Gosh, you’d think they’d check the data before issuing a statement like this (press release follows).
It [CO2] was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012. Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
But, the temperature data tells an entirely different story, look at this plot of all global temperature metrics and trends from 2002-2012 – there’s no warming to be seen!
In fact, with the exception of UAH, which is essentially flat for the period, the other metrics all show a slight cooling trend.
Plot from Woodfortrees.org – source:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/best/from:2002/to:2012/plot/best/from:2002/to:2012/trend
UPDATE: here is the same graph as above, but with CO2 increase (a proxy for forcing) added. Clearly, global temperature does not follow the same trend.
Plot from Woodfortrees.org – source:
From the World Meteorological Organization – Press Release No. 991 (h/t to Steve Milloy, emphasis mine)
CO2 concentrations top 400 parts per million throughout northern hemisphere
Geneva, 26 May 2014 (WMO) – For the first time, monthly concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million (ppm) in April throughout the northern hemisphere. This threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are responsible for the continuing increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming our planet.
All the northern hemisphere monitoring stations forming the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch network reported record atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the seasonal maximum. This occurs early in the northern hemisphere spring before vegetation growth absorbs CO2.
Whilst the spring maximum values in the northern hemisphere have already crossed the 400 ppm level, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross this threshold in 2015 or 2016.
“This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving climate change. If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat trapping gases,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Time is running out.”
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Its lifespan in the oceans is even longer. It is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012.
Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141% of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.
Since 2012, all monitoring stations in the Arctic have recorded average monthly CO2 concentrations in spring above 400 ppm, according to data received from Global Atmosphere Watch stations in Canada, the United States of America, Norway and Finland.
This trend has now spread to observing stations at lower latitudes. WMO’s global observing stations in Cape Verde, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain (Tenerife) and Switzerland all reported monthly mean concentrations above 400 ppm in both March and April.
In April, the monthly mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 401.3 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, according to NOAA. In 2013 this threshold was only passed on a couple of days. Mauna Loa is the oldest continuous CO2 atmospheric measurement station in the world (since 1958) and so is widely regarded as a benchmark site in the Global Atmosphere Watch.
The northern hemisphere has more anthropogenic sources of CO2 than the southern hemisphere. The biosphere also controls the seasonal cycle. The seasonal minimum of CO2 is in summer, when substantial uptake by plants takes place. The winter-spring peak is due to the lack of biospheric uptake, and increased sources related to decomposition of organic material, as well as anthropogenic emissions. The most pronounced seasonal cycle is therefore in the far north.
The WMO Global Atmosphere Watch coordinates observations of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases like methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere to ensure that measurements around the world are standardized and can be compared to each other. The network spans more than 50 countries including stations high in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas, as well as in the Arctic, Antarctic and in the far South Pacific. All stations are situated in unpolluted locations, although some are more influenced by the biosphere and anthropogenic sources (linked to human activities) than others.
The monthly mean concentrations are calculated on the basis of continuous measurements. There are about 130 stations that measure CO2 worldwide.
A summary of current climate change findings and figures is available here
|
Preliminary CO2 mole fractions at the GAW global stations (March 2014; April 2014)
|
 * data are filtered for clean sector ** only night-time values are used to calculate monthly mean |
| Legend and data courtesy:ALT: Alert, Canada, 82.50°N, 62.34°W, 210 m a.s.l. (Environment Canada, Canada)AMS: Amsterdam Island, France, 37.80°S, 77.54°E, 70 m a.s.l. (Research program “SNO ICOS-France” led by LSCE/OVSQ (CEA, INSU))BRW: Barrow (AK), USA, 71.32°N, 156.6°W, 11 ma.s.l. (NOAA, USA)CNM: Monte Cimone, Italy, 44.17°N, 10.68°E, 2165 m a.s.l. (Italian Air Force Mountain Centre – Mt. Cimone, Italy)CVO: Cape Verde Atmospheric Observatory, Cape Verde, 16.86°N, 24.87°W, 10 m a.s.l. (Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany)
HPB: Hohenpeissenberg, Germany, 47.80°N, 11.01°E, 985 m a.sl. (Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Germany) IZO: Izaña (Tenerife), Spain, 28.31°N, 16.50°W, 2373 m a.s.l. (Agencia Estatal De Meteorología (Aemet), Spain) JFJ: Jungfraujoch, Switzerland, 46.55°N, 7.99°E, 3580 m a.s.l. (Empa, Switzerland) MHD: Mace Head, Ireland, 53.33°N, 9.90°W, 5 m a.s.l. (Research program “SNO ICOS-France” led by LSCE/OVSQ (CEA, INSU), in collaboration with EPA, Ireland) MLO: Mauna Loa (HI), USA, 19.54°N, 155.6°W, 3397 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) MNM: Minamitorishima, Japan, 24.29°N, 154.0°E, 8 m a.s.l. (Japan Meteorological Agency, Japan) PAL: Pallas, Finland, 67.97°N, 24.12°E, 560 m a.s.l. (Finish meteorological Institute (FMI), Finland) SMO: Samoa (Cape Matatula), USA, 14.25°S, 170.6°W, 77 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) SPO: South Pole, Antarctica, 90.00°S, 24.80°W, 2841 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) ZEP: Zeppelin Mountain (Ny Ålesund), Norway, 78.91°N, 11.89°E, 474 m a.s.l. (Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Norway |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
but the result in the 21st century is better with a low sensitivity for CO2/aerosols. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
===============
interesting result. What happens if you reduce CO2 and aerosol sensitivity even further?
What this shows is that different combinations of parameter yield (near) identical past but very different futures. Thus, one cannot rely on hind-casting as a measure of forecasting skill.
What seems most remarkable to me is that the climate science community seems blissfully unaware of this problem. It is well known in other disciplines. Certainly it is well known in computer science.
Your average 5 year old would not be fooled by this. But somehow university educated Climate PhD’s don’t get it.
What I find interesting is that the models are telling us that the same past can yield a range of very different futures. This tells me that natural variability is not “noise” as it is commonly assumed in climate science, and thus cannot be treated as such mathematically.
ferdberple says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:42 am
interesting result. What happens if you reduce CO2 and aerosol sensitivity even further?
Below 1.5°C/2xCO2, the curves of the past divert more and more. But still, the main trends are the same with of course less and less future warming. The whole exercise is with only the four main “forcings” without any feedbacks. With the help of feedbacks like water vapor/clouds the whole thing on a spreadsheet probably may show even less sensitivity for CO2. Or introducing the remarkable PDO-temperature correlation and other natural variability…
One of the ironic points is that such a simple spreadsheet has the same or even better results for the retrofit (thus for the future?) than the multi-million dollar GCM’s running on supercomputers.
See: http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0411.pdf
the climate science community seems blissfully unaware of this problem.
Oh, they know it and have used it to “explain” the 1945-1975 flat/cooling period with increasing CO2 levels, But that haunts them now, because the level of cooling human (SO2) aerosols only shifted from Europe and North America to SE Asia, but the total quantity hardly changed (but the brown -warming- aerosols increased) while the CO2 increase is in full mood… See the old discussion at RC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/climate-sensitivity-and-aerosol-forcings/
with my comment at #14
and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/
with several comments of mine…
“””””…..Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 28, 2014 at 3:46 am
george e. smith says:
May 27, 2014 at 7:51 pm
And your 70 km of air, consists of a large number of 45 nm samples, each of which has a CO2 molecule just outside it. The total scale doesn’t matter.
Sorry, but the scale does matter: the CO2 molecules are not lined up against each other, but randomly distributed together with the 45 nm samples. Thus the probablility of a 15 nm IR wave to hit a CO2 molecule is very high near ground, but less and less with reducing air density. …..”””””
Well Ferdinand, I have never argued against what you just said; well I’ll give you your 15 nm typo; we all know you meant micrometers..
All I have simply argued, is that each CO2 molecule, which gladly intercepts LWIR photons, in narrow spectral lines generally around 15 micron wavelength, whether it’s at low or high altitude, is accompanied (on average) by 2499 other quite benign molecules, which don’t, and which are quite happy to transmit, both those 15 micron lines, as well as virtually all of the other wavelengths of radiation, running around in the atmosphere.
The absorption of those 15 micron photons, apparently sets the CO2 molecule off in a bending mode of (purely internal) oscillation; which it would seem does not change the global kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule, and hence doesn’t change its Temperature. Ultimately, that internal energy should be re-emitted, possibly prematurely as a result of a collision with some other molecule, and I would presume that some frequency shift occurs as a result.
So how big do you think a 15 micron wavelength photon is; or does it have a size at all ??
If you are looking for some claim from me, that CO2 or other GHG does not, or cannot heat the atmosphere, you might as well forget it. I’ve never held or expressed any such view, and have strongly warned against such claims.
Lots of things effect the temperatures and energy transport in the atmosphere; the GHG effect being just one of those.
But ultimately, it is the set of processes that result from the physical properties of the H2O molecule, that establish, and regulate, the range of temperatures found on the earth.
When a government raises taxes, to get more revenue; taxpayers stop doing, or reduce their taxable activities, to counteract the effect on them.
Planet earth’s environment acts on the exact same principles, and it will set its own agenda, based on the properties of the materials in its environment; H2O being, by far the most influential material.
The sun’s energy powers the system; the physical properties of water, establish to comfortable range (of the system), and all these other extranea, have very little effect.
I deliberately asked you how much water in the atmosphere is excess. There IS no excess; there’s a vast supply of water available in the system, to be moved around, in whatever way is needed, to establish the stable conditions. If you introduce a perturbation, such as burning a hydrocarbon to add CO2 and H2O to the system (not just the atmosphere; the feedbacks take over and readjust whatever needs adjusting to counteract the perturbation, and that applies to the injected CO2 as well as the injected water, or anything else.
Mercury and Mars, have no water oceans, and so they are at the mercy of the sun’s fluctuations.
We are not !
The absorption of those 15 micron photons, apparently sets the CO2 molecule off in a bending mode of (purely internal) oscillation; which it would seem does not change the global kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule, and hence doesn’t change its Temperature. Ultimately, that internal energy should be re-emitted, possibly prematurely as a result of a collision with some other molecule, and I would presume that some frequency shift occurs as a result.
So how big do you think a 15 micron wavelength photon is; or does it have a size at all ??
This isn’t the right question. The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.
The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. Periodically CO_2 is thermally excited in-band by just such a collision and radiates energy away, but it is not like an elastic scattering process such as occurs in specular reflection within clouds. In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them. It takes order of 100s of absorptions and emissions for radiation to diffuse upward to escape, and there is an almost equal probability that radiation will diffuse downward (especially from the lower levels) where we observe it as back-radiation/greenhouse radiative forcing of the surface.
Even this is oversimplified. Because of pressure broadening, molecules close to the ground emit photons “in the wings” at frequencies that less broadened molecules at higher altitudes/lower pressures are nearly transparent to. That means that there is a steady CO_2-mediated “leakage” even from lower altitudes directly to space from the edges of the monotonically decreasing-with-height absorptive bandwidth. It also means that there is a MAJOR change in atmospheric absorptivity/emissivity with simple high and low pressure centers as they move around, as well as a modulation of the size of the emission-wing “hole”.
Grant Petty’s book can walk you through much of the physics.
rgb
Janice Moore says on May 26, 2014 at 9:00 pm: “[CO2] was responsible for 85% of {nothing}.”
You are absolutely correct. The explanation comes from the fact that Arrhenius greenhouse theory they use is invalid. It should be clear to anyone who pays attention that if a theory predicts warming and nothing happens for 17 years that theory is wrong and must be discarded. The only greenhouse theory that correctly explains the “pause” is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT). That is because it is capable of handling the general case where more than one greenhouse gas simultaneously absorbs in the IR. In such a case the gases present establish jointly an optimal absorption window that they control. For earth atmosphere the gases that count are carbon dioxide and water vapor. Their joint optimal absorption window has an optical thickness in the IR of 1,87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb, just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness of the absorption window. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the optical thickness is restored to its original value. That is exactly why we have the pause where carbon dioxide increases but does not cause warming. This is actually not the first time that this has happened. Last time it was in the eighties and nineties, just before the super El Nino of 1998 arrived. It lasted for 18 years and may have continued if the super El Nino had not changed everything. Problem with this particular standstill is with falsified temperature curves that show its temperature sloping up to create false warming. You can easily tell that they are falsified by comparing them to satellite data which they still do not control. An older example comes from NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948. Miskolczi used it to study the absorption of IR by the atmosphere over time and found that absorption was constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent at the same time. This is an exact parallel to what is happening with the pause today. And what this means is that sensitivity is effectively zero because doubling carbon dioxide will not cause any warming. And that poor AGW that you were concerned with? It simply does not exist, sorry about that. It is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, built up by the IPCC on the assumption that Hansen observed the greenhouse effect in 1988. It turns out that Hansen did not observe any such thing in 1988. Checking the Congressional Record I find that he claims to have observed a hundred year warming that can be nothing but greenhouse warming. But all is not well with his century of warming. It turns out that he uses ground-only temperatures that show warming between 1880 and 1910. Had he used the Land-Ocean version of GISTEMP available to him it would have shown cooling, not warming in this time slot. But it gets worse. He also includes a non-greenhouse warming that starts in 1910 and stops in 1940 as part of his 100 year greenhouse warming. It appears that we must remove everything before 1940 from his greenhouse century if we want to have a greenhouse curve. And what is left of it is a wiggly segment, 25 years of cooling followed by 23 years of warming. No way can this remnant curve be used to prove the existence of the greenhouse effect. But nobody checked his work and he has gotten away with it for the last 26 years. And a massive IPCC organization built up upon the assumption that the greenhouse effect exists is now taking over the world.
David Ball says:
May 27, 2014 at 5:21 pm
I made that simple arithmetic calculation out loud while watching Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy, who cited a 30% increase in CO2, & Marsha Blackburn on TV with friends. I was disappointed that Rep. Blackburn didn’t make the same point. I then added the somewhat harder to explain factors of logarithmic response & overlapping absorption bands to show how negligible the gain from 280 to 400 ppm is in effect.
David Ball says:
May 27, 2014 at 2:46 pm
I called Bulls**t on the 30% increase in Co2 (or 34% depending on which propaganda dept. referred to) and was attacked for it. See this thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/22/unsettled-science-new-study-challenges-the-consensus-on-co2-regulation-modeled-co2-projections-exaggerated/
You were rightly criticized there for your inability to do high school math, namely your assertion that an increase in CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm was not an increase in CO2 of 33%. Either that or you could do the math and were trying to mislead others?
Yet here we are on this thread all agreeing that it is Bulls**t.
No, what is being criticized by Anthony here is the statement that “Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases,” because it hasn’t led to an increase in global average temperature. If that was what you were trying to say you expressed it extremely poorly.
“squeezing the heat out around the edges of the opaque overhead layers”
Squeezing heat must be another quantum property designed to drive humans nuts.
Dang it, late to the game again as I was in training all day but thought I might throw this potential gem at y’all. On the dry erase board adjacent to my cubicle here at work, I (at least monthly) put up a “Thought of the Month”, usually themed around a quotation or other sciencey thingamabob I found interesting at the time, such as one of my favorites from H. L. Mencken; “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Friggin’ classic, what? This quote sat in my “Thought of the Month” box on the dry erase board for about two months or more over the Christian holidays, just because I liked it so much and hey – I control the board. And, as I am considered an “Old Sage” here at the job, many people come by to sit and consult (read: Shoot the $%!+) – and they can’t help but see the board (among other choice Science Realist stuff I have taped up there). Quite the conversation starter it was.
But I digress! Right now here is what fills the space on the board:
“Science Thought of the Month”
Total Earth Atmosphere = 100.00% (All Gases)
CO2 = 000.04% (now +/-400 ppm)
Delta or change in CO2 since onset of “Industrial Age” = 000.012% (+/-120 ppm)
Or, a change in total “average” atmospheric CO2 ppm from around 280ppm in the mid-to- late 1800’s up to the current 400 ppm.
Such a small number as to be difficult for the average Joe (or Jane) to fathom. As it should be. Can such a small total change matter? Yes, but on a small scale. Can this small change lead to catastrophic, run-away, never to return to normalcy “GLOBAL WARMING” ? (shout intended, sorry, should have warned you so you could cover your ears) I’ll let you decide.
Regards,
Michael C. Roberts
Preserve our planet for future generations?!? Oh, come on now, get a bloody grip. Conserve, I’ll give you, but that would make no sense in this context, nor is it a simple slip of the tongue. Total scare-mongering, trough-snouting, agenda-driving horse manure.
rgbatduke says:
May 28, 2014 at 10:21 am
rgb, thanks for the help and education. I know some basics of absorption etc., but not that many details. The only direct confrontation I had with absorption rates was for Cl2 monitoring in the production end of the HCl plant where H2 and Cl2 were burned together to form HCl with an oversupply of H2…
Dr Brown says: “The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. Periodically CO_2 is thermally excited in-band by just such a collision and radiates energy away”.
There seems to be a contradiction here, first you say the lifetime of the excited state is so long that a CO2 molecule passes its energy to surrounding molecules and its practically never re-emitted. Then at the end of the quote you say that when a CO2 molecule is excited it “radiates energy away” and this happens “periodically”. So which is correct, “almost never” or “periodically”? If a CO2 molecule is excited by whatever means (radiation directly from surface or through contact with another GHG molecule) surely the long period of excitation means its mostly not re-radiated and instead passed on to other molecules?
Not sure if I explained that very clearly, apologies if not.
RGB is the only one making sense in this thread…
“””””……rgbatduke says:
May 28, 2014 at 10:21 am
The absorption of those 15 micron photons, apparently sets the CO2 molecule off in a bending mode of (purely internal) oscillation; which it would seem does not change the global kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule, and hence doesn’t change its Temperature. Ultimately, that internal energy should be re-emitted, possibly prematurely as a result of a collision with some other molecule, and I would presume that some frequency shift occurs as a result.
So how big do you think a 15 micron wavelength photon is; or does it have a size at all ??
This isn’t the right question. The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule……”””””
Well I am not in any disagreement with the explanation that RGB gives here or elsewhere. He in fact makes a point which I could not make as he does, in that I can’t get my mind around the quantum mechanical picture of this situation, since my own knowledge of QM stopped well short of such understanding. I have always assumed that Phil too is fluent in this field.
The whole point of my 45 nm sample of “air” was in fact to demonstrate that a “classical” picture of the atmospheric gas at a small scale, in which a single CO2 molecule itself was a tiny part of a gas sample that clearly is big enough (at 2500 molecules) to demonstrate the basic properties of a real gas, in terms of MB statistics; yet the total sample is itself tiny compared to the wavelength of the EM wave associated with the “quantum”, that just the even smaller CO2 molecule is supposed to swallow.
So my question, “How big is a 15 micron photon anyway” was really tongue in cheek; but asked to point out the weird QM picture of reality, in that the supposed “wavelength” of the EM wave associated with an approximately 87 meV photon, is huge compared to the 45nm air sample which itself is huge compared to that single CO2 molecule, which we all believe can and will gobble up that photon.
Usually, in “particle” physics, we think of sub atomic sized “things” hitting a similarly small target (crossection) and interacting in the event that target size is hit. That’s much closer to our common experience of “target shooting”, but the photon hitting to molecule all seems completely backwards, and not at all similar to our street experience.
A similar “absurdity” image would be an alternative description of meteor showers; those flashes and streaks of light in the sky.
We could describe these common events, as simply the earth “landing on” other heavenly bodies; they just happen to be the size of dust particles, and get “squished” in the process. Yes a weird view, but actually a quite accurate one. Who is to say, which is the lander, and which the landee ?
Or we could say, that you can weigh the entire earth on any ordinary bathroom scale, by simply putting the earth “on” the bathroom scale. Well the earth is “down there”, so of course you have to turn the bathroom scale, upside down, and then put the earth on it. When I do it, I get about two pounds for the “weight” of the earth. Gravity on my bathroom scale is rather small. I can increase it, by putting the scale on top of my shoe soles, before putting the earth on it, and with that much greater mass and gravity, the weight of the earth increases up to about 180 pounds.
Again, a weird, but quite real view of reality.
RGB says the photon travels a meter before getting captured. I take that as true since I have no idea how one computes that, but it suggests to me, that means it must pass through a vast number of 45 nm air samples and CO2 molecules, before it scores a hit on the target.
That’s a picture quite foreign to my daily experience, but if you can see it as just a ho-hum ordinary event, then your imagination is much wilder than mine. To me that is weird. What QM tells us is reality, is also weird. That is not disputing it; just suggesting that truth really IS stranger than fiction.
I did notice that Robert said pressure broadening, but didn’t mention Temperature / Doppler broadening. I don’t have a good mental picture of the relative importance of the collision, versus Doppler broadening components, at these energy levels.
The wave / particle duality of EM radiation, forces us to confront seemingly absurd pictures of (evidently “large”) photons “landing on” a tiny molecule, and being absorbed by it.
The fact that much of reality is “weird”, does not dispute the accuracy of it.
Even Einstein thought QM was weird, even as he was constructing a solid case for its reality.
“””””…..from RGB…..Even this is oversimplified. Because of pressure broadening, molecules close to the ground emit photons “in the wings” at frequencies that less broadened molecules at higher altitudes/lower pressures are nearly transparent to. That means that there is a steady CO_2-mediated “leakage” even from lower altitudes directly to space from the edges of the monotonically decreasing-with-height absorptive bandwidth. It also means that there is a MAJOR change in atmospheric absorptivity/emissivity with simple high and low pressure centers as they move around, as well as a modulation of the size of the emission-wing “hole”……”””””
I have many times described this exact process, as it relates to the isotropic emission of LWIR radiation at any layer in the atmosphere.
We expect that half of such radiation goes up, and half goes down. BUT, the upward radiation encounters a COLDER and LESS DENSE higher atmosphere layer, with NARROWER spectral absorption lines; while the downward radiation encounters a HOTTER and DENSER lower atmosphere with BROADER spectral absorption lines.
So this favors the escape route to space, over the downward return to the surface, where re-absorption becomes increasingly probable. NO it doesn’t stop the downward radiation from reaching the surface; but each absorption and re-emission event launches a new isotropic 50-50 split.
This argues that atmospheric warming, whether by escaping LWIR radiation, or incident solar spectrum shorter wave radiation absorbed by GHG such as H2O, O3 or CO2, must result in more than 50% escaping to space, and less than 50% eventually returning to the surface (as “downward” or “back” radiation), which of course some people try to argue “doesn’t exist” or is “impossible”. It happens.
Graham W says:
May 28, 2014 at 5:31 pm
There seems to be a contradiction here, first you say the lifetime of the excited state is so long that a CO2 molecule passes its energy to surrounding molecules and its practically never re-emitted. Then at the end of the quote you say that when a CO2 molecule is excited it “radiates energy away” and this happens “periodically”.
As far as I remember, the absorbing and emitting CO2 molecule are in general not the same molecule. When a 15 micron wavelength photon is absorbed most CO2 molecules hit another molecule (of any kind) and redistribute their energy before the molecule is emitting the 15 micron photon again. What we call temperature is the average vibrational energy of all present molecules: that is some contain more vibrational energy than others. If one of the high energy O2 or N2 or… hits a CO2 molecule, the redistributed energy can be high enough to get the CO2 molecule to emit a 15 micron photon…
“If one of the high energy O2 or N2 or… hits a CO2 molecule, the redistributed energy can be high enough to get the CO2 molecule to emit a 15 micron photon…”
Thanks for your response. However, if:
“The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas”
Then surely that means when the high energy O2 or N2 molecule hits the CO2 molecule in your example, the energy goes into inducing an excited state in the CO2 molecule. Because this state is longer than the mean free time between collisions, then once more the CO2 molecule does not emit a 15 micron photon. The energy just gets passed on again to another molecule which it collides with.
So CO2 will almost never emit a photon unless the atmospheric pressure is such that the mean free time between collisions is longer than the lifetime of the excited state (i.e. higher up in the atmosphere).
A forcing of the magnitude of CO2 must be a farce.
The lack of warming in the cited time period has nothing to do with a change of atmospheric CO2 being ineffective at changing global temperature. It has to do with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation peaking out early in the cited time period, and mostly declining during this period.
This is related to most advocates of the existence of manmade global warming exaggerating it. They like to blame CO2 increase alone for the increase in global temperature from the early 1970s to the 2004-2005 peak of smoothed global temperature, while a significant part of that increase was from the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation being in their warming phases.
I think the WMO should follow the old adage, “it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
See: http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0411.pdf
========
wow!! wow,wow,wow,wow!!
“This indicates that the radiative forcing variables used to simulate the GCM have explanatory
information about observed surface temperature that is not present in the GCM simulation for
global surface temperature”
“None of the GCM’s have explanatory power for observed temperature additional to that provided by the radiative forcing variables that are used to simulate the GCM.”
In other words, the variables themselves have better predictive power than the GCM’s. None of the GCM’s add any information that is not already in the variables.
In other words, a simple model will outperform the GCM’s, because the GCM’s are removing information. The GCM’s add no information.
Thus the billions of dollars spent on super computer simulations are simply a waste of money as far as predicting the future climate. One could simply make a simple model of the input parameters and arrive at a more accurate prediction of future climate than that provided by the climate models..
This confirms what Willis posted awhile back, that the climate models can all be reduced to a simple “black box” equation.
John Finn:
You are another theoretician who ignores observations and is stuck on theory. The record shows no warming the last seventeen years, and you vaguely refer to the “warming effects “. Your claim that ghg forcing has increased is presumably based on theory, because you can give no observational support to this assertion.
The statement that there has been warming these past seventeen years is false and is apparently made for propaganda reasons, not for scientific discussion.
Anthony called out Nick for his support of this blatant propaganda. If you call yourself a skeptic, then please do not provide support to alarmist propaganda.
Graham W says:
May 29, 2014 at 5:24 am
I think that it is a matter of probability (but RGB may give a much better answer…). Even if there is only a 1% chance of re-emitting instead of redistribution of the absorbed energy, that is enough to have the energy lost to space at the end of the many collisions that occur in the atmosphere.
ferdberple says:
May 29, 2014 at 7:51 am
In other words, the variables themselves have better predictive power than the GCM’s. None of the GCM’s add any information that is not already in the variables.
Indeed a simple spreadheet gives the same or better information than the multi-million dollar GCM’s…
Smart guys like Willis did come to the same conclusion.
Not a surprise that Kaufmann (not a skeptic at all) didn’t find an editor willing to publish his work…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 29, 2014 at 9:15 am
Not a surprise that Kaufmann (not a skeptic at all) didn’t find an editor willing to publish his work…
=================
yet, from a quick look the mathematics is sound in its approach. and it is certainly significant in its contribution to new knowledge.
the primary suspicion is that the results would threaten the livelihood of a number of well funded and well established scientists and laboratories. people tend to react violently when their livelihoods are threatened.