The results are in, and it looks like this.
UPDATE: By popular request, our representative to the “Union of Concerned Scientists” has been added to panel #2 at top. – Anthony
The results are in, and it looks like this.
UPDATE: By popular request, our representative to the “Union of Concerned Scientists” has been added to panel #2 at top. – Anthony
“””””……fhhaynie says:
May 8, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Maybe I’m confusing energy level with velocity assuming the mass of a photon is infinitly small and the 10 micron adsorption band of CO2 has a distribution around it……”””””
Well I wasn’t aware that photons had any mass at all. Now if you are a particle physicist, you might use a system of units where c = h = 1 , and then Einstein’s two relations become:-
E = m = nu (f) in which case one might say that the frequency of a photon was its effective mass.
I understand how waves have frequencies , but why does a photon have a frequency ? Specially if it doesn’t really have a mass either.
Thermal radiation (EM radiation emitted by an object solely due to its Temperature) has any and all frequencies, and hence photon energies, rather than discreet spectral “lines” as does atomic spectra. Yet many still claim that black body radiation (the best known type of thermal radiation) is quantum mechanics, even though it contains no physical properties of any real physical material, known or unknown. How can that be, unless there is no such thing as black body radiation (that anyone has actually observed.)
As I understand it, the wave-particle duality paradox still isn’t settled and it is a difficult problem to measure. We have to go with what seems to work. One proposed idea is that photons travel in a helical path.
I just noted this category in the CIA fact book for countries: the assessments under “Energy” conclude with “Carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of energy.”
I wonder how much CO2 these bureaucrats expel, and how many more employees driving CO2 emitting cars are required for acquiring this useless fact–our tax dollars at work.
Maybe a third line of pics :
How the thermometer sees it – a flat line
How the carbon market sees it – a sinking ship
How the arctic sees it – a sine wave
Ah Janice has been watching her favourite movie.. for the 50th time.
Poor little girl is hooked on Buzz lightyear.. Sorry, but he is way too intellegent for you , Janice.
Never know…. you might get over the disappointment some time in the next 20-30 years.
Poor Janice, the statement that , “I just phoned Buzz Lightyear “… says it all.
Just like global warming / anthropogenic climate change… he’s a made up character..
A FICTION .. Does not exist in real life !
Yet you still phoned him. and have other fantasies about him.
Please check your mental stability with a shrink.. really soon !!
Dear Andy G 55,
Please forgive me for offending you (as it appears that I did). Yes, I do love that movie, “Toy Story,” but when I (with an attempt at a wink) called you Andy (the name of the little boy in the movie) I didn’t mean that you are like a little boy in ANY aspect except a delightful playfulness. I mistook “to 700ppm …. and beyond!” to be an allusion to Buzz Lightyear’s “To infinity, and beyond!”
I respect you for your intelligent posts, Mr. G.. I’m so sorry that my post came off as (apparently) a slam.
Perhaps, your posts to me around 6:30 PM on May 8, above, were sarcasm. They had too much sting in them for me to detect that you were joking. I guess I haven’t made my position on AGW very clear in my other posts on WUWT, but I am FIRMLY in the anti-AGW (to any climatically significant degree) camp. I don’t think the pro-AGW forces have come up with ANY persuasive evidence that humans cause global climate change.
I’m on your side (much as that may dismay you, given your low opinion of my mental capacities).
Your ally in the AGW battle,
Janice
Yes, I probably mis-interpretted your post too. I also apologise for getting a tad rawkous 🙂
I do like to have a bit of fun, and also tend to bite back too quickly sometimes.
(Used to be a high school maths teacher, and still have some bad triats even after 16 or so years out of the job)
Hope all is forgiven on both sides. 🙂
I also don’t type very well !! arghh !!
pps… the “700ppm and beyond” is a response to weepy Bill’s 350.org.
I’m hoping he reads it somewhere and gets all huffy about it,.. maybe even starts crying again.
Regarding the video and the 385-400ish ppm: the level of CO2 is important according to the strength of CO2, as with the tea and ricin note above. If CO2 were a powerful heat-trapping element, a small change would be significant. It’s a weak heat-trapper and it gets weaker as you add more of it, so in fact we can forget it as a climate driver, but it’s both factors — the level and the power.
Y2K was way overhyped but it was a real problem. I worked making sure it didn’t effect systems on the mainframe of the company where I worked. If we did nothing, it would have been a nightmare. Systems that we relied upon to do business would have failed and the fixes would have taken time enough to cause significant losses. 2 digit years were often used due to limits on storage – not bad programming. A lot of the problems was math with dates. You have to know the time between events for many types of applications. That time becomes a large negative number when your ending year is suddenly ZERO. If you are waiting for a specified period of time to do something, that time period would never happen – one example. The fact that these types of problems were few is testimate not to a non-problem, but a testimate to a job well done by many man-hours that companies used to make sure code and data was changed where needed, before the problem appeared.
If nothing was done about Y2K imagine a banking program that pays interest. There is a date of the time interest was last paid and the current date. Find the difference to know the period of time to pay interest. What is 5.4% interest over NEGATIVE 99 years 364 days? Every account would end up with a huge negative balance. Banks would have to shut down to apply backups. They would be scrambling to fix all the problems on the processes that run every night. Big problems for the banks. Just one example. It didn’t happen because companies did the work up front.
Mr. Andy G,
Thank you. I was so hoping I’d hear back from you. Yes, all is forgiven.
You taught high school math? NO WONDER you were sensitive to what appeared to be smart-aleck remarks! You have my respect and admiration for persevering in that classroom, year after year, getting very little recognition for all your hard work and enduring endless, obnoxious, teen-aged, conceit. I hope that life has many joys for you now and that, with every day that passes, the long, hard, time in the salt mines of academia, is farther and farther behind you, far down the river, the turmoil of that rough patch of water forever replaced by tranquility.
Take care,
Janice
John Parsons says:
May 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm
—————————————
Earth has also had major glaciations in the past with CO2 concentrations as high as now, as in the Carboniferous & Permian, & indeed much higher, as in the Ordovician.
Climate models can’t explain the very warm & equable Cretaceous based upon CO2, even though it was higher then. If you factor in clouds, the models do better.
CO2 levels are a response to higher mean temperatures, not the main driver of climate, although there is a minor positive feedback effect.
Janice, I actually lecture and tutor at Uni now, in Civil Engineering.. So still teaching !!
But it is a far far cry from teaching maths at high school.
Dicipline problems non existent.
and the students often say things like ….. “Thanks” !!! 🙂
John Parsons said on May 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm (in part ):
>The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today — and
> were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees
>Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to
> 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic
>and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” according to UCLA’s
>department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric
>and oceanic sciences.
I suspect this is in reference to some time at least several million years ago,
when Antarctica was not in its current location and had less ice.
acementhead said on May 7, 2013 at 9:41 pm:
>Frederick Michael @ur momisugly 8:35 pm May 7, 2013 says:
>>400 PPM is 0.04%, not 0.0004%, right?
>Wrong.
10,000 PPM is 1%. 100 PPM is .01%. 400 PPM is .04%.
Brian R says: May 7, 2013 at 10:40 pm
>atarsinc says: May 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm
>>And here’s another: Your cup of tea=99.99% H2O, Ricin= .0004%.
>>Your dead. JP
>Maybe you should do more research before you post.
>For an lethal oral dose of Ricin your looking at 20-30 milligrams per
> kilogram. So for a 180 pound man you would need at a minimum of
>1.6 grams of ricin. 1.6 grams is a little less then a ounce of water. So
>my 6 ounce cup of tea would need to be, well 1/6 ricin to be lethal.
I think that’s off by a factor of 10. 1.6 grams is somewhat less than 1/10
ounce. I think the correct figure for a deadly cup of tea is 1/60 ricin.
> That’s 0.16667% or about 416 times more than your 0.0004%. At a
> ricin concentration of 400ppm I would have to drink about 16 gallons
> of tea at one sitting. I would die from water poisoning long before the
> ricin got me.
6 ounces times ratio of 400 PPM to 1/60 (which is 2500/60) is 250
ounces – close to 2 gallons.
What’s going to happen when CO2 hits 500 PPM by volume, if the world
is not much warmer than it is now? What’s going to happen when CO2 hits
600 PPMV, if the world has warmed from the 1998-2010 stretch by less than
1 or .8 degree C?
Donald L. Klipstein says:
May 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm
John Parsons said on May 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm (in part ):
>The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today — and
> were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees
>Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to
> 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic
>and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” according to UCLA’s
>department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric
>and oceanic sciences.
I suspect this is in reference to some time at least several million years ago,
when Antarctica was not in its current location and had less ice.
————————————————————–
I don’t know to which epoch Mr. Parsons refers, but as recently as the Pliocene Epoch, Antarctica was glaciated under CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet did periodically collapse, but not because of magic gas levels. Climate cooled after ~3 mya, when the Panama Isthmus interrupted tropical-temperate oceanic circulation, leading to the Pleistocene glaciation.
Warmunistas have recently tried lamely and counter-factually to attribute the onset of Antarctic glaciation at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary to CO2 levels rather than to the opening of deep oceanic channels creating the Southern Ocean, isolating the continent. As usual, they confuse cause and effect.
Perhaps Mr. Parsons is indeed referring to the Pliocene Epoch (5.3 to 2.6 mya). Global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3 to 3.0 mya) was two to three degrees C higher than now, with sea level over 75 feet higher. Extensive glaciation over Greenland occurred in the late Pliocene after three million years ago, with the closing of Panama Strait (there may previously have been a small ice sheet on Greenland southern tip, due to wetter conditions there than in the Arctic). That CO2 was probably around 400 ppm then doesn’t explain the onset of vast ice sheets.
Andy G, I’m glad to hear that you are currently teaching and that it is so much more rewarding for you. David P. would probably say that if you were teaching a million years ago (or so), you would NOT like it and the students would say, “Get lost,” and life will soon be that way again if you don’t start riding your bicycle to work every day. LOL.
I think David is just grumpy because his brother Alan’s rock band made the big time and David’s did not.
@acementhead: When you correct someone who correct, by saying they’re wrong, and never come back to comment, could that make you a troll? 400 parts per million is 0.40%.
No Mario
400ppm is 0.04%
get a calculator.. type 400 divided by 1,000,000 then times by 100 to change it to a percentage.
0.04% !!
like 4c in $100
Mario Lento says:
May 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm
acementhead did come back, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/07/what-400-ppm-of-co2-in-the-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1299915
He was only wrong once, you’re wrong twice.