the middle of a packed ballroom with thousands of people you don’t even know; and all the compatible “chicks” are already surrounded by other guys. If it wasn’t so crowded, you would get time to actually drink that coffee; which eventually leads to you “radiating it” out in the men’s room.
But instead some clumsy clod is ging to jostle your elbow and make you spill most of that coffee; which will get it all over some person close to you.
The atmosphere is a bit like that cocktail party physics. The excited state (cup full of hot coffee) has a natural “lifetime” (better drink it before you spill it), and in less crowded circumstances, the CO2 molecule would eventually re-emit a photon pretty much like the one it absorbed; but because of the gas density (too many party goers), and the temperature (they’re all juiced up) the CO2 is going to undergo a collsion with an N2 or O2 molecule, and on occasion one of those Argon loners will knock your elbow.
So bottom line is that in most of the atmosphere all the coffee gets spilled rather than drunk.
At very high altitudes, where the air gets more rarified, and colder the mean free path between collisions gets long enough that the CO2 can now radiate (re-emit) .
But down below in the inhabited atmosphere, that coffee cup gets spilled and refilled ad infinitum, and that’s what makes it so hard to figure out exactly what is going on.
Hope that helps.
George
“”” Jim Masterson (09:21:16) :
>>Alexej Buergin (01:47:52) :
“George E. Smith
Well Phil, I understand what a log function is; and every log function I’ve ever met was valid for real arguments from -infinity to + infinity, not counting the two end points.”
Didn’t you intend to write 0 instead -infinity ? <<
I don’t know what George intended to write, but you can take the logarithm (and anti-log) of any number in the complex plane (which includes the real numbers out to minus infinity). """
Slip of the fingers there Jim; and I didn't really intend to venture into the realm of weird numbers; but as you say, if you can live with negative numbers having square roots; then you are primed to tolerate logs of negative numbers via the pi = – sqrt(-1).Ln(-1) relationsship. If we ever needed proof that all of mathematics is pure fiction; and we made it all up in our heads; that definition of pi oughta do it.
I also like the function: y = exp(-1/x^2)
It has the value zero, at x = 0, and so does it derivative; in fact every derivative is zero at x = 0.
So (y) starts out at zero, with zero velocity, and zero acceleration, and zero rate of increase of acceleration; and so on; and yet somehow it manages to claw its way up to 37% at x = 1. Nobody ever started out in life with a bigger handicap, then exp(-1/x^2) !
George E. Smith (09:34:28) :
I’m lost for an explanation of why CH4 is claimed to have 20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. Based on the CH4 absorption spectra I have been able to find, It would seem that methane is of no consequence.
I have two tiny narrow bands for CH4, one at about 3.5 microns, and one at about 8 microns; and both of those are sitting right on top of big fat water vapor bands.
So I don’t get the methane thing at all, and I was also under the impression that methane doesn’t persist for very long before it becomes just CO2 and water.
Hopefully, someone else can make the case for CH4 ?
George, as I said before you can’t use that cartoon version of the spectra, if you look at the water and CH4 lines you’ll see that the spectra don’t overlap rather the lines are interposed between each other.
It’s atmospheric mean lifetime is about 12 years so it’s contribution to GW is high for about 20 years then falls off.
George,
I agree… CO2 is next to irrelevant in the real world. I was making the point that CO2 was the Big Kahuna in Hansen’s model.
I’m trying to “reverse engineer” Hansen’s model to see which (if any) of his scenarios matches the actual atmospheric chemistry chronology since 1985.
That’s a good question. I’ve always just accepted the assertion that CH4’s greenhouse effect was about 20X CO2’s… Particularly since CH4, like CO2, competes with H2O over much of its bandwidth.
My last post should have ended with…
That’s a good question. I’ve always just accepted the assertion that CH4’s greenhouse effect was about 20X CO2’s… <Maybe CH4 is not so potent… Particularly since CH4, like CO2, competes with H2O over much of its bandwidth.
“”” Phil. (10:31:31) : “””
I’ll take your word for it Phil. I’m totally at the mercy of the people who publish these purported spectra. Given the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have given to “climate scientists”, I would think that the least we could have gotten out of the deal would be some real measured spectra of real world absorption by all these EPA poisons that the government is telling us they are going to tax us up the wazoo to get rid of.
I read a statement that methane is 20 times as potent as CO2, and I can’t find a single piece of data that shows why that is claimed to be true; all I can get is some IPCC table of misery indexes that they seem to have assigned to each of the vermin; with no scientific precedent for those claims.
It can’t be rocket science; you go to Edmunds scientific, and you buy a spectrometer that goes from 0.1 to 100 microns wavelength, and you get some gas cells and you measure the darn absorption, once and for all; and publish the data where people can get access to it.
Instead we get reams of papers on increasingly obstruse statistical mathematics trying to create data out of thin air; and the varmints that are supposed to be responsible for all of this aren’t even examined in detail once and for all to establish exactly how they function.
We can get believable scientific data, from 15 billion light years out into the dim distant past of the far universe, and we can’t seem to compile basic data on important ingredients of our immediate environment.
Somewhere I was reading a peer reviewed paper on somebody doing some “very careful” lab measurments of the absorption of some GHG; maybe it was CO2; and they described how they made up out of pristine isotopically pure gases a sample of standard atmosphere, including the CO2, so they could make some absorption measurments. And then they went and added in some obligatory amount of water vapor, before making the measurments. Seems insane to me; separation of the variables must be the single biggest headache in experimental design.
By the way; if you want to take the earth’s mean surface temperature rise as being proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration; that’s ok with me; but it seems that experimentally, we don’t even have so much as a single octave of observational data to work with, in order to arrive at the IPCC’s value with its 3:1 fudge factor uncertainty; and I would think that you can approximate it just as closely as that uncertainty with straight line segments. I don’t see any virtue in assuming a log function, if it isn’t logarithmic over at least several octaves.
But if CH4 is that obnoxious, and it is spewed out constantly from decaying vegetation; I don’t understand why the arth hasn’t already fried to a crisp.
Clearly something is overriding all of those things; and clouds get my vote; and I absolutely refuse to refer to clouds as aerosols; cloud is a shorter word.
George
Yes
Tides are amongst the most fascinating of all water waves.
Essentially the tide is a forced unidirectional wave of great velocity and enormous wavelength but tiny amplitude produced by the gravitational attraction of the heavenly bodies on the water and the rotation of the earth.
So great is the wavelength and so small the amplitude that to a casual observer a tide does not appear to be a wave at all: although it is.
Although the wave eventuates on its greatest scale in the open ocean where the depth is great and moreover the natural forces involved are enormous the actual net motion of the water impelled by the wave is surprisingly small.
In relatively small bodies of water, even when favourably aligned, i.e. east/west, the scale of the effect is much reduced as in the Baltic or Mediterrean seas.
It is possible to model these wave effects from first principles but the results whilst interesting are of little practical use.
The reason is that the chief effects of this wave action occur, and are observed, close to land and are not only affected by the contours of the land but the also subsea terrain as well.
Some of the minor effects are interesting curiosities such as the double high water, useful for deep water vessels, experienced at Southampton. Others such as the Severn Bore, one of many around the world, and by no means the largest but the best recorded in historical terms, show how funnelling the incoming tidal flow can create a solitary wave crest or soliton, solitons exist in other media and have special properties not well understood, which can then run up river for many miles.
On a larger scale the wave can also drive huge coastal currents which transport warm or cool water over great distances along the edge of a land mass, examples include the currents along the Eastern side of South America and past Africa via the Mozambique channel etc.
It cannot be doubted that these actions have powerful influences on local climate and weather. Yet despite the enormous energies involved, perhaps on the scale of those produced within the core of the earth itself, I personally doubt they have much overall effect on Global climate: if of course such a thing really exists in any meaningful way.
Which I also beg leave to doubt.
Kindest Regards
>> George E. Smith (09:40:39) :
But I will dodge that one by suggesting that pi = -sqrt(-1). Ln(-1) <<
Your posts are always fun.
By definition, ln(-1) = pi*i, -pi*i, 3*pi*i, -3*pi*i, 5*pi*i, -5*pi*i, . . . , and sqrt(-1) = i, -i.
If we pick the usual suspects from this list, (i, pi*i) or (–i, –pi*i), then your identity is correct. Considering the full range of values for sqrt(-1) and ln(-1), it’s not exactly an identity.
I’ll amend my previous statement about taking the logarithm of any number on the complex plane–I should have excluded the origin.
Jim
George E. Smith (11:40:27) :
“”” Phil. (10:31:31) : “””
I’ll take your word for it Phil. I’m totally at the mercy of the people who publish these purported spectra. Given the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have given to “climate scientists”, I would think that the least we could have gotten out of the deal would be some real measured spectra of real world absorption by all these EPA poisons that the government is telling us they are going to tax us up the wazoo to get rid of.
I read a statement that methane is 20 times as potent as CO2, and I can’t find a single piece of data that shows why that is claimed to be true; all I can get is some IPCC table of misery indexes that they seem to have assigned to each of the vermin; with no scientific precedent for those claims.
It can’t be rocket science; you go to Edmunds scientific, and you buy a spectrometer that goes from 0.1 to 100 microns wavelength, and you get some gas cells and you measure the darn absorption, once and for all; and publish the data where people can get access to it.
You’d be better off using an FTIR spectrometer, the one I used to use had a variable pathlength cell up to 10m. There are compilations of spectra out there or you can subscribe to HITRAN (your tax dollars at work since the 60s). Here’s an example of a portion of the CH4 spectrum in the 8μm band you referred with the appropriate portion of the water spectrum above it.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/WaterCH4.gif
Instead we get reams of papers on increasingly obstruse statistical mathematics trying to create data out of thin air; and the varmints that are supposed to be responsible for all of this aren’t even examined in detail once and for all to establish exactly how they function.
We can get believable scientific data, from 15 billion light years out into the dim distant past of the far universe, and we can’t seem to compile basic data on important ingredients of our immediate environment.
Somewhere I was reading a peer reviewed paper on somebody doing some “very careful” lab measurments of the absorption of some GHG; maybe it was CO2; and they described how they made up out of pristine isotopically pure gases a sample of standard atmosphere, including the CO2, so they could make some absorption measurments. And then they went and added in some obligatory amount of water vapor, before making the measurments. Seems insane to me; separation of the variables must be the single biggest headache in experimental design.
By the way; if you want to take the earth’s mean surface temperature rise as being proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration; that’s ok with me; but it seems that experimentally, we don’t even have so much as a single octave of observational data to work with, in order to arrive at the IPCC’s value with its 3:1 fudge factor uncertainty; and I would think that you can approximate it just as closely as that uncertainty with straight line segments. I don’t see any virtue in assuming a log function, if it isn’t logarithmic over at least several octaves.
But if CH4 is that obnoxious, and it is spewed out constantly from decaying vegetation; I don’t understand why the arth hasn’t already fried to a crisp.
Clearly something is overriding all of those things; and clouds get my vote; and I absolutely refuse to refer to clouds as aerosols; cloud is a shorter word.
George
George E. Smith (09:26:46)
Thanks for the explanation. I assume (there’s that word again) Phil was talking about the exchange of energy between GHG.
So if water vapor spilled a little coffee, the great coffee server (long wave radiation) would refill the cup before CO2 could make it across the ball room to share his coffee.
I tried to post this earlier George but it went missing.
George E. Smith (11:40:27) :
“”” Phil. (10:31:31) : “””
I’ll take your word for it Phil. I’m totally at the mercy of the people who publish these purported spectra. Given the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have given to “climate scientists”, I would think that the least we could have gotten out of the deal would be some real measured spectra of real world absorption by all these EPA poisons that the government is telling us they are going to tax us up the wazoo to get rid of.
I read a statement that methane is 20 times as potent as CO2, and I can’t find a single piece of data that shows why that is claimed to be true; all I can get is some IPCC table of misery indexes that they seem to have assigned to each of the vermin; with no scientific precedent for those claims.
It can’t be rocket science; you go to Edmunds scientific, and you buy a spectrometer that goes from 0.1 to 100 microns wavelength, and you get some gas cells and you measure the darn absorption, once and for all; and publish the data where people can get access to it.
Basically yes, I got an FTIR with a variable path length cell up to 10m.
There’s plenty of data out there but it can be hard to find, the best place is HITRAN (your tax dollars at work since the 60s).
Just to give you an example below is a portion of the CH4 absorption band at 8 μm with the appropriate portion of the water spectrum above it.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/WaterCH4.gif
old construction worker (17:42:02) :
George E. Smith (09:26:46)
Thanks for the explanation. I assume (there’s that word again) Phil was talking about the exchange of energy between GHG.
So if water vapor spilled a little coffee, the great coffee server (long wave radiation) would refill the cup before CO2 could make it across the ball room to share his coffee.
It’s a bit more like trying to cross the crowded ballroom with a cup of coffee without it being spilled and going back for a refill whenever it spills. The more crowded the more attempts needed for success. The GHG is the one carrying the coffee, everybody else on the floor are the N2/O2 molecules.
George E. Smith (11:40:27) :
“”” Phil. (10:31:31) : “””
I’ll take your word for it Phil. I’m totally at the mercy of the people who publish these purported spectra. Given the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have given to “climate scientists”, I would think that the least we could have gotten out of the deal would be some real measured spectra of real world absorption by all these EPA poisons that the government is telling us they are going to tax us up the wazoo to get rid of.
I keep trying to answer this George but my posts aren’t being accepted, sorry.
George E. Smith:
“Instead we get reams of papers on increasingly obstruse statistical mathematics trying to create data out of thin air; and the varmints that are supposed to be responsible for all of this aren’t even examined in detail once and for all to establish exactly how they function.”
I share your frustration! I recently saw an opinion column written in the Daily Camera, the local paper of record for Boulder, CO., whose author attempted to use a purely statistical analysis to show that CO2 has caused all of the warming we’ve seen since the Industrial Revolution. You (plural) probably don’t remember this, but in an earlier post on this blog I asked about the statements of a “professor” (that was my operating assumption) that were along the same lines. The guy who wrote the column is one and the same. I found out more about him, and I was wrong. He’s not a professor. He’s a blogger “who studies climate change as a hobby”. He is not a scientist, and yes, he has a regular opinion column in Boulder’s paper…
You can read the column I’m referring to here:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/05/global-warming-whodunit/
Get this. He loaded global average temperature and CO2 data sets into Excel, shifted the temperature data set around for a bit and found an AMAZING correlation between CO2 and temperature (I’m being sarcastic). This is the paragraph that got steam rising out of my head. His method was so amateurish I was surprised the Camera let this garbage get in the paper:
“Still not convinced? I loaded as much publicly available data as I could into Microsoft Excel. The result? An 88 percent correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The temperature correlation peaks about 12 years after the CO2 stimulus, and falls off slowly over decades. This is huge evidence that CO2 drives temperatures, and that the oil we burn today causes the most warming 10 to 15 years from now.”
Yes, you read right. He actually asserts from his statistical analysis alone that there’s a 10-15 year relationship between changes in CO2 levels to a temperature response, and that this entirely explains the temperature fluctuations from the Industrial Revolution onwards. Why are the alarmists playing around with sophisticated computer models when all you’ve got to do is load these two data sets into Excel and SEE the answer right in front of your face?? My goodness, we’ve been wasting billions of dollars studying this! (sarcasm off)
I and others asked the author how he arrived at this conclusion and he gave links in the comments that follow the article to a blog posting of his own which asserts the same thing, and which also shows the charts he generated in Excel, whereby he came to his conclusion. He could point to no scientific source of information for the assertions he made. Talk about an insult to our intelligence. This article isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on!
I’ve been corresponding with the opinion editor of the Camera, complaining about the low quality of this piece. So far she hasn’t been persuaded by my argument… It’s difficult to believe this is happening in the same town where NCAR and NIST are located. Personally I think it’s embarrassing.
I should add to my previous comment some words from Alan Kay, a prominent computer scientist who has worked for years to design and develop computers that can be used in educational environments, and whose contributions to how we use computers today are legion.
I looked this up when I saw the Daily Camera article. Kay gave a presentation several years ago called “What is Squeak?” (Squeak is an operating/programming system he designed that’s based on software work he did 30 years ago) Most of what he talked about was teaching real math and real science in schools, using computers, and how to go about that, but what he said has bearing on the use of computers in science. In the Q&A session afterwards the first question from the audience was on using computers to teach students about pseudo-science (the difference between it and real science). Interesting question! He said:
“You can’t do science on a computer or with a book, because [with] the computer–like a book, like a movie–you can make up anything. We can have an inverse cube law of gravity on here, and the computer doesn’t care. No language system that we have knows what reality is like. That’s why we have to go out and negotiate with reality by doing experiments.”
A questioner asked about a simulation he had running up on the screen, asking if it was pseudo-science. He said, “This is a model. If you present it to the kids as fact, it is pseudo-science.” Does this not say it all? We can even ignore the context that he’s talking about an educational situation. He’s talking about the context in which models should be used generally, if you think about it. He did not get into the subject of AGW at all. He just stated the “nature of the beast”–computers. He stated repeatedly that the correct use of models was to have the students construct them after making observations of actual phenomena, and that their models should reflect what they observed. The idea is through the process of making their models they’ll learn more about what they observed. Shouldn’t scientists use computer models the same way?
@Phil…
It looks like the Spam filter might be holding up your posts because of the links. When I make a post and it doesn’t immediately show up as awaiting moderation, I follow it up with a post like this…
Mod’s – I think the Spam filter grabbed my last post because of the links it included.
It sometimes takes a little while, but the posts are almost always allowed.
It also seems that by using the Href HTML Code, the Spam filter is more likely to allow a post.
What is the source of your final graph, please?
Can you point me to a derivation from first principles of physics that a doubling of CO2 concentration will increase the surface temperature by about 1degree celsius before any feed back effects? which is often mentioned?