By S. Fred Singer
Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists — also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are.
They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.
Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many skeptics go along with the general conclusion of the warmistas but simply claim that the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with deniers in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.
I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier. The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any rate, this is the conclusion of the most recent IPCC report, the fourth in a series, published in 2007. Since I am an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I’ve had an opportunity to review part of the 5th Assessment Report, due in 2013. Without revealing deep secrets, I can say that the AR5 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 — so let me discuss this “evidence” in some detail.
Read the full essay here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1nn0SciyO
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
klem says:
March 2, 2012 at 8:41 am
“I’ve always felt beng called ‘denier’ was like being called ‘blasphemer’.”
Well, that’s the problem. The epithet “blasphemer” is almost comical to us in this day and age. When “denier” gets the same connotation, it turns the unfathomable suffering of those who died in the German concentration camps into a joke.
But, I like that turn of phrase. I am not a “denier”, I am a blasphemer!
thanks, Ferdinand!
I do see a (very, very) wide variation between top and deep
which would make me very, very hesitant to draw any conclusions, as far as yet.
I do no longer believe that CO2 is a player in climate
but I spent quite a bit of time figuring that out
so I might as well look at the carbonate figures from the seas, when I get some time.
Laws of Nature says
This tells us, that the isotopic signature does not hold any information about the source of the increase.
Agreed.
BTW,
@ferdinand meeus
I take it you agree with me now on this,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/29/climate-deniers-are-giving-us-skeptics-a-bad-name/#comment-910541
(Remember: he who remains silent, agrees)
Laws of Nature says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:42 am
This tells us, that the isotopic signature does not hold any information about the source of the increase.
Last attempt to explain things:
The isotopic signature, in combination with the mass balance does show that the oceans are NOT the source of the increase. The isotopic signature, in combination with the oxygen balance, does show that vegetation is NOT the source of the increase.
We have added some 370 GtC to the atmosphere. That amount is sufficient to give a 4.5 per mil drop in d13C of the atmosphere. In reality we see an increase with 210 GtC (100 ppmv) and a drop of 1.5 per mil in d13C. To reach the latter we need an exchange or an addition of 40 GtC/year from the deep oceans to reduce the d13C decrease. There is no one-way addition from the deep oceans possible, as that would give an increase (much) larger than measured in the atmosphere. In fact the oceans are net sinks for CO2, as measured by ships surveys and longer time series at a few places. There is no one-way addition from vegetation either, as the oxygen balance shows: vegetation is a net sink for CO2.
Thus if the two main sources of fast changes in atmospheric CO2 can’t be the source, what then is the cause of the rise?
About the mass balance: if the natural equilibrium has changed, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and humans also add to the atmosphere, regardless of the equilibrium, both will be additive, thus the total increase in the atmosphere would be natural + human which is more than what humans alone emitted. But we observe that the increase in the atmosphere is less than what humans emitted… You simply can’t have it both as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than the human emissions.
ferdinand says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/29/climate-deniers-are-giving-us-skeptics-a-bad-name/#comment-910753
Henry@ferdinand meeus
You never took the increase of greenery into consideration?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
HenryP says:
March 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm
I take it you agree with me now on this
I don’t think it is possible to differentiate between this extra CO2 being released in the atmosphere by natural warming with that of that being released by humans and/or natural disasters i.e. fire and burning in general
See my previous comment to LoN, but specifically about the 13C/12C ratio:
When CO2 enters the oceans, there is a shift in ratio. That gives that the ratio in water increases with +2 per mil. The opposite also happens: when CO2 leaves water, the atmospheric ratio is reduced with about -8 per mil. The net effect of all the CO2 exchanges in the past pre-industrial 400 years is that the ocean surface is at about 0 to +4 per mil, the deep oceans are at 0 to +1 per mil and the atmosphere at -6.4 per mil. An increased circulation from/to the deep oceans wouldn’t substantially change that ratio. An increase in ocean surface releases (no matter the cause) without increased absorption elsewhere would slightly increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. That excludes the oceans as source.
For vegetation decay/burning, it is impossible to make the differentiation with fossil fuel burning. But there is a way out: if more oxygen is used than calculated from fossil fuel burning, then vegetation is a net source of CO2. But the calculation shows that slightlly less oxygen is used, thus vegetation is a net source of O2, thus a net sink for CO2 (the earth is “greening”) and preferential 12CO2, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio. That excludes vegetation as source.
BTW, the current increase of CO2 is the equivalent to burning 1/3rd of all land plants…
Volcanoes, rock weathering, etc. can be ruled out because of their high d13C level.
Natural seeping and oxydising of fossil fuels like methane, oil, burning peat and coal seems can’t be ruled out, but need to increase enormously since 1850 in lockstep with human emissions…
HenryP says:
March 2, 2012 at 12:22 pm
You never took the increase of greenery into consideration?
Of course I did, that gives that the overall increase of vegetation growth makes it a net sink for CO2, not a source, neither the cause of the d13C decrease. See further:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
March 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“That excludes the oceans as source.”
You are assuming more comprehensive knowledge of the isotopic distribution in the oceans than we, in fact, have.
S. Fred Singer said: Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly.
So? And so what the rest of your diatribe answers against ‘deniers’ with equally non-sequitur ‘proofs’.
How does carbon dioxide drive global warming, of any soddin’ degree? Where is this shown? Where is the method? Where is the empirical evidence?
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
So where the proof that carbon dioxide drives global warming? Let’s see the work. Show and tell.
Did you notice what just happened? That’s a true sceptic’s response. You’re just a warmista in sceptics’ clothing. You’ve appropriated the name and claim the quality, but, like the warmista you really are, you believe without proof that carbon dioxide drives global warming. You and your ilk have produced not one iota of proof that it is physically even capable of doing such a thing. Do you really believe it?
The third problem may be the most important and likely also the most contested one. But first let me parse the IPCC conclusion, which depends crucially on the reported global surface warming between 1978 and 2000. As stated in their Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-AR4, vol 1, page 10): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
But what if there is little to no warming between 1978 and 2000? What if the data from thousands of poorly distributed weather stations do not represent a true global warming? The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. Neither does the ocean. And even the so-called proxy record — from tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, corals, stalagmites, etc. — shows mostly no warming during the same period.
Wrong question. The question should be directly addressing: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Proof? Even, for pity’s sake, some reasonable stab at physics?
Because you can’t. Because, for example, dramatic changes in global climate happen regularly in and out of glaciations and carbon dioxide lags 800 years behind – clearly showing what? That it is irrelevant to these massive rises in temperatures that take us into interglacials every 100,000 years.
First show that carbon dioxide can do such a thing.
Besides magically 800 years into the future..
But, not a problem for the warmists like you – they just keep repeating the memes and the funding keeps flowing while they argue amongst themselves about the degree of change of a non-existant effect built on an unsubstantiated claim that carbon dioxide drives global warming.
The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels.
And elsewhere …
Why don’t you put the whole of the Water Cycle back into your comic cartoon energy budget?
Because you’d have nothing to argue about? No, I think because you’d have no vehicle for what you’re really pushing here, that the science doesn’t matter:
I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.
•”The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” -Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
•”The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” -Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
•”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
•”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC
•”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” -Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Spreading the memes is not a substitute for real sceptical inquiry, and you’ve shown none of that being the warmista believer that a trace gas fully part of the Water Cycle ‘drives global warming’.
Produce the physics.
You’re giving real sceptics a bad name..
Laws of Nature says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:42 am
“This tells us, that the isotopic signature does not hold any information about the source of the increase.”
Consider the following thought experiment. You are pouring water at a steady rate into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. The water level has stabilized at a point where the pressure at the hole is driving water out at the same rate it is flowing in at the top.
Now, you add blue dye to your inflow, but the rate remains the same. Thus, the level in the bucket remains the same. But, at any time before the dye has thoroughly diffused and the blue water has replaced the original volume, there is a color gradient established whereby the upper levels are bluer than the lower levels.
This by itself shows that Ferdinand’s assumptions are too simplistic. But, we can make the analogy even better. Now, we make the hole at the bottom slightly smaller. This causes the water to flow out slower, which causes a rise in the level of the bucket, and slows the diffusion of the dyed water even more, until equilibrium is reestablished through higher pressure at the hole.
Ferdinand, the weakness in all of your arguments is that you do not take account of time, and the dynamical nature of the system you are observing.
HenryP says:
March 2, 2012 at 5:25 am
HenryP says to Beng
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/29/climate-deniers-are-giving-us-skeptics-a-bad-name/#comment-909590
Phil. says: NOT A CHANCE
the excess energy is either transferred to the surrounding molecules via collisions or radiates in all directions (4π sr).
Henry@Phil
I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry.
Your posts appear to contradict this statement
You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas.
I do, arising out of several decades of research work using spectrometry, publishing papers on that work and teaching the subject to the graduate level!
We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically.
If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the specific light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat.
Well that’s what happens, not always converted to heat as I pointed out above, sometimes there’s fluorescence for example.
If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened.
I’m not surprised the light power used in a spectrometer is not very high and there is heat loss from the cell, some cells are temperature controlled.
Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.
Indeed, similar to the NDIR cells frequently used to monitor emissions from car exhausts.
So my observation is that the transfer of excess energy to neighbouring molecules is limited to saturation
of those neighbouring molecules, and only to those who would be “willing and able” to accept those photons of the applicable absorptive region, because of their own specific absorptive behavior pattern,
How did you observe that your spectrometer only allows you to monitor how much is absorbed, not what happens to that energy subsequently?
agreed? No, during the lifetime of the excited state of say, CO2, it will experience 1,000s of collisions with other air molecules, those which have appropriately spaced energy levels will be able to transfer some of that energy more efficiently. That’s why N2 is used as an energy transfer medium in a CO2 laser, it has an excited state energy level that matches the desired excited vibrational state of CO2, the N2 can be excited using an electric discharge but can’t radiate so it transfers the energy efficiently to CO2 by collisions, thus setting up a population inversion and lasing.
Next, we have to first agree that the only way it is possible for us to measure radiation specific to CO2 coming back to us via the moon, must mean that in the absorptive region, the molecule starts acting like a little (round) mirror.
No we don’t it’s nonsense!
IMHO I have to see the CO2 molecule as infinitely small and therefore approaching a spherical like structure. The moment the molecule is hit by radiation, the absorptive regions fill up until saturation and the molecule then starts his behavior as a little round mirror (in the absorptive regions). Now, assuming it (the molecule) was a pure sphere, (which it probably isn’t), then I have to calculate that when it is hit by light and it starts acting like a little round spherical spinning mirror, its immediate and continuous return in a radius of 180 degrees must be 62,5% in the direction where the light came from. The rest is going the other way.
This just doesn’t happen, the CO2 either absorbs or it doesn’t there’s no ‘little mirror’ activity.
The CO2 light you see reflected from the moon is emitted from excited molecules high in the atmosphere and leaves the atmosphere because it doesn’t encounter an absorbing molecule on the way.
Just a thought……..
TSI is accepted to be 240Wm^2 mean over the 24 hour cycle, adding energy to the globe at the rate of 240 Joule.sec.m^2 over 24 hours.
TSI in = TSI out.
Over the same time period the Earth’s surface is accepted to be dissipating power at the rate of 390Wm^2 – 390 joule.sec.m^2.
I have a closed electrical circuit, which is subject to the same physical laws as the atmosphere where energy is concerned, which draws a current of 1 amp from a 240V dc supply – 240W.
I can even include switched capacitors to simulate absorption and emission in GHG’s.
If anyone can suggest any way of dissipating 390W within that closed circuit, without the addition of a secondary source of energy, they could well be on the way to a Nobel prize.
Of course, Nikolov and Zeller offer a perfect way to account for the increased energy level at the surface, but somehow I don’t think that fits in with those whose intellects have been skewed by the radiative physics concept.
RKS says:
March 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm
“Over the same time period the Earth’s surface is accepted to be dissipating power at the rate of 390Wm^2 – 390 joule.sec.m^2.”
The power is not all being dissipated. If you want an electrical analogy, read up on cavity resonators.
Simplified models are useful up to a point. But do any of the models replicate the temperature profile of the atmosphere? Robert Clemenzi’s theory makes a strong case for no green house effect from CO2. http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/EPA_Comments/TheGreenhouseEffect.doc In light of this theory one has a strong foundation for fundamentally doubting the GHE.
Another piece of data is the chemical method of CO2 measurement showing early 19th century levels above the current values at a time when the average temperature was lower. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ (see Figure 2) So no correlation of temps and CO2; as Willie Soon says: no correlation, no causation.
Now who is denying what?
Phil. says >>>….<<<>>>This just doesn’t happen, the CO2 either absorbs or it doesn’t there’s no ‘little mirror’ activity.
The CO2 light you see reflected from the moon is emitted from excited molecules high in the atmosphere and leaves the atmosphere because it doesn’t encounter an absorbing molecule on the way<<<>>>>You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas. I do, arising out of several decades of research work using spectrometry, publishing papers on that work and teaching the subject to the graduate level!>>>>>
>>>>>I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry.
Your posts appear to contradict this statement<<<<<
Geewish, you must be feeling bad for not teaching your children well, hence your need to fall back on insulting me. Now is the time to put things right.
Bart wrote
“[..]Now, you add blue dye to your inflow, but the rate remains the same. Thus, the level in the bucket remains the same. But, at any time before the dye has thoroughly diffused and the blue water has replaced the original volume, there is a color gradient established whereby the upper levels are bluer than the lower levels.
This by itself shows that Ferdinand’s assumptions are too simplistic. But, we can make the analogy even better. Now, we make the hole at the bottom slightly smaller. [..]”
This is close to what I am trying to say.. Beside that we add blue dyed water (which Ferdinand is not getting tired to point out) and the level is increasing and Essenhigh would point out that someone has tampered with the hole in the bucket as well (his data proves it) and this has the far bigger effect.
Thus I said the isotope signature does not hold “any” information about the increase but marks one source. (If we wouldn’t know how much fossil fuel we burn, this might actually be valuable information)
Thanks BTW for your post supporting my point, I was wondering if my English is not clear enough, since FE kept repeating himself. My conclusion is, that whatever FE wrote here so far does not prove anything and he will seriously have to deal with Segalstad and Essenhigh instead of brushing them of with “we produced additional CO2, thus it must be the reason”.
It is not in a bucket experiment because numbers telling half the story are not good enough.
lessons
not@Phil.
Definition, GH effect
“The Earth’s surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth.”
The best way to experience re-radiation for yourself is to stand in a dark forest just before dawn on a cloudless night. Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapour. This is also the reason why you will quickly grab for your sun glasses when humidity is high, because even with the sun shining for you from your back and driving in your car, you can feel on your eyes that the light from the sun is being re-radiated by the water vapor in the atmosphere.
A third way to experience how re-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, again on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water vapour has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum.
We can conclude from all these experiments that what actually happens is this:
in the wavelength areas where absorption takes place, the molecule seems to be acting like a little mirror, (=re-emission), the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule.
The question I asked was if it is 50% or 62.5% being sent back in the direction where it came from, and if anyone knows, why do you say it is 50% or why do think it is 62,5%?
Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas (i.e. the closed box experiments).
If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects. For comprehensive proof that, for example, CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth-moon-earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.
This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.
So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-16 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). Unlike what Phil. wants us to believe, (“just a few molecules re-emitting in the upper atmosphere”) this cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is, again: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results?
Obviously I could not get any such results, so I went and found my own answers here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
If in fact an increase in GHG’s were to be blamed for warming, you would expect to find the pattern of warming being that minima are pushing up the average temperatures.
I find the opposite is happening: increasing maxima are pushing up the average temps and the minima at a ratio of 7:3:1.
that means: more intense sunshine and/or less clouds and/or less ozone shielding and/or….
Either way, carbon dioxide is clearly not a factor in our climate.
Bart says:
March 2, 2012 at 8:07 pm
RKS says:
March 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm
“Over the same time period the Earth’s surface is accepted to be dissipating power at the rate of 390Wm^2 – 390 joule.sec.m^2.”
The power is not all being dissipated. If you want an electrical analogy, read up on cavity resonators.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The surface is behaving as a bog standard heat sink.
It is dissipating power at the rate of 390Wm^2 [mean] day in, day out.
If it’s not doing that, it can’t be measured.
Even cavity resonators require a source of energy!
I find it odd that Earth’s atmosphere alone is thought by some to be somehow exempt from the universally held physical laws. When we talk of power we are describing work done by a quantity of energy over time. 10W requires more energy than 5W – 390W requires more energy than 240W, the extra energy has to come from somewhere – and gases don’t create it out of thin ‘air’.
RKS says:
March 3, 2012 at 3:43 am
“The surface is behaving as a bog standard heat sink.”
You’ve been hanging out with Myrrh too long. Either that, or you are Myrrh. I’ve never known anyone else to use that curious phrase.
You clearly do not understand how to do an energy balance, and what the difference is between energy and energy flux (more precisely, energy time flux or power). This sort of gobsmacking display of supremely confident know-nothing-ism is precisely what gives true skeptics a bad name.
Laws of Nature says:
March 3, 2012 at 12:04 am
“…I was wondering if my English is not clear enough, since FE kept repeating himself.”
I don’t think it was a language problem – I did not even realize that English was not your native tongue. You just needed to illustrate your point explicitly. But, I understood what you were saying. It is something I have been considering for a long time.
Ferdinand and I have gone back and forth on this issue for I do not know how many years. I try repeatedly to explain to him that his thinking is static, ledger based accounting, and this is a dynamic system for which that is inappropriate, but he never gets it. I’m sure his absence now is not because he finally understands it, but because this thread is growing stale, and he has moved on. No doubt, we will argue the same points all over again at a later date.
Not that he’s a bad guy, or intellectually lacking, or is trying to pass off something underhandedly. He obviously believes earnestly that he has closed the case. He just does not understand where his case falls short. I hope you stick around to help me remind him that there are serious-minded people who understand that his analysis is, at best, inconclusive, even if he does not. Maybe, one day, we will get him to think it through more carefully.
HenryP says:
March 2, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Phil. says “This just doesn’t happen, the CO2 either absorbs or it doesn’t there’s no ‘little mirror’ activity.
The CO2 light you see reflected from the moon is emitted from excited molecules high in the atmosphere and leaves the atmosphere because it doesn’t encounter an absorbing molecule on the way”
You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas.
“I do, arising out of several decades of research work using spectrometry, publishing papers on that work and teaching the subject to the graduate level!”
I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry.
“Your posts appear to contradict this statement”
Geewish, you must be feeling bad for not teaching your children well, hence your need to fall back on insulting me. Now is the time to put things right.
My first answer to this got lost so I’ll try again:
It’s not an insult, it’s a statement of fact based on your posts here, for example molecules don’t behave like little mirrors! Do yourself a favor and read up on the subject, don’t just make things up.
HenryP says:
March 3, 2012 at 12:50 am
in the wavelength areas where absorption takes place, the molecule seems to be acting like a little mirror, (=re-emission), the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule.
The question I asked was if it is 50% or 62.5% being sent back in the direction where it came from, and if anyone knows, why do you say it is 50% or why do think it is 62,5%?
As stated before any re-emitted light will be emitted in any direction, so from geometric considerations it will be neither of those, ~0%
If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects.
Apart from the thermosphere the atmosphere isn’t hot enough to emit in that wavelength range.
For comprehensive proof that, for example, CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth-moon-earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.
Those are absorption features in the reflected ‘earthshine’, it’s not cooling, in fact it’s an indication of absorption by the atmosphere!
This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.
Yeah which warm up the atmosphere.
So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-16 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine).
They don’t!
Unlike what Phil. wants us to believe, (“just a few molecules re-emitting in the upper atmosphere”) this cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine.
It’s conventional to use quotation marks to indicate what someone has posted, not make it up!
Phil. says
As stated before any re-emitted light will be emitted in any direction, so from geometric considerations it will be neither of those, ~0%
Henry@Phil.
You keep on confusing things by making it zero now; although this is perhaps not incorrect, clearly the evidence of all my examples prove that it is re-radiated in all directions, so it is better to say: 360 degrees. In that case, if you are right, the back radiation represents at least 50% of on-coming light, once the moleculae are saturated with photons.
In the case of say 100 photons of light of 15 um wave length coming from earth, hitting on a CO2 molecule, that is already filled up until saturation 14-16, (which it should be because earth emits 24 hours per day), 50 photons will be returned to earth, leading to a delay in cooling (i.e a delay in reaching the top of the atmosphere), leading to a warming effect.
Phil. says:
Those are absorption features in the reflected ‘earthshine’, IT’S NOT COOLING, , in fact it’s an indication of absorption by the atmosphere.
Henry@Phil.
Clearly this idea comes from your bagage of the past that you donot want to let go off because this is what you taught your children wrong.
In the case of say, 100 photons of wavelength 4.5, for example, coming from the sun, hitting on a CO2 molecule, that is already filled up until saturation 4-5 (which it should be after a few seconds of sunshine), 50 photons will be returned to space. Clearly, apart from H2O, there not many substances in the air that can also absorb at between 4 and 5 um. Chances are that it may hit on another H2O or CO2 molecule on the way back up to space, but that one will also already be filled up, so it moves higher. Eventually it leaves the atmosphere, leading to cooling, i.e never reaching earth. Hence the reason why we can measure it after it bounced on the moon and came back to earth.
So, in fact, there was really nothing wrong in trying to visialize what happens by comparing the molecule acting like a little round mirror in the absorptive region. Clearly if the CO2 was not there on top of me, more light of 4-5 um from the sun would hit ME on my head.
Now, I know there are those who say: we already counted that in earth albedo, or: we already discounted that in the measurement of incoming SW. Obviously that kind of thinking defies all logic. If you want to prove that CO2 is a GHG you have to come to me with test results that will show me exactly as to how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2.
Agreed?
Anyway, clearly nobody had the answers to this question, so I had to find it myself.
It appeared that carbon dioxide is clearly not a factor in our climate.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Somebody sent me the link to this page and ruined my day: according to Dr. Singer, I am the kind of “denier” that “gives skeptics a bad name”. And I will admit it freely.
You see, I have actually written a book about the misconceptions of anthropogenic global warming; I took pains to substantiate every claim with news sources and scientific articles (ended up with 425 footnotes – which some regard as an overkill). And yes, I have claimed (and still claim) that “CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century” – with sources, e.g. “180 Years accurate CO2 – Gasanalysis of Air by Chemical Methods (Short version); Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006” (http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/180_years_accurate_co2_chemical_methods1.pdf) and “Gas Analysis in Air 1800 –1961” (http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/CO2databaserev3.pdf). Also, aerial concentration of CO2 derived on basis of stomata clearly indicate that carbon dioxide varies considerably more that indicated by the smooth handle of IPCC’s “hockey stick” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/).
I have also claimed (and still claim) that “CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century … the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean”. And unlike Dr. Singer I do not believe that this “does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case”. As far as I could ascertain, the only “isotopic evidence” is the article Prentice et al. (2001) “The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”— in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001). It is based on the assumption that CO2 outgassed from the ocean
can be differentiated from CO2 contribution of fossil fuel combustion by ratio of carbon isotopes 12C v.13C. Prentice et al notes that plants with C3-type metabolism exhibit a “bias” in favor of 12C. Therefore, when C3-type plant material is burned – like with coal – the resulting CO2 is somewhat 13C deficient and will eventually reduce the share of 13C in atmospheric CO2, which has been observed.
But Prentice et al seems to ignore the fact that 95% of all living (and dying) green plants have C3-type metabolism. So decay of leaves or grass or marine algae inject into the atmosphere the same 13C deficient CO2 as burning of fossil fuels – and plant decay accounts for over 10-times the CO2 emitted by combustion of fossil fuels. So the conclusion of Prentice et al is wrong – there is no “isotopic signature” of human emissions of CO2 – which might explain why it was published in IPCC TAR (but not in any peer-reviewed magazine).
I could attest to more of my “denier sins” (as castigated by Dr. Singer), but this response is already too long. I just want to add that at times like this I wish I could join the other side: they pay better, and they are not (publicly) “embarrassed” by their allies.
Mišo Alkalaj
Miso.Alkalaj@ijs.si
http://www.podnebna-prevara.si/
Mišo Alkalaj says:
March 6, 2012 at 1:40 am
Moreover, as I pointed out above, it takes time for our input at the top of the system to diffuse throughout, so you would expect the ratio to be altered whether we are responsible for the overall rise or not. That is the point “Laws of Nature” was trying to get across, and it is a valid one.