Global Warming Potentials fail because gas concentrations are not “well-mixed”
Guest post by Dr. Vincent Gray
I came across this revealing statement on page 247 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). paragraph 4.1.4. Chapter 4
“The atmospheric lifetime is truly a scale factor relating (i) constant emissions (Tg/yr) to a steady-state burden (Tg), or (ii) an emission pulse (Tg) to the time-integrated burden of that pulse (Tg-yr). The lifetime is often implicitly assumed to be constant, independent of the sources, and is likewise assumed to represent the decay time (e-fold) of a perturbation. These assumptions apply rigorously only for a gas whose local chemical lifetime is constant in space and time such as for the radioactive noble gas radon, whose lifetime is a fixed nuclear property. In such a case the mean atmospheric lifetime equals the local lifetime: the lifetime that relates global emissions to the global burden is exactly the decay time of a perturbation.
This general applicability of the atmospheric lifetime breaks down for greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants whose chemical losses vary in space and time. NOx, for instance, has a local lifetime of 5 d in the upper troposphere; and both times are less than the time required for vertical mixing of the troposphere. In this case emission of NOx into the upper troposphere will produce a larger atmospheric burden than the same emission into the lower troposphere. As a consequence the definition of the atmospheric lifetime of NOx is not unique and depends on the location (and season) of its emissions.
The same is true for any gas whose local lifetime is variable and on average shorter than about 0.5 yr, the decay time of a north-south difference between hemispheres and one of the longer time scales for tropospheric mixing. The majority of greenhouse gases considered here have atmospheric lifetimes greater than 2 yr, much longer than tropospheric mixing times; and hence their lifetimes are not significantly altered by the location of sources within the troposphere.
When lifetimes are reported for gases in Table 4.0, it is assumed that the gases are uniformly mixed throughout the troposphere. This assumption is unlikely for gases with lifetimes <1 yr, and reported values must be viewed only as approximations. (My emphasis)
This shows why they are so concerned to fiddle the measured results of gas concentrations to try and argue they are “well-mixed” and have no variability. So all results they don’t like are suppressed as “noise”, the many previous results, publicised by Beck, are suppressed, and measurements over land surfaces are forbidden. There is overwhelming evidence that none of the gases are “well-mixed”, so all of the Global Warming figures are Phoney.
But lets be fair, if they are not assumed to be well mixed, then who can do the math’s? I mean a modeller’s life is troubled enough as it is, a bit hard to make it any more difficult not?
Why worry about how well mixed CO2 is and how that impacts the AGW hypothesis?
CO2 forms less than .04% of the atmosphere and the effect of any variation in distibution will be absolutely minute.
Water vapour however, represents between 1 and 4% of the lower atmosphere and is HIGHLY variable both temporally and spatially – as well as being a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Concentrate on the big issues.
George Steiner says:
October 2, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Let me ask this. What is the mechanism that does the mixing? Most man made CO2 is produced in the Northern Hemisphere I assume. So what does the mixing?
_____________________________________________________________________
Myrrh says:
October 2, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Well, you asked..
A combination of ideal gas properties of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen – random elastic collisions at superspeeds in empty space (think jar), with Brownian motion thrown in for good measure – here I think this is oxygen and nitrogen bouncing it around until it is well mixed. As I had a PhD (physics) explain it to me, as he taught it and examined on it, carbon dioxide will diffuse into the atmosphere as per ideal gas where it will become thoroughly well-mixed it can’t be unmixed except by applying great work. No work required to mix it thoroughly, it diffuses because that’s how ideal gas molecules move in empty space.
________________________________________________________________________
This is slightly misleading for a couple of reasons.
We are not talking about near vacuum, so “random elastic collisions at superspeeds” doesn’t quite give the true picture.
We have all done the experiment but we do not talk about it in polite company.
Eat beans with onions to produce mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide gas in your digestive tract. When the gas is expelled see how long it takes for your spouse sitting ten feet or more away in an enclosed space (no wind) to make a rude comment. It is not instantaneous. That will give you a feel for the speed of diffusion of gases at sea level or where ever you live. That is also the atmospheric level where CO2 is produced and consumed…. every minute of every day. And that is the second reason that assumption of “well mixed” is a bit misleading.Think of it as a huge pot of soup with hundreds of people adding ingredients and hundreds of people removing servings. No way is it ever going to be “well mixed” at least at the surface of the earth where most of the data has been taken.
Oh and do not forget that CO2 is “heavier than air” a simple kids experiment: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/405643/kids_science_experiment_to_show_that_co2_is_heavier_than_air/
Paul Linsay says:
October 2, 2011 at 6:28 pm
The right question to ask is whether the variations in the global map or in the Wiscinsin tower plots matter for the IR properties of the CO2 that vary only logaritmically with concentration. Probably not.
____________________________________________________________________________
No that is not the right question since the whole CAGW is all about evil mankind producing CO2 that can not be absorbed by the earth. The IR properties of the CO2 have nothing to do with whether or not mankind is producing excess CO2.
RE: steven mosher: October 2, 2011 at 11:26 pm
“The problem is this misunderstands how the CO2 effect works and misunderstands the time scale.
“Adding CO2 over time raises the opacity of the atmosphere ( on average). That increase in opacity raises the height at which radiation finally escapes back to space.”
CO2 primarily affects the atmosphere, as far as terrestrial thermal radiation goes in a narrow band about 90 kayzers (cycles per centimeter) wide around a wavenumber of 667 kayzers (or wavelength of 15 microns). Most of this hole is already 100 percent obscured. Only a small fringe around this hole is widened slightly. CO2 is mostly self-masking. That is why the effect is logarithmic. You have to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to get one more degree of *raw* warming.
According to a level-by-level analysis of MODTRAN results, this web utility from the University of Chicago seems to be indicating that more heat is being progressively lost at every level of the troposphere such that direct radiation from the ground is only a small fraction of the total radiation eventually emitted by the earth to outer space. I suspect the sticky polar electrical field of the water molecule may be involved as this radiation drops dramatically above the tropopause. Also note, the cooling from this radiation would force upwardly convected air to settle back down to earth.
It is my understanding that CO2 does not become thin enough so that it can radiate to outer space until you get above the stratosphere.
“The mesopause is the temperature minimum at the boundary between the mesosphere and the thermosphere atmospheric regions. Due to the lack of solar heating and very strong radiative cooling from carbon dioxide, the mesopause is the coldest place on Earth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopause
I think that Willis’s point about the gas variation being plus or minus 5 ppm from about 380 ppm should be considered well mixed is a good one. Average or mean it doesn’t matter. The range from the minimum value to the maximum value of 10 ppm is just not big enough for this not to be considered “well mixed”. Also, what about the three dimensional mixing? We have CO2 being a “heavy” gas but then there is “hot” gas rising and “cold” gas falling, so what is the mixing like in terms of altitude? These questions may be of interest to those that study the atmosphere and its composition, but it is irrelevant to questions about climate. Let’s not quibble about irrelevant things.
Sparks says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:39 am
Re.: Argon vs. CO2 as trace gases
Comparing CO2 with Argon is like comparing apples with bananas.
Argon is a noble (inert) gas, non-reactive, not “generated” by any natural or anthropogenic source, just a gaseous component of the atmosphere with infinite lifetime. CO2 is reactive, is absorbed, adsorbed, and transformed in the ecosystem, released and produced by nature and man, absorbs IR radiation, has a dipole momentum, has a good solubility in water, etc. etc. Molecular weight comparison of Ar with CO2 as indicator of differences in volatility are not valid, just compare any of both with water, which is liquid at ambient temperature despite its low molecular weight (18).
There is a reason Keeling chose Mauna Loa; elsewhere the concentration varies too much. In fact I think if you dig into his work you find that he discards results when the prevailing wind is from a direction that brings in air from farm fields.
The following link is also interesting
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/CarbonDioxideNotaWellMixedGasandCantCauseGlobalWarming.pdf
Paul Clark says:
October 2, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Willis Eschenbach, October 2, 2011 at 6:17 pm,
A signal of that maximum amplitude is going to be very hard to find…
Still though, you’d think that there would be more of an interest to find some sort of correlation in hourly, daily, monthly, year-to-year and regional variations of CO2 to temperature. If there was a discernible correlation it would be the smoking gun the AGW lobby was looking for. Why aren’t they looking for it?
There are plenty of thermometers that give hourly readings but they do not have accompanying CO2 measurements. If the coverage for CO2 was as good as that for temperature I suspect a CO2 signal, were there to be one, could be found in the temperatures.
On Bart’s OurChangingClimate Forum there was a thread on Temperature comparisons and a Poster called VS made some telling comments. but among the responses were those from Tim Curtins whoa has done “Local” linear Regressions of temperature versus various atmospheric conditions, including CO2. The dominant factors were sunshine & Moisture, CO2 did not get any correlation at all.
The Thread was
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/
Vincent Gray claims GHGs not well mixed.
FAIL
steven mosher says: October 2, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Willis
“One possibility might be a study done around a strong CO2 source like a cement plant. The change there might be measurable enough, although the stack emissions generally contain more than just CO2.”
The problem is this misunderstands how the C02 effect works and misunderstands the time scale.
Adding C02 over time raises the opacity of the atmosphere ( on average). That increase in opacity raises the height at which radiation finally escapes back to space. As that height slowly increases and radiation escapes from a higher colder location, the temperature at the surface, again on average, rises.
This mechanism is something that you cannot measure locally or in a small time window. Locally and in a narrow time window far too many other factors will utterly swamp the signal. Its a global signal ( present in global averages) that is small relative to other natural fluctuations.
You really want to test it? suck half the C02 out of the atmosphere or double it. we are currently doing the latter experiment. Lets hope it doesnt turn out as badly as models predict.
Steven, how would you evaluate the effect of a less thick thermosphere on your proposed increasing height of of radiation escaping due to adding CO2? The solar minimum has reduced the density of the thermosphere some 30% more than expected. See below:
Shrinking atmospheric layer linked to low levels of solar radiation
AGU Release No. 10–28
26 August 2010
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—Large changes in the Sun’s energy output may cause Earth’s outer atmosphere to contract, new research indicates. A study published today by the American Geophysical Union links a recent, temporary shrinking of a high atmospheric layer with a sharp drop in the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation levels.
The research indicates that the Sun’s magnetic cycle, which produces differing numbers of sunspots over an approximately 11-year cycle, may vary more than previously thought.
“Our work demonstrates that the solar cycle not only varies on the typical 11-year time scale, but also can vary from one solar minimum to another,” says lead author Stanley Solomon, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s High Altitude Observatory. “All solar minima are not equal.” Researchers from the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) also contributed to the project.
The findings may have implications for orbiting satellites, as well as for the International Space Station. The fact that the layer in the upper atmosphere known as the thermosphere is shrunken and less dense means that satellites can more easily maintain their orbits. But it also indicates that space debris and other objects that pose hazards may persist longer in the thermosphere.
“With lower thermospheric density, our satellites will have a longer life in orbit,” says CU professor Thomas Woods, a co-author. “This is good news for those satellites that are actually operating, but it is also bad because of the thousands of non-operating objects remaining in space that could potentially have collisions with our working satellites.”
The Sun’s energy output declined to unusually low levels from 2007 to 2009, a particularly prolonged solar minimum during which there were virtually no sunspots or solar storms. During that same period of low solar activity, Earth’s thermosphere shrank more than at any time in the 43-year era of space exploration.
The thermosphere, which ranges in altitude from about 90 to 500 kilometers (55 to more than 300 miles), is a rarified layer of gas at the edge of space where the Sun’s radiation first makes contact with Earth’s atmosphere. It typically cools and becomes less dense during low solar activity. But the magnitude of the density change during the recent solar minimum appeared to be about 30 percent greater than would have been expected by low solar activity.
The study team used computer modeling to analyze two possible factors implicated in the mystery of the shrinking thermosphere. They simulated both the impacts of solar output and the role of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas that, according to past estimates, is reducing the density of the outer atmosphere by about 2 percent to 5 percent per decade.
Their work built on several recent studies. Earlier this year, a team of scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory and George Mason University, measuring changes in satellite drag, estimated that the density of the thermosphere declined from 2007–2009 to about 30 percent less than that observed during the previous solar minimum in 1996. Other studies by scientists at the University of Southern California and CU, using measurements from sub-orbital rocket flights and space-based instruments, have estimated that levels of extreme-ultraviolet radiation—a class of photons with extremely short wavelengths—dropped about 15 percent during the same period.
However, scientists remained uncertain whether the decline in extreme-ultraviolet radiation would be sufficient to have such a dramatic impact on the thermosphere, even when combined with the effects of carbon dioxide.
To answer this question, Solomon and his colleagues used a computer model to simulate how the Sun’s output during 1996 and 2008 would affect the temperature and density of the thermosphere. They also created two simulations of thermospheric conditions in 2008—one with a level that approximated actual carbon dioxide emissions and one with a fixed, lower level.
The results showed the thermosphere cooling in 2008 by 41 kelvins (about 74 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to 1996, with just 2 K attributable to the carbon dioxide increase. The results also showed the thermosphere’s density decreasing by 31 percent, with just 3 percent attributable to carbon dioxide. The results closely approximated the 30 percent reduction in density indicated by measurements of satellite drag.
“It is now clear that the record low temperature and density were primarily caused by unusually low levels of solar radiation at the extreme-ultraviolet level,” Solomon says.
Woods says the research indicates that the Sun could be going through a period of relatively low activity, similar to periods in the early 19th and 20th centuries. This could mean that solar output may remain at a low level for the near future.
“If it is indeed similar to certain patterns in the past, then we expect to have low solar cycles for the next 10 to 30 years,” Woods says.
The study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, was funded by NASA and by the National Science Foundation.
Another paper I can’t locate at the moment claims about a 120 mile reduction in total atmospheric thickness.
Mixing in Humidity
The caption on the CO2 graphic shown with the posted article says
AIRS July 2008 CO2 (ppmv)
The little ‘v’ in ppmv means ‘by volume’.
Composition of Air is generally given ‘by volume’ on a ‘dry’ (water free) basis. That is because the air can easily contain 1% to 4% water vapor on a ‘wet’ basis, which would affect (dilute) the ‘by volume’ values by a variable amount.
As I recall, the Mauna Loa results are measured and reported on a ‘dry’ basis, to remove the potential water vapor fluctuations. But what about the Satellite readings? Have they done a water vapor measurement and subtracted it out to get a ‘dry air’ value? I am guessing not.
So what would be the affect of diluting the CO2 values by 1 to 4% due to water vapor? The scale on the graphic runs from 376 to 386.
If the ‘dry’ basis value for CO2 was say 390, then
with 1% water vapor, the CO2 ppmv would be 390 * (1 – 0.01) = 390* 0.99 = 386
and with 4% water vapor, the CO2 ppmv would be 390 * 0.96 = 374
Which is pretty much the range of CO2 values in the chart.
Not saying the water vapor is the only factor influencing regional CO2 values, but that alone could add a variance much like what we see in the graphic.
Mauna Loa is located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. What do we know about the absorption of CO2 as it passes over the waters of the ocean en route to Hawaii? Do we know if the water is saturated in CO2? Is the water absorbing? How representative of global CO2 concentration are the readings at Mauna Loa? I know that the place was picked for presumably good reasons, but I have always wondered how absorption (etc.) by the water that the air passes over would affect the concentration.
IanM
mizimi says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:25 am
Why worry about how well mixed CO2 is and how that impacts the AGW hypothesis?
CO2 forms less than .04% of the atmosphere and the effect of any variation in distibution will be absolutely minute.
Water vapour however, represents between 1 and 4% of the lower atmosphere and is HIGHLY variable both temporally and spatially – as well as being a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Concentrate on the big issues.
Very true.
But water vapor has another effect. As the amount increases in the atmosphere the enthalpy of that volume of atmosphere increases. Therefore, more outgoing radiation is needed to increase the temperature of that volume of air. At 100% humidity that is nearly an order of magnitude more heat radiation before the air will start warming. So the atmosphere will not warm readily when outgoing radiation is trapped by water vapor – a kind of built in heat sink. However, the water vapor _will_ lower the density of the volume of air (as its molecular weight is less than that of N2 and O2) so even though it does not increase in temperature the volume of moist air will start to rise convectively. This rising air will cool at the moist adiabatic lapse rate and eventually the stored heat is released as the water vapor condenses – above the CO2 ‘opaque’ layer. As the models seem to envisage the atmosphere as a set of radiating unmoving slabs a lot of this detail seems to be disregarded.
The problem with “red herrings” is that everyone focuses on them. GK
I’m sure I saw an article here on WUWT on locally high (dangerous!) concentrations of CO2. Can’t find it, even with the help of Ric’s excellent “Guide”… but here:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/lvo/activity/monitoring/co2.php
Obviously CO2 isn’t “always well-mixed, everywhere”. Still, “fairly well-mixed, globally” seems approximately correct – the map above shows rather small variations.
So what?
Best,
Frank
Trutheseeker wrote: These questions may be of interest to those that study the atmosphere and its composition, but it is irrelevant to questions about climate. Let’s not quibble about irrelevant things.
I think that you are wrong there.
The IPCC put its “credibility” on a climate sensitivity in the range 2k – 4.5K, or about 1% of the base spatio-temporal mean temperature of 288K. All the climate models are based on approximations, where the error of the approximation in each equation may exceed 3%. ( I made an order of magnitude miscalculation of the deviation from “well-mixed” up above.) The 3% deviation from the well-mixed assumption, by itself, could obliterate the reliability of the computation of the equilibrium climate sensitivity — which may itself not occur for 2,000 – 4,000 years. Add to that: the obliquity of the earth’s axis of rotation, its rotation on its axis, its revolution about the sun, and Earth surface curvature, and the deviations of the Earth’s climate from equilibrium works out to about 20%. Because water vapor heats and rises, then cools and precipitates (rain, fog, dew; see Ian W. above), the Clausius-Clapayron and “lapse rate” calculations, which depend on the equilibrium assumption, are each inaccurate by around 10%. Plus, the energy transfer in that daily rise and fall is mostly omitted from calculations (as far as I am aware — correct me if I am wrong.)
What is needed for human planning with respect to climate change is a really accurate estimate of the transient climate response: the response of Earth’s climate to projected CO2 increases over the upcoming century (by which time almost all industrial energy will come from renewable or nuclear sources.)
What is the definition of “well mixed” as it relates to CO2 in the atmosphere?
The Jaxa column averaged record shows 10% variations. It is rather suspicious that they are not releasing new data. It seems to me they are stretching them on the bed of Procroustis so as to become consistent with orthodoxy.
For those not raised on myths, Procroustis was a monster killed by Theseus. Procroustis was laying in wait for travelers to and from Athens and the Peloponese, on the narrow pass. He would put them on a bed, and if they were shorter he would stretch them and if they were longer he would cut off what went over..
Will wrote: In a gas for example, absorption and re-emission of IR cannot cause warming if the gas has already reached the maximum local thermal equilibrium temperature possible from that particular source of IR, namely the ground. If however the gas in question has in fact been heated to a higher LTE temperature by another more powerful source of IR, such as that from incoming solar EMR, as is always the case during daylight hours, then there will be no heating whatsoever from the outgoing IR.
first question: how accurate is the LTE assumption? Is it, like most of the approximations used in these calculations, not accurate enough to relate to a hypothetical 2K-4.5K increase in the equilibrium spatially-temporally averaged Earth mean temperature. Has the inaccuracy of the approximation been studied? If not, it is probably “worse than we thought”.
second question: what happens after the sun sets and the Earth surface cools?
I agree with Willis’ first post. Dr. Gray’s article does not make its case. However, the article and its discussion does reveal how our imaginations are prisoners of the “a priori” nature of climate science. The discussion pretty much takes for granted the assumptions of “mainstream climate science” and concludes that Dr. Gray’s thesis is a non-starter. Maybe it is. But I would like to point to one question raised by the discussion that requires empirical investigation.
Isn’t it true that the IPCC claims that manmade CO2 contributes about 3% to Earth’s total concentration of CO2? And do they not also claim that the increase in CO2 since 1850 is almost entirely manmade CO2? How do they come up with that figure? If the drift of the discussion on this post is any indicator, there is no empirical method to measure manmade CO2 production at its source. Let me be a bit more explicit. There is a need to focus on process. There must be some process or processes by which manmade CO2 moves from its source to its place in the well-mixed atmosphere. In other words, if the industrial world is responsible for increased CO2 since 1850 then the CO2 had to move from the relatively tiny industrial base to its destination around the world. However, if this discussion is to be taken as authoritative then there is no empirical method to measure any such process. So, am I wrong to conclude that there is no direct empirical evidence for the claim that manmade CO2 has caused the rise in CO2 since 1850?
Atmospheric carbon dioxide at various locations is graphed since 1850 at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html and appears to be quite well mixed. However, as demonstrated in the pdfs made public 3/10/11 and 9/24/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true, change to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has insignificant influence on average global temperature.
Gail Combs says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:29 am
George Steiner says:
October 2, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Let me ask this. What is the mechanism that does the mixing? Most man made CO2 is produced in the Northern Hemisphere I assume. So what does the mixing?
_____________________________________________________________________
Myrrh says:
October 2, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Well, you asked..
A combination of ideal gas properties of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen – random elastic collisions at superspeeds in empty space (think jar), with Brownian motion thrown in for good measure – here I think this is oxygen and nitrogen bouncing it around until it is well mixed. As I had a PhD (physics) explain it to me, as he taught it and examined on it, carbon dioxide will diffuse into the atmosphere as per ideal gas where it will become thoroughly well-mixed it can’t be unmixed except by applying great work. No work required to mix it thoroughly, it diffuses because that’s how ideal gas molecules move in empty space.
________________________________________________________________________
This is slightly misleading for a couple of reasons.
We are not talking about near vacuum, so “random elastic collisions at superspeeds” doesn’t quite give the true picture.
We have all done the experiment but we do not talk about it in polite company.
Eat beans with onions to produce mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide gas in your digestive tract. When the gas is expelled see how long it takes for your spouse sitting ten feet or more away in an enclosed space (no wind) to make a rude comment. It is not instantaneous. That will give you a feel for the speed of diffusion of gases at sea level or where ever you live. That is also the atmospheric level where CO2 is produced and consumed…. every minute of every day. And that is the second reason that assumption of “well mixed” is a bit misleading.Think of it as a huge pot of soup with hundreds of people adding ingredients and hundreds of people removing servings. No way is it ever going to be “well mixed” at least at the surface of the earth where most of the data has been taken.
Oh and do not forget that CO2 is “heavier than air” a simple kids experiment: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/405643/kids_science_experiment_to_show_that_co2_is_heavier_than_air/
……………
No, no, no, Gail. CO2 is an ideal gas, it doesn’t have weight, or volume, or interactions, it diffuses through the empty atmosphere at a great rate of knots and so thoroughly mixes in elastic collisions. Therefore it is in the same proportion everywhere. Therefore there is no attraction, so water and carbon dioxide do not have this irresistable thing for each other (which means that all rain is carbonic acid, and fog, and dew, in the real gas world) and so it stays up in the atmosphere accumulating for hundreds, nay, even thousands of years (because weight doesn’t matter).
So, that’s how it’s explained. And experiments are shown to prove it! Scent from a bottle opened diffuses through the classroom proving that CO2 is an ideal gas. Ink poured into a glass of water proves molecules diffuse and so mix thoroughly. Weight? Ideal gases don’t have weight. It doesn’t matter because CO2 is moving at superspeeds through the empty atmosphere, (devoid of volume), bumping into other ideal gas molecules doing the same thing, so it doesn’t make any difference. AGW doesn’t teach convection.
The PhD physics who teaches this, it’s commonly taught in schools in Britain, first of all denied that CO2 could separate out of air! After real world examples, mines, volcanic venting, breweries, he conceded that it could. Wait for it, his rationalising of it was that the greater mass of CO2 in a particular amount of air would bring it all down to ground level, molecules of oxygen and nitrogen an’ all. Weight of gases relative to each other doesn’t exist in AGWScience Fiction. ‘It is well-mixed in the atmosphere and it will rise spontaneously from being pooled on the floor to mix thoroughly into the atmosphere without any work being done’, said this teacher. I suggested that maybe the molecules of carbon dioxide used a bit of blue tack or something to stick a few of the lighter molecules together like a balloon..
That’s why the AIRS results were so mind-blowing for those who did the measurements. That’s why we don’t have any more detail except for their conclusion, that ‘contrary to what was believed CO2 is not well-mixed, but lumpy, and, it is insignificant in ‘greenhouse warming’, compared to water in the atmosphere’.
It’s a recurring theme – ‘contrary to what is believed’ in so many reports coming out now, from this new generation of researchers who have been brought up on the AGW science fiction memes. Not that they will really be able to make any sense of it until they understand that they were fed misinformation about the real physical world to begin with.