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.
Mike McMillan says:
October 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm
“I checked a prevailing wind chart, and the concentrations seem more connected with high pressure areas than winds or human generated CO2.”
I would agree with you. The differences between the max and min CO2 seem to correlate with the max and min atmospheric pressure, with a similar difference as a proportion. Looking at the image the pattern seems to fit well with the Hadley cells, which means it looks like there is a higher concentration of CO2 in high pressure. And, although colour has been used to help highlight the different amounts of CO2, the colour contrast is dramatic, thereby implying greater differences. I would say global CO2 looks well mixed, considering all the supposed places that CO2 should be concentrated. There are no concentrations around any cities, or transport corridors, or geographic fault lines, etc. What would be useful is a 12 month time lapse. Then we could see the seasonal fluctuation in CO2.
Are there any cement factories in the Sahara? If not, would somebody be so kind as to open one?
Myrrh says:
October 3, 2011 at 1:47 pm
“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..”
Enjoyed your post immensely. Yes, it seems CO2 molecules have only one physical characteristic, namely, the ability to redirect radiation toward Earth’s surface. They resemble wizards (demons? genii?) more than physical molecules.
And once again we learn that Warmista scientists are totally incapable of explicating their claims in terms of measurable characteristics of physical phenomena.
federico says:
October 3, 2011 at 4:55 am
Re.: Argon vs. CO2 as trace gases
Just to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that Argon was in anyway similar to Co2 or it’s role on the ecosystem, I was pointing out that another trace gas in a larger quantity than that of co2 is considered irrelevant because it has no major role in the environment or human consumption and there for considered unimportant to concerned groups of wacky environmentalist, human hating extremists or financially motivated political campaigners, You have explained the differences between the two gases which is fine, but that was not what my opinion was about.
But as you brought it up! In the Ecosystem, where there is Potassium K, there is Argon Ar, Potassium is an essential element for plant growth and it’s decay produces Argon. Humans add Potassium to soil in agriculture, and there is 1% of Argon an inert gas in the atmosphere that causes Cooling, Warming or has no effect at all? Do you think that with a bit of imagination a C02 type hysterical spin could be concocted to point to Argon as being the cause of Anthropogenic Climate change, remember all facts are irrelevant when it comes down to what concerned groups of wacky environmentalist, human hating extremists or financially motivated political campaigners will do to get their way.
Just for reference, here is a comparison printout of the MODTRAN energy plot spectrum data at 99 km altitude looking down for 280 PPM CO2 and 396 PPM CO2 around the 667 kayzer (cycles per centimeter) CO2 absorption band. I was surprised to find the to curves so identical looking. I have also calculated the difference between these to data sets. I multiplied the values actually returned in the printout by 10,000 times pi() to convert to the units plotted. The whole plot runs from 100 to 1498 kayzers, however for brevity, I have just included a selected range around the CO2 hole.
Wavenumber CO2 CO2 kayzers 280 396 Difference PPM PPM 500 0.3581 0.3581 0.0000 -- 502 0.2991 0.2991 0.0000 -- 504 0.3330 0.3330 0.0000 -- 506 0.3116 0.3116 0.0000 -- 508 0.3330 0.3330 0.0000 -- 510 0.3519 0.3519 0.0000 -- 512 0.3550 0.3550 0.0000 -- 514 0.3644 0.3644 0.0000 -- 516 0.3173 0.3173 0.0000 -- 518 0.2975 0.2975 0.0000 -- 520 0.3138 0.3138 0.0000 -- 522 0.3738 0.3738 0.0000 -- 524 0.3550 0.3550 0.0000 -- 526 0.3054 0.3054 0.0000 -- 528 0.3738 0.3738 0.0000 -- 530 0.3896 0.3896 0.0000 -- 532 0.3927 0.3927 0.0000 -- 534 0.3801 0.3801 0.0000 -- 536 0.3393 0.3393 0.0000 -- 538 0.3833 0.3833 0.0000 -- 540 0.3770 0.3770 0.0000 -- 542 0.3738 0.3738 0.0000 -- 544 0.3613 0.3581 -0.0031 -- 546 0.3104 0.3098 -0.0006 -- 548 0.3456 0.3456 0.0000 -- 550 0.3519 0.3519 0.0000 -- 552 0.3833 0.3833 0.0000 -- 554 0.3676 0.3676 0.0000 -- 556 0.3707 0.3707 0.0000 -- 558 0.3896 0.3896 0.0000 -- 560 0.3990 0.3990 0.0000 -- 562 0.3801 0.3801 0.0000 -- 564 0.3676 0.3644 -0.0031 -- 566 0.3613 0.3581 -0.0031 -- 568 0.3173 0.3142 -0.0031 -- 570 0.3267 0.3267 0.0000 -- 572 0.3738 0.3707 -0.0031 -- 574 0.3801 0.3801 0.0000 -- 576 0.3204 0.3204 0.0000 -- 578 0.3644 0.3581 -0.0063 -- 580 0.3362 0.3330 -0.0031 -- 582 0.3362 0.3330 -0.0031 -- 584 0.3487 0.3424 -0.0063 -- 586 0.3456 0.3362 -0.0094 -- 588 0.3362 0.3299 -0.0063 -- 590 0.2875 0.2812 -0.0063 -- 592 0.2868 0.2824 -0.0044 -- 594 0.2978 0.2884 -0.0094 -- 596 0.2897 0.2758 -0.0138 -- 598 0.2934 0.2799 -0.0135 -- 600 0.3060 0.2966 -0.0094 -- 602 0.3019 0.2890 -0.0129 -- 604 0.2994 0.2862 -0.0132 -- 606 0.2853 0.2689 -0.0163 -- 608 0.2856 0.2689 -0.0167 -- 610 0.3025 0.2853 -0.0173 -- 612 0.3007 0.2856 -0.0151 -- 614 0.2749 0.2589 -0.0160 -- 616 0.2177 0.2070 -0.0107 -- 618 0.1860 0.1825 -0.0035 -- 620 0.2783 0.2598 -0.0185 -- 622 0.2636 0.2460 -0.0176 -- 624 0.2331 0.2187 -0.0145 -- 626 0.2243 0.2114 -0.0129 -- 628 0.2061 0.1923 -0.0138 CO2 630 0.1982 0.1850 -0.0132 CO2 632 0.1872 0.1762 -0.0110 CO2 634 0.1762 0.1671 -0.0091 CO2 636 0.1668 0.1583 -0.0085 CO2 638 0.1568 0.1511 -0.0057 CO2 640 0.1527 0.1483 -0.0044 CO2 642 0.1464 0.1426 -0.0038 CO2 644 0.1433 0.1433 0.0000 CO2 646 0.1439 0.1455 0.0016 CO2 648 0.1486 0.1530 0.0044 CO2 650 0.1546 0.1602 0.0057 CO2 652 0.1433 0.1477 0.0044 CO2 654 0.1367 0.1411 0.0044 CO2 656 0.1376 0.1411 0.0035 CO2 658 0.1417 0.1467 0.0050 CO2 660 0.1392 0.1439 0.0047 CO2 662 0.1467 0.1524 0.0057 CO2 664 0.1483 0.1546 0.0063 CO2 666 0.1552 0.1621 0.0069 CO2 668 0.2221 0.2284 0.0063 CO2 670 0.1665 0.1744 0.0079 CO2 672 0.1367 0.1423 0.0057 CO2 674 0.1392 0.1442 0.0050 CO2 676 0.1335 0.1385 0.0050 CO2 678 0.1392 0.1448 0.0057 CO2 680 0.1319 0.1376 0.0057 CO2 682 0.1360 0.1411 0.0050 CO2 684 0.1301 0.1335 0.0035 CO2 686 0.1329 0.1357 0.0028 CO2 688 0.1266 0.1285 0.0019 CO2 690 0.1319 0.1335 0.0016 CO2 692 0.1323 0.1294 -0.0028 CO2 694 0.1357 0.1319 -0.0038 CO2 696 0.1351 0.1297 -0.0053 CO2 698 0.1458 0.1389 -0.0069 CO2 700 0.1590 0.1480 -0.0110 CO2 702 0.1546 0.1455 -0.0091 CO2 704 0.1709 0.1596 -0.0113 CO2 706 0.1910 0.1778 -0.0132 CO2 708 0.1948 0.1813 -0.0135 CO2 710 0.2051 0.1901 -0.0151 CO2 712 0.2183 0.2029 -0.0154 CO2 714 0.2253 0.2099 -0.0154 CO2 716 0.2454 0.2271 -0.0182 CO2 718 0.2051 0.1894 -0.0157 CO2 720 0.1404 0.1382 -0.0022 CO2 722 0.2356 0.2193 -0.0163 CO2 724 0.2730 0.2545 -0.0185 -- 726 0.3025 0.2856 -0.0170 -- 728 0.2859 0.2683 -0.0176 -- 730 0.2516 0.2366 -0.0151 -- 732 0.2538 0.2372 -0.0167 -- 734 0.2840 0.2648 -0.0192 -- 736 0.2652 0.2476 -0.0176 -- 738 0.2601 0.2422 -0.0179 -- 740 0.2645 0.2469 -0.0176 -- 742 0.2337 0.2196 -0.0141 -- 744 0.2915 0.2783 -0.0132 -- 746 0.3236 0.3116 -0.0119 -- 748 0.3082 0.2963 -0.0119 -- 750 0.3236 0.3094 -0.0141 -- 752 0.3393 0.3299 -0.0094 -- 754 0.3204 0.3113 -0.0091 -- 756 0.3330 0.3236 -0.0094 -- 758 0.3676 0.3581 -0.0094 -- 760 0.3676 0.3613 -0.0063 -- 762 0.3770 0.3707 -0.0063 -- 764 0.3864 0.3801 -0.0063 -- 766 0.3833 0.3801 -0.0031 -- 768 0.3801 0.3770 -0.0031 -- 770 0.3707 0.3707 0.0000 -- 772 0.3896 0.3864 -0.0031 -- 774 0.3896 0.3864 -0.0031 -- 776 0.3581 0.3581 0.0000 -- 778 0.3707 0.3707 0.0000 -- 780 0.3833 0.3801 -0.0031 -- 782 0.3896 0.3864 -0.0031 -- 784 0.3519 0.3519 0.0000 -- 786 0.3833 0.3833 0.0000 -- 788 0.3896 0.3896 0.0000 -- 790 0.3864 0.3833 -0.0031 -- 792 0.3550 0.3456 -0.0094 -- 794 0.3613 0.3581 -0.0031 -- 796 0.3456 0.3456 0.0000 -- 798 0.3424 0.3424 0.0000 -- 800 0.3581 0.3581 0.0000 -- 802 0.3738 0.3738 0.0000 -- 804 0.3581 0.3581 0.0000 -- 806 0.3770 0.3770 0.0000 -- 808 0.3613 0.3581 -0.0031 -- 810 0.3801 0.3801 0.0000 -- 812 0.3801 0.3801 0.0000 -- 814 0.3613 0.3581 -0.0031 -- 816 0.3738 0.3707 -0.0031 -- 818 0.3801 0.3801 0.0000 -- 820 0.3801 0.3801 0.0000 -- 822 0.3770 0.3770 0.0000 -- 824 0.3738 0.3738 0.0000 -- 826 0.3707 0.3707 0.0000 -- 828 0.3581 0.3581 0.0000 -- 830 0.3770 0.3738 -0.0031 -- 832 0.3738 0.3738 0.0000 -- 834 0.3738 0.3738 0.0000 -- 836 0.3707 0.3707 0.0000 -- 838 0.3707 0.3707 0.0000 -- 840 0.3519 0.3519 0.0000 -- 842 0.3644 0.3644 0.0000 -- 844 0.3676 0.3676 0.0000 -- 846 0.3676 0.3676 0.0000 -- 848 0.3644 0.3644 0.0000 -- 850 0.3487 0.3487 0.0000 --RE: Spector: (October 4, 2011 at 1:21 am)
I believe the numbers in this table indicate watts per square meter per kayzer bandwidth radiated out from the approximate top of the atmosphere (99km). One kayzer is a wavenumber of one cycle per centimeter (CM-1) and a one-kayzer band is equivalent to a frequency-band that is about 29.979 GHz wide. Most of the differences between the two data sets occur over the selected region.
Theo Goodwin says:
October 3, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Thanks!
And once again we learn that Warmista scientists are totally incapable of explicating their claims in terms of measurable characteristics of physical phenomena.
This is what gets to me – all claims are contortions of properties and processes, attributing out of context laws and so on, but after a while at looking at their ‘experiments to prove their physics’, it appears to me that someone had to know real physics very well indeed to come up with these variations and the sleights of hand to explain them.
Myrrh says:
October 4, 2011 at 3:31 pm
A cursory glance at the list following list and all will be revealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Second from the bottom in the list of formal fallacies is “special pleading”. This is the fallacy that was rebranded as “post normal science” by Ravetz. Studying this list in detail, it appears that the warmest have incorporated the entire list of known logical fallacies into their play book.
AGW is based on pure sophistry. I predict that in the future, the entire fraud will one day be known as the Fourth Sophistic.
This animation shows levels from c.350 to 390 in the Northern hemisphere through the seasons. Note how the plumes of higher CO2 in both hemispheres seem to originate from forest regions.
Will says:
October 5, 2011 at 1:59 am
Myrrh says:
October 4, 2011 at 3:31 pm
A cursory glance at the list following list and all will be revealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Studying this list in detail, it appears that the warmest have incorporated the entire list of known logical fallacies into their play book.
🙂 That was a fascinating read. There are some I’ve suspected, from the way they reply in discussions, who know all these tricks and use them deliberately and adjust their arguments accordingly, most I think simply regurgitate the answers provided by these.
A couple of examples where I’ve seen pages where such methods have been used deliberately to confuse – wiki pages on global warming are still rampant with them, but they’re subtle and not always easy to spot.
“Equivocation: the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)”
Using “Sunlight”, a general term, in a physics explanation where “Sun” should be used when talking about the types of wavelengths, this is done to bolster the confusion caused by the introduction of another on the list, “Definist fallacy: involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other”. This is a major difference between the science fiction physics of AGW and real world in changing our physical reality by re-defining visible light (Light) with the properties of thermal infrared, and concurrently, thermal infrared (Heat) direct from the Sun taken out of the energy budget(as per the Kiehl/Trenberth cartoon). Light from the Sun, shortwave, is now how land and oceans are heated and thermal infrared is now the result of that and only exists on the Earth’s surface and in the atmosphere from being radiated back from the Earth after being created by visible (shortwave in-longwave out); thermal infrared no longer reaches the Earth’s surface direct from the Sun but somehow, again, no mechanism in place to say how it doesn’t reach us.
Another example of glossing over which meaning is being used is “absorption” in promoting this definist fallacy that visible light heats organic matter of land and oceans. Technically in physics this means specific things in context and in known contexts the general use of the term wouldn’t be a confusion. I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in our atmosphere are not heated by visible light when this is reflected/scattered by the electrons of the gas molecules absorbing the energy of visible light before bouncing it back out, hence blue sky, while claiming the atmosphere is transparent to visible, when water, which is transparent to visible and so is transmitted and not absorbed in real physics, is claimed to be heated by visible because absorbed by the oceans, with blue light travelling further before being absorbed and therefore heating the oceans deeper. We’re meant to be confused. (I’ve narrowed this down to asking for proof that blue light can heat water…)
“Kettle logic: using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position”. This is one used in carbon dioxide explanations for ‘thoroughly well-mixed’. Brownian motion used interchangably and together with ideal gas descriptions and wind/constant turbulence thrown into the pot for good measure. We’re back to wind being an outside force, a big wooden spoon stirring up all the empty space with ideal gas molecules zipping around in place of the gods at the four corners or the world in the constant tumble of a washing machine. I’m convinced some can’t hear my arguments because sound can’t travel in empty space..
Second from the bottom in the list of [in]formal fallacies is “special pleading”. This is the fallacy that was rebranded as “post normal science” by Ravetz.
“Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption”
I’ve only very recently began exploring post normal science, first because of the amusement generated by discussions on the statistical method used in contorting the 2nd law, (the “net” of exchange of hot to cold and cold to hot flows of energy is said to abide by the law without providing any mechanism for it doing so, which of course means that a volume of ice can cook your dinner ..) but in exploring did find some fun criticisms besides the spoof by Sokal. I’ve just done a search on Ravetz to see what else I could find, and there’s an old discussion on WUWT – part II here with link to part I: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/jerry-ravetz-part-2-answer-and-explanation-to-my-critics/
I shall have to re-read them now I’ve got a better idea of what he’s proposing (http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/techno/nn_science.htm), which I began to appreciate from Sokal’s piece, and bearing in mind the point you make.
AGW is based on pure sophistry. I predict that in the future, the entire fraud will one day be known as the Fourth Sophistic.
What do you make of him? Is he a product of someone else’s deliberate contortions and going along with the game or a clever manipulator in his own right, and originator?
RE: Ulric Lyons: (October 5, 2011 at 5:37 am)
That is a nice looking animation. I note that the enumerated CO2 range runs from 360 to 375 PPM.
However, for clear tropical air, at 99 km up, the MODTRAN web-utility hosted by the University of Chicago indicates that when we go from the nominal pre-industrial concentration of 280 PPM to a near current 396 PPM CO2 level, this only causes a *raw* heat transfer reduction of about 1.6 watts per square meter in IR radiation leaving the Earth. As the main flow is on the order of 289.2 to 287.6 watts per square meter, it would seem that this ‘huge’ increase in CO2 concentration has only caused about a half of a percent heat transfer change.
For those who say this measurement should be at the tropopause, the levels are about 293.65 W/m2 at 280 PPM and 291.55 W/m2 for 396 PPM with a difference of about 2.1 watts at 15 km up.
I emphasize the word ‘raw’ because I believe that MODTRAN does not include any climate feedback effects.
Myrrh says:
October 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Myrrh,
thank you for this concise summary, particularly regarding the deliberate, deceptive and incorrect use of the interchangeable meaning between thermal radiation and IR.
Of course much of the incoming solar EMR (more than 50%) is LW IR which gets thermalised by Oxygen and Nitrogen, hence the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1966SAOSR.207…..J&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES
The so called “greenhouse effect” is a provable myth.
Regarding your question about Ravetz, I believe the evidence speaks for itself.
Oh, gawd. Another Myrrh-jack. Thermodynamics revised, amateur style.
Brian H says:
October 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Oh, gawd. Another Myrrh-jack. Thermodynamics revised, amateur style.
Not at all, what I posted is directly pertinent to the subject of the post by Dr Vincent Gray:
“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.”
You however, are using a typical response to shut down opposition bringing in facts to counter the fantasy science of AGW. What? Do you think if you say if often enough it will be believed true..? Why don’t you address the points I made?
In real world physics the properties of gases matter, gravity matters therefore weight, carbon dioxide is heavier than air, but the claim from the pseudo science which dismisses Beck is that it and oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere are ideal gases, i.e., having no weight or real world interactions, no volume etc. Carbon dioxide is not well-mixed, but will vary locally to local conditions, the “is lumpy” of the AIRS data. Real world physics has to be set aside to argue for the fiction and the methods of explaining how it is are as I gave examples from the list posted by Will, with carbon dioxide by swapping its properties for that of ideal gases in Kettling, “using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position”. Here well-mixing ideal gas claims for carbon dioxide, which claims empty space without gases having volume, with well-mixing by Brownian motion which for a start presupposes a fluid volume in which microscopic particles are moved, and carbon dioxide in real world physics is of that fluid, etc.
The inconsistencies are various, the mistake people make is to take these claims without due analysis of what kind of world these describe..
Brian H says:
October 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Brian H.
That is Brian Hall, Fellow of the Royal Society, Canada.
Title: George S. Campbell Professor of Biology
Office: Dept. of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Status: Working
Degrees:
BSc (Zoology), U of New England, Armidale, NSW Australia, 1963
BSc (Hons Zoology), U of New England, 1965
PhD (Zoology), U of New England, 1969
Awards
Foreign Honorary Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2002
Alexander Kowalevsky Medal (St.-Petersburg Soc of Naturalists, Russia), 2001
International Craniofacial Biology Distinguished Scientist Award, 1996
Fry Medal, Canadian Soc of Zoologists, 1994
Fellow, Royal Society of Canada, 1985
Young Scientist Award (Atlantic Provinces Inter-University Committee on the Sciences), 1974
[snip]
Perhaps you would like to draw attention to a specific point that you object to Brian H, instead of your usual poop flinging exercise.
That’s not me.
And repetitive harping on weakly founded or vacuous science assertions is thread jacking.
But in this case, mea culpa. The post was pertinent. Apologies.