NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE 4th 2013
CARBON DIOXIDE
There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist.
Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all.
This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a chloroplast organelle in their cells.
This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere
The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.
It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.
During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period
From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide.
The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.
The growth of plants in the Carboniferous caused a reduction in atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide, forming the basis for large deposits of dead plants and other organisms. Plant debris became the basis for peat and coal., smaller organisms provided oil and gas, both after millions of years of applied heat and pressure from geological change; mountain building, erosion, deposition of sediments, volcanic eruptions, rises and fall of sea level and movement of continents. Marine organisms used carbon dioxide to build shells and coral polyps and these became the basis of limestone rocks
The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.
Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean.
Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to “the environment” There is no evidence that it causes harm.
Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Olav Henry Dahlsveen says:
June 4, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Once again, yesterday in fact, I performed a simple little experiment that proves that IR radiation cannot penetrate solid, transparent glass and Fourier’s further claim that nor can it penetrate H2O or water is painfully evident in nature. So evident is it – in fact – that no additional experiments should be necessary.
Not sure how you got that – there is a very large industry producing glass and film for windows which prevent entry to the direct heat rays from the Sun, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared aka radiant heat, and maximise entry to visible light – to save on air conditioning costs.
Perhaps they should be sued for misrepresentation as according to AGWScienceFiction fisics no such heat rays reach the Earth because they can’t get through some unknown to traditional science “invisible barrier like the glass of greenhouse at TOA”, and worse, are actually producing windows which in maximising entry of visible light are according to AGWSF heating the room…
So Herschel never found the invisible heat rays of longwave infrared through his solid glass prism?
Visible light cannot heat matter, it works on the much smaller, because it is much smaller, electronic transition level.
This is not a heat generating level which requires the whole molecule to be moved into vibration.
So visible light cannot physically heat land and water as per the comic cartoon missing real heat AGW energy budget of KT97 and ilk.
Shortwaves from the Sun do not heat matter, cannot move the whole molecules into vibration and so you have no heat at all from the Sun in your AGW “Greenhouse Effect”.
Visible light energy on the electronic transition level can have several effects.
It can result in reflection/scattering when the visible light is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere which are briefly energised and then return to ground state and emit the same energy they took in. Mostly blue because it is more energetic than red, meaning it moves more quickly and so is bounced around more, which is how we get our blue sky. This is non-ionising radiation, visible light is not powerful enough to knock the electron out of orbit, as do some of the other shortwaves like UV rays, which are divided into ioning and non-ionising.
UV rays are capable of wrecking the DNA because of this ionising effect, which is why our bodies produce melanin to absorb it, which gives us a tan. This is not conversion to heat energy, UV does not move the whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter. UV rays are harnessed in water purification plants, for drinking water and swimming pools for example, and a simple way of purifying water in hot countries is to leave a bottle of water out in the Sun for a few hours, the UV will destroy the DNA of the microbes and they will be unable to reproduce.
It can result in conversion to chemical energy, which is not heat energy, in the creation of sugars in photosynthesis when mainly blue and red visible is absorbed by the plant, again, this is not conversion to heat energy as it is not moving the whole molecule into vibration.
It can result in sight, again this is not conversion to heat but to electrical impulses via chemical as it stimulates nerve impulses.
Visible light from the Sun is benign, it neither wrecks our DNA as does some UV, nor does it cook our retinas.
The Herschel experiment is much touted in the AGWSF meme world as “proof that visible light is hot” – we have moved on since then.. we now divide the invisible infrared rays which Herschel discovered into thermal and non-thermal; longwave infrared is thermal and shortwave infrared is not thermal.
That’s how exact we are now with our more precise measurements which Herschel couldn’t do as he physically moved the glass prism at the edge of his table..
We now know that there is a great difference in sizes between the difference wavelengths, photons which are packets of particles, and that is what the primitive measurements emulating Herschel’s are showing, that the bigger invisible heat waves of longwave infrared are spilling into the visible and that is what is being measured – visible does not have a temperature, it is not hot, it cannot move the mercury’s molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat matter.
That is simply a physical fact. That is why people pay good money to buy expensive glass and film for their windows to maximise visible light from the Sun and reflect the powerful invisible heat rays, which is longwave infrared.
This is Trenberth’s missing heat, the real heat energy from the Sun capable of heating matter, land and water. Water is a great absorbed of radiant heat from the Sun, and this is how we are heated internally, by the longwave infrared direct from the Sun travelling in straight lines penetrating our bodies and moving the molecules of water in us into vibration. We can of course also feel this great heating power on our skin as the invisible radiant heat from the Sun moves the molecules of our skin into vibration. Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy moving the molecules of your skin into vibration and heating them up. This is what the direct longwave, thermal infrared from the Sun does, we cannot feel shortwave infrared – which is not hot, which is classed in with visible as Reflective not Thermal, as Light and not Heat. Reflective shortwave infrared is used in cameras which capture them being reflected back from the object, like visible light cameras. These cameras are not measuring internal heat being radiated out.
We know a lot more since Herschel’s time, and we who still have traditional physics basics can see that we are being conned by the AGWSF energy budget which has taken out the direct invisible powerful radiant heat from the Sun travelling in straight lines and claims that visible light is this and doing its work.
Why is it saying this? So it can pretend that any real world downwelling invisible radiant heat energy measured is from “the atmosphere”, not from the Sun, for their claimed “backradiation from greenhouses gases”.
A simple but clever sleight of hand, a magician’s trick to deceive the mind by deceiving the eye.
Why I think this is difficult for so many to grasp is because they balk at the implications, that this has been brainwashed into the general population through the education system, and taught and defined at the highest levels. That’s something you have to come to terms with, because it is simply a fact that this was done.
Traditional physics does not teach it, as I have showed before the NASA quote. That’s why in traditional modern up to date physics our clever unbrainwashed applied scientists designed glass and film for windows which maximise entry of visible light while preventing entry to the direct longwave infrared heat waves in order to keep rooms cool.
Traditional science understands the difference between heat and light rays from the Sun.
Traditional up to date physics can see the sleight of hand deception of the direct missing heat from the Sun in the AGWScienceFiction’s fake fisics energy budget..
That there are some who are so upset at this that they try to get every mention of it erased is the problem here. This is what happened to the traditional teaching from NASA, there was a scuffle there.., it disappeared for a week but brought back, though out of the loop of links from its website it can still be retrieved.
Unless you understand this, generic you who subscribe to the AGWSF fake fisics, you are unable to understand what those glass and film for windows producers are actually doing, what you cannot understand you cannot pass on as knowledge. The next generation you, generic AGWs, are educating could not design such glass and film from scratch.
Nor could you design the different equipment for photovoltaic and thermal panels…, because you think there is no direct heat energy longwave infrared from the Sun and you think visible light can heat water, when in the real world of physics we know water is a transparent medium for visible light and is transmitted through unchanged, not absorbed even on the electron level.
The direct heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible longwave infrared, we cannot feel shortwaves at all, they are not hot. They cannot move our molecules into vibration which is what we can feel as heat, because it is heat. It takes powerful heat energy to heat matter, land and water and us, and to cook your dinners..
If you can grasp this you will then be able to see the memes AGWSF meme producing department created to distract you, for example, making you think that “all electromagnetic energy from the Sun is the same and all creates heat when absorbed” – it’s obviously a lie if you know visible light can’t do this and its energy is not converted to heat but to chemical, as in the creation of sugars in photosynthesis, and to electrical as in stimulating nerve impulses in sight.
If electromagnetic energy from the Sun was “all the same” it wouldn’t have been given different names, and put into different categories and sets depending on their individual properties and processes, because traditional physics first understands the great differences between them.
This is the NASA page that attempt was made to take out of view completely, do yourself and so all of us a favour, understand what it is saying – it falsifies the AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget. It shows that energy budget to be a science fraud, a scam to delude the general public into believing the “backradiation Greenhouse Effect” – the sooner you see this the sooner we can all come back to real science being taught..
Longwave infrared is the same invisible heat we feel from a campfire which is the materials’ thermal energy radiating out to us. This is heat transfer by radiation. Heat is actually being transferred as photons which are packets of particles in the wavelengths of longwave infrared, that is why it is called thermal infrared. Because these are the wavelengths of HEAT.
Not the wavelengths of LIGHT.
Trenberth’s missing heat is that missing from his comic cartoon energy budget, it has excised the direct invisible heat of longwave infrared we feel as heat from the millions of degrees burning hot Star which is our Sun.
The Sun, that huge millions of degrees hot campfire in the sky which is so big and hot its powerful heat energy reaches us in 8 minutes, 93 million miles away..
This is what NASA used to teach in its main pages, the real scientists at NASA are still teaching this empirically understood real physics about the difference between thermal longwave infrared and non thermal shortwave infrared, that the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared, that we cannot feel shortwave infrared because it is not hot:
From the Real Scientists at NASA:
“Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature
Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
from: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
The shortwaves of the AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget of KT97 and ilk, are not thermal energies, they are not hot, we cannot feel them as heat, they are incapable of heating matter, they are not big enough to move whole molecules of matter into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter. Heat energy heats matter.
That is why glass and film for windows maximise visible light and minimise thermal infrared direct from the Sun, to keep rooms cool.
Bring back the missing heat from the Sun.
gymnosperm says:
June 4, 2013 at 9:11 pm
As Ferdinand has been at some pains to point out human combustion is distinguishable from volcanic CO2 by its preponderance of 12C as opposed to a normal isotopic distribution from volcanoes.
Hmm, so why do they decide what the difference between volcanic and the mythical man made background by volume?
Which they cherry pick when volcanic stops and the mythical “well mixed background” begins simply by deciding when the cut off point is by volumes being measured.
There is no difference even attempted and this applies to their other so called “pristine” sites that are subject to great input from local volcanic production.
The Keeling Curve is manufactured, deliberately choosing a low figure from anyway discredited studies, and ignoring the great variations. Carbon dioxide is lumpy, some places produce practically zilch, some produce lots, and it is a real gas so it is heavier than air so it will always tend to be local, and it is washed from the atmsophere every time it rains..
Why is there no rain in the AGW’s carbon cycle?
So you don’t notice it’s missing.
Richard Brown says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:41 am
“Could it be that net CO2 contribution from plants increases fractionally with temperature?”
If not at extreme conditions (which clearly isn’t zero something rise in temperature anomaly, but could be in case of unsufficient greenhouse venting during cloudless days for example) then no. Generally -higher temperature (going together with more insolance) -> faster photosynthesis -> more CO2 sequestered, not produced. The efficiency also usually increases with the CO2 concentrations in air – not so much because of more CO2 food, but due to more closed stomata meaning less water loss and with more water available. (simplified: carbon dioxide + water + photons -> carbohydrate + oxygen – the resulting oxygen molecule origin is in the water molecule not in the carbon dioxide molecule in the photosynthesis!) There are even special plant species which sequester the CO2 even at night – so called CAM plants, usually growing in tropical conditions with arid periods, which must close most of the stomata during sunny day to prevent water loss so they store CO2 at night and use it during day. Some plants can even switch between C3, C4 and CAM metabolism according to actual conditions.
What impedes photosynthesis more than the rising temperature (except extremes of course) is the lack of water and too excess solar light (causing photosynthesis cycle saturation) which usually occur together causing plant stress. Generaly the plants use several mechanisms to counter such stresses:
-redundant leaves well spatially distributed
-succulent leaves and stent water storage
-chlorophyl fluorescence
-non-photochemical quenching basically converting the excess light to heat
Many thanks for some good science based facts about warmist fears.
“I wish they taught this is school!”
In school we teach them the importance of nitrogen for life. We also teach them about prokaryotic photosynthesis. This is a really goofy essay. If you find a teacher teaching this to your kids you should be upset confront them about it, because it is loaded with simple factual errors.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
June 5, 2013 at 3:09 am
“Generally -higher temperature (going together with more insolance) -> faster photosynthesis -> more CO2 sequestered, not produced.”
Thanks for the detailed reply – I realize this is much more complex than I first thought. However, I note that “The C3 plants, originating during Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras, predate the C4 plants and still represent approximately 95% of Earth’s plant biomass”, and “C3 plants cannot grow in hot areas because RuBisCO incorporates more oxygen into RuBP as temperatures increase. This leads to photorespiration, which leads to a net loss of carbon and nitrogen from the plant and can, therefore, limit growth. In dry areas, C3 plants shut their stomata to reduce water loss, but this stops CO2 from entering the leaves and, therefore, reduces the concentration of CO2 in the leaves. This lowers the CO2:O2 ratio and, therefore, also increases photorespiration.” (both quotes from Wikipedia). Suggests possible different process?
@John Tillman says:
June 4, 2013 at 10:28 pm
============================
Gray included only two graphics in his post. His second graphic is designed to convey a very specific but false point. He follows the graphic with this reinforcing comment.
“It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.”
That graphic is know to be intentionally misleading. Monckton and others used versions of the same graphic in climate change presentations around the world. They were called out for using it because important factors, like the variability of of solar radiation, were not considered, as shown in the Royer 2006 paper I linked.
My question is this. When are skeptics going to actually be skeptical and stop allowing some of their favorite sources to post nonsense?
John@EF says:
June 4, 2013 at 10:11 pm
—————
If you are going to get your information from Royer, then you are going to be misled.
For example, Royer’s insistence on using Paleosol CO2 estimates in all his papers which have been shown to depend mostly on precipitation and vary considerably throughout the season so the estimate derived from Paleosols/Fossil Soils/Pedogenic Carbonates is a function of the time of year, and precipitation at that time and thus do not represent a true CO2 estimate at all. And, furthermore, Paleosols produce many estimates of Zero CO2ppm which is not physically possible. Most climate scientists have abandoned this method but not Royer.
>>milodonharlani says:
June 4, 2013 at 11:15 am
Please excuse quibbling and nit-picking, but a chloroplast is not a process.<<
Possibly he had this alternative definition from Merriam-Webster in mind. I don't know, of course:
"Process …
4: a prominent or projecting part of an organism or organic structure “
“Ryan says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:11 am
“I wish they taught this is school!”
In school we teach them the importance of nitrogen for life.”
Kids are taught to pee in the backyard?
@Bill Illis says:
June 5, 2013 at 6:17 am
———————————
The graph used by Gray to make his point does not include consideration of variance of solar luminosity, albedo, continent distribution/drift, among other important factors. The graph is designed to leave a misleading impression. When are folks like you, Bill Illis, going to take a real skeptic’s position and discourage use of that type of non-comprehensive, misleading material? Focus, for one moment, on what Gray presented.
Like an earlier poster, I was struck by the mention of oxygen levels of up to 35%.
I used to work in the industrial gas business where we were constantly reminded of the dangers of oxygen enrichment. If memory serves, in an atmosphere of over 25% there is a serious risk of spontaneous combustion of materials like cotton, plastics, oil/grease, even hair!
Surely levels of 35% in a world full of high-carbon materials – dead wood, leaves, grasses, etc – would have meant massive conflagrations?
John@EF says:
June 5, 2013 at 6:04 am
They were called out for using it because important factors, like the variability of of solar radiation, were not considered, as shown in the Royer 2006 paper I linked.
It is the point that with high CO2 (about 2200) the temperature was low at the beginning of the Silurian and with CO2 low the temperature was high in the Triassic. The low sun idea does not account for this.
John@EF says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:31 am
The graph used by Gray to make his point does not include consideration of variance of solar luminosity, albedo, continent distribution/drift, among other important factors. The graph is designed to leave a misleading impression. When are folks like you, Bill Illis, going to take a real skeptic’s position and discourage use of that type of non-comprehensive, misleading material?
—————————
You haven’t been around here very long have you. This website has doen nothing but discuss all those issues every time it comes up. Dr. Gray’s graphs are quite comprehensive. Here are all the reliable CO2 estimates going back through time (at 3.0C per doubling) versus the highest resolution of temperature estimates.
http://s4.postimg.org/5nwu2ppdp/Temp_CO2_750_Mya.png
http://s22.postimg.org/804qp4xo1/Temp_Geography_45_Mys.png
Solar luminosity was lower in the past but go back to 550 Mya for example, it would only be equivalent to -2.3C. CO2 was at 6,000 ppm which should have produced temperatures at +14.0C. The continents in Super-continent Pannotia had just moved off the south pole and the last Snowball Earth episode was over as a result. Temps were only about +5.0C at the time, so your theory that CO2 controls temperature does not work.
@ur momisugly Jim Strom says:
June 5, 2013 at 6:26 am
———————————-
Chloroplasts don’t project or form promontories from the cell.
John@EF says:
June 5, 2013 at 6:04 am
Re solar strength:
As a rule of thumb, the sun’s radiance loses about one percent for each 110 million years back in time you go. Thus, during the Ordovician Ice Age, it was only about 4% weaker than now. Yet CO2 concentration was eight to 20 times higher.
This lame excuse from CAGW cultists is typical of their unscientific, nay, anti-scientific, knee jerk reactions to confrontation with objective reality.
Rud Istvan says:
June 4, 2013 at 5:38 pm
@polistra. Actually, that question has been answered to reasonable certainty, which is why I objected to the conclusions of a previous guest post here earlier today. Henry’s law must be obeyed, which means generally that absent large perturbations like the Industrial revolution, CO2 lags temperature and Gore was flat wrong. But the process of reaching stasis takes several hundred years. So there is literally no way known to physics and chemistry that the Keeling curve is a result of temperature increases on a mere century time scale……
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You forgot the 800 year lag time. 1970-800= 1170
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China[1] and other countries,[2][3][3][4][5][6][7] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250. (WIKI)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/more-evidence-the-medieval-warm-period-was-global/
Research paper, “Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand.” – http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf Tree ring data shows Sierras survived 500 years of drought during the Medieval Warm Period. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/18/sequoias_endured_500_years_fire_and_drought/
More studies world wide at Medieval Warm Period Project
Richard Brown says: @ur momisugly June 5, 2013 at 5:14 am
Do not forget CAM.
http://wc.pima.edu/~bfiero/tucsonecology/plants/plants_photosynthesis.htm
http://tables-evo-sci.blogspot.com/2007/11/comparison-of-c-3-c-4-cam-plants.html
On the C13/C14 ratio used by the IPCC to hang the human race see the discussion HERE.
“As a rule of thumb, the sun’s radiance loses about one percent for each 110 million years back in time you go. Thus, during the Ordovician Ice Age, it was only about 4% weaker than now. Yet CO2 concentration was eight to 20 times higher.”
There is evidence of a drop in CO2 during the Ordovician Ice Age which isn’t picked up in Gray’s low resolution chart.
In any case, 8x higher CO2 would be a 11wm-2 warming forcing.
4% weaker sun would be a 10wm-2 cooling forcing.
Now take into account CO2 being even lower. There is no obvious inconsistency here.
If you want a nice simple explanation for both the Ordovician Ice Age and the Carboniferous Ice age, here it is. No CO2 changes need to be involved at all.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/images/figure05_10.jpg
Bill Illis says: “Solar luminosity was lower in the past but go back to 550 Mya for example, it would only be equivalent to -2.3C. CO2 was at 6,000 ppm which should have produced temperatures at +14.0C.”
I find different numbers. A 5% fainter sun 550 Mya would produce a 12wm-2 cooling forcing.
CO2 at 6000ppm, about 4.5 doublings would produce a forcing of : 16.6wm-2.
The fainter Sun is hugely significant. It takes a huge chunk out of the greenhouse effect back then. Any analysis must take that into account and adjust the global temperature record for a fainter sun before even being able to think about drawing any conclusions.
The Sun’s impact on Earth’s climate is = (TSI * (1-Albedo)/4 / 5.67e-8)^.25 = (1366*(1-0.2983)/4/5.67e-8)^.25 = 255.0K today
If you run all the numbers on how TSI has varied over time, it has followed very close to a straight line increase of about 29% since the Sun reached main sequence star status about 4.6 Bya (not exactly a straight line but close enough – Kasting 2003 in the final word on this).
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095069/xhtml/images/p2000c604g64001.jpg
http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/planets-life-seminar/kasting.pdf
So TSI 550 Mya = 1366 * (550/4600) * (1-0.71) = 1318.6 W/m2 550 Mya
= (1318.6*(1-0.2983)/4/5.67e-8)^.25 = 252.7K (assuming Albedo was the same as today)
or 2.3C less than today.
that’s without feedbacks
@Seb says:
June 5, 2013 at 11:13 am:
Please state your evidence for lower CO2 during the Ordovician. I’d be interested in this evidence. I’ve looked for it for years, but maybe not hard, long or recently enough.
All I’ve ever read is hand-waving, claiming that since we only have data points ten million years apart, CO2 might have been lower in between them.