# What an Engineer Finds Amazing About the Claims of Arctic and Antarctic Melting

Guest opinion by Ronald D Voisin

It’s just amazing how we as a society can let global group-think ideas have fantastically large continued public traction when direct scientific observation utterly refutes the very basis of the ideas.  Can not the alarmist scientific folks (I’m thinking here of Mann, Alley, Schmidt, Hansen, etc.) be just a little bit honest about what is actually going on?

Sea level rise is widely reported every single day as an imminent man-made climatic disaster.  Portions of Greenland melt, and portions of Antarctica melt. are presented as proof-positive that human burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to overly warm and therefore causing these melts…which will lead to coastal inundation…and we must therefore change our ways at any cost.

However, it just so happens that these same portions of Greenland and Antarctica melt are now known to be situated over highly active geothermal sites…and that 100% of the observed melt is easily and readily attributable to current enhanced geothermal heat release.

91 UNDERWATER VOLCANOES ANTARCTICA

Now, exactly why it is that that enhanced geothermal heat release is happening just now, is unknown.  But it surely has nothing to do with human consumption of fossil fuels. Can it actually be argued that this misrepresentation of cause-and-effect is somehow, nonetheless, in the public interest?

An intellectually honest, potentially wrong and disprovable, but likely meritful answer, as to why geothermal heat release might be currently enhanced, can be found here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/09/an-engineers-explanation-of-climate-change

Ronald D Voisin is a retired engineer.  He spent 27 years in the Semiconductor Lithography Equipment industry mostly in California’s Silicon Valley.  Since retiring in 2007, he has made a hobby of studying climate change.  Ron received a SEE degree from the Univ. of Michigan – Ann Arbor in 1978 and has held various management positions at both established semiconductor equipment companies and start-ups he helped initiate.  Ron has authored/co-authored 31 patent applications, 27 of which have issued.

UPDATE: This graph from David Middleton really tells the story about Greenland:

.

Subscribe
Notify of
Tom Halla

Geothermal influences just don’t fit the narrrative.

I’m waiting for a report to prove that
global warming CAUSES underseas volcanoes!

jorgekafkazar

That paper will be out any day now. It will be worse than we thought and will involve the word ‘robust.’ Hint: models and shonky statistical methods will be involved.

Gil

Yes, and it will claim to generate additional tantalizing questions that will require more grant money for further study.

John Harmsworth

And when you ask for the data they will tell you they dropped it in the volcano!

Mike

Yes and the words impact and transition. Don’t forget those!

noaaprogrammer

You left out “sustainable.”

Alan Tomalty

Any time I hear the word “sustainable” I ask the speaker what his/her defintion is. When they say the usual idea that we will run out of the resource, I tell them that the supply and demand price curves will always work their magic. You cannot run out of a commodity because the price will soar and people will have to stop using it because of the high cost. New alternatives are always found . If they say population will become too large, I point to the World Bank projections of a maximum number of 11.2 billion based on the downward trend of the % increase since 1960. Advanced societies with family planning dont have many babies. Most developed nations are far below the replacement rate of 2.1 So in the end the only valid meaning that sustainable has is in the area of pollution. There are 5 trillion pieces of plastic in our oceans and nano technology threatens our garbage dumps and eventually our water systems. Non air pollution is what we should be concerned about; not CO2.

Ben Vorlich

Anyone who has researched their family tree becomes aware of how quickly family size reduces once infant mortality rates fall to modern Western levels. Once 90+% of children survive then the next generation have 4 to 6 children compared with the 10+ of their parents generation. This reduction in family size continues to fall to 0,1,2 or 3 for subsequent generations. Even in countries were religion would make you think otherwise.

Felix

“Demographic transition” has been recognized for at least a decade.

Culture can however short circuit the process, as has happened in much of the Islamic world, due to lack of freedom for women.

That is becoming the real tragedy of climate change alarm-ism. Money and effort wasted on a non-problem while the real problems get pushed to a back burner.

TruthSeeker

Don’t forget that favorite big word, ‘Anthropogenic’!

son of mulder

Or the removal of oil, gas and coal has caused a subtle perturbation of the earth’s crust thus unleashing Vulcan’s terror….I think not.

Joe Wagner

I remember seeing a “CO2 causes volcanoes” paper posted on here some time ago. I admit the title was such Compost Fodder I didn’t bother reading it or even remembering when it was posted.

According to ‘esteemed’ taxpayer funded climate ‘scientists’, carbon dioxide indeed has the power to summon deadly Volcanoes!
https://climatism.blog/2018/05/12/claim-climate-change-could-trigger-volcanic-eruptions-across-the-world-2/

MarkW

Didn’t Al Gore once claim that global warming is making the rocks softer?

ozspeaksup

It’s possible to link temperature changes to sea level changes. And it’s possible to link sea level change and isostatic movements to the pressure field surrounding a magma chamber. This means it’s possible that as a continental ice mass causes a continent to drop, and sea level drops over 100 meters, subsea. volcanism will increase. On the other hand, a warmer climate melts ice caps, raises sea level, and this ought to suppress magma reaching the surface until the chamber pressure rises. I believe the effect will be short lived.

mellyrn

https://www.rt.com/usa/429588-volcano-study-mass-extinction/

The article begins, “Devastating volcanic eruptions, caused by excess carbon in the atmosphere. . . .”

To be fair, the study described by the article does not appear to make that claim, and it’s even possible that the article meant to begin the other way round, as something like “Excess carbon dioxide, caused by devastating volcanic eruptions . . . ” would go better with the actual text. If so, one can only hope they are embarrassed.

Peppykiwi

Hard to tax volcanoes!

I agree they don’t fit the mantra.

However, more importantly using incorrect images of Antarctica is not good.

As a New Zealander I must object to the top image that shows a huge Antarctica with a miniscule NZ below it. In fact NZ is about the same size as the West Antarctic Peninsula.

I was polite and didn’t object when it was used in an earlier post… but we all have our limits!

Was the map maybe produced/posted by an Australian? Or is that just another conspiracy theory?

whiten

No conspiracy, Alastair .
This error will immediately be corrected, once NZ joins EU as a member state.
After Aus and Canada, of course. 🙂

cheers

donb

Agree. Heat flow data were recently reported for some areas under West Antarctica where melting glaciers are located. The values were only several times average crustal het flow, which is mostly less than 0.1 watt per square-meter. That is not capable of melting much ice.

steven mosher

yup

Alan Tomalty

Well the surface temperatures in 97% of the land base of Antarctica are not capable of melting any ice any of the time

Robert B

Maybe a bit late but a strong current is more important than a fraction of a degree warming.

steven mosher

Gary Pearse

Steve

Is 2500m. Empty, yes it is, no it isnt arguments about ice melt on Antarctica are silly and unnecessary. ‘Warming’ here is still well below zero. This is precisely why a warming of 2C globally wont show much in places people live – dont forget your polar regions get most of it through T “enhancement”. The tropics get zero increase. Moreover, with models running 300% too warm, We wont get 1.5C global increase even if we tried.

The real problem is that the lawyers cannot tell the difference between or the similarity of technical education of a scientist and an engineer. To them the ‘scientists’ are ‘experts in the field of ‘science’ and engineers are just some sort of peasant who gets their hands dirty helping to make money for their (lawyer’s) clients/political supporters.

That is not just a rhetorical potshot at lawyers and political ‘scientists’ who dominate the political class but an accurate reflection on their state of technical ignorance such that they simply do not even comprehend the technical aspect of engineering education and the great overlap with that required for the physical sciences. They actually have no objective basis by which they can seek out genuinely expert advice.

texasjimbrock

As an old guy with a BSChE degree (as well as a JD), I agree totally. Most people do not know that scientists often come up with off-the-chart theories just to explore unknown territory. Engineers are much more circumspect, lest boilers explode and bridges fall down.

jorgekafkazar

Exactly. Publish or perish requires a greater stream of new stuff than can be generated, so academics have to deny the reality of some of the old stuff in order to publish something.

OTOH, a novel way to construct a bridge was recently utilized by a bridge design company and selected for its aesthetics by Florida Intl. University as “a gleaming testament to FIU’s lofty institutional aspirations.” A second bidder’s more conventional design was rejected as “banal” by the university.

Give me banal every time.

Richard of NZ

I’m sure the second bidder would be beaming with delight except for the minor problem of dead people and destroyed reputations.

p.s. beam theory is (was?) used for bridge engineering.

rocketscientist

I an am MIT educated engineer, with some gifted children. My daughter is an architect (USC) but has advanced math skills. When she was studying beam theory she was having some difficulty remembering the formulas for shear moment and bending, until I pointed out they are differentials/integrals of each other and this is where her calculus would be handy. She finished her assignments well ahead of schedule, and when her architecture professor asked at the next session if any students were having difficulty with the assignments as several had complained. She said they were easy if you understood the calculus behind them, to which her professors replied there’s no calculus involved in architecture.

Phaedrus

How many times have I heard that rhetoric from the knowledgeable!

steven mosher

Pop Piasa

You really are the Homer Simpson of English scholars, Mosh. Gotta hand it to ya mate!

Youv’e reached your very own stage of enlightenment Mosh. Well done. How old are you?

steven mosher

talk to us about saftey factors.

DonM

Be more specific … what do you want to know?

There’s benefit and there’s cost. Experience and analysis are used for balance of each, but the true benefit and true cost can never be known.

For example, your uncle, doubling up on condoms may have saved him some heartache, but then world may have then been bereft of your witticisms.

Well Mosh, there are safety factors and there are general load factors, there are dynamic load factors and service load factors as well as return periods for environmentral loads which in reality are a statistical load factors and over the top of that there are a range of quality assurance considerations such as material strength and quality certifications, similar for joining technologies (welding, bolting and other fasteningsetc etc etc) not to miention fire risk, corrosion risk, vibration considerations and so on all of which is about risk management so people don’t die.

Where are the equivalents in ‘science’?

Pal review??

LOL

Kalifornia Kook

As a retired engineer (with a physics degree), I’m biased. But I still gave that a +1. Engineers make it real. Scientists never have to explain to a customer why a bridge failed, a plane crashed, or why a Tesla ran into the rear end of a semi. When scientists screw up, a few other scientists ask why. When an engineer screws up, people are likely to get hurt or die. Engineers get sued.

Enginer

My wife has chidded the AIChE for the in-activity of its memebership on many technical issues. Rightly so.
Like “scientists,” Engineers are trained to seperate out often-conflicting explanations for natural phenomenon and act accordingly. However, for most engineers, peer acceptance is not as significant as actually solving problems and saving or making money.
My money is on the cost-benefit siding with adaptation instead of betting on the likelyhood that solar variation trumps CO2 increase.

Engineer:
I think engineers are just not that interested
in the climate change fiction, and fairy tales,
that are so exciting for most leftists,
for the same reason that they don’t read comic books!

rocketscientist

We tend not to tolerate fools gladly.

In our game fools kill people en masse. We don’t tolerate them at all.

I don’t think climate change is fiction. Nor do I think the greenhouse effect is fiction. I’m more focused on the actual physics, how it works within the atmosphere, the feedbacks, and the flaws I see in the IPCC structure, the way they work, and their models. There’s a lot that’s wrong even if one thinks the basic theory is more or less right.

TruthSeeker

The driving force is not climate. That’s just a smokescreen.
The real driving force is overarching government control of people via taxation, wealth redistribution, and controlling their energy use. The true goal is destroying free enterprise and replacing it with socialism. Every now and then the UN-IPCC bureaucrats slip up and admit this.

Robertvd

1984 Big Government

Graemethecat

Indeed. Engineers know full well that there is a real, tangible physical world out there which is utterly indifferent to Man’s words and desires. Lawyers believe that words and desires dictate reality.

michael hart

Actually, I have a bit more faith in lawyers, or competent ones at least.
In a court of law, under oath, a good lawyer should be able to get even the bestest of scientists to admit just how much of science actually boils down to subjective interpretation. As in “Justify to the court, if you please, just why you think surface temperature measurements are more to be regarded than satellite temperature measurements. (Or vice versa).”

A lot of lay persons might be unpleasantly surprised by the replies where honesty is required under sanction of law.

michael hart

To qualify, I don’t necessarily have more faith in lawyers than Engineers (far from it), but I do have faith in good ones to drag out some admissions from scientists which they would not be so honest about when they think they are just leading some media folks or politicians along like the Pied-piper.

Kalifornia Kook

Most engineers have to prove their designs will work. They have to build prototypes. They have to show they’ve gotten it right in the past. I tend to trust those who have prototypes that IO can examine, collect data that I can review, run my own analysis against.
in a court of law, you’re only allowed to take into account testimony. If it goes against your training or common sense, you’re supposed to ignore that, do no more analysis.
How can one determine proper conclusions when facts are so carefully metered?

I have an engineering degree from a good university and a science degree from a word class university, but I chose to earn living in engineering. Having experienced both I found in the field of science you can make string of errors, no matter you keep rewriting till it looks right. On the other hand in the engineering business if you are lucky one of two errors may be tolerated depending on the damage done, else you are out with a ruined reputation.

EW3

Had an electricity teacher at Brooklyn Tech in 1968 who would drop your grade for a lab report from an A to a B for a spelling error. B to C for a 2nd spelling error.

Will let you imagine what he did to your grade for math errors.

He simply explained, if you build a bridge or build a dam, errors can be costly even deadly.

MarkW

How do you teach electricity?

jhborn

As a lawyer who worked with a great many engineers over the years, I hold them in high regard as a group; some of the smartest people I’ve known were engineers. And I agree that the public in general has only a vague idea of what disciplines engineers master. (From what little I’ve seen, most “rocket science” is really engineering.)

Just like us lawyers, though, engineers don’t always stay in their lanes. I was recently reminded of a WUWT post about climate feedback by an electrical engineer. Although electrical engineers tended in my experience to be the group most knowledgeable about feedback, the one who wrote that piece completely blew it in trying to apply feedback to climate. And he proved completely impervious to correction.

Conclusion: for the information consumer, credentials are of limited value. That’s just as true of engineers as it is of scientists—or lawyers.

Actually have to agree with you there having done quite a bit of ‘expert’ witness work over the years and seen what I call ‘rent an expert’ dribble utter crap for ‘the other side’. Its the zealots and whores who are the problem. Those who come to the matter with an agenda other than just their professional duty.

In my eqperience good lawyers faced with robust expert evidence contrary to their client’s position will try and mitigate their client’s loss and settle (while putting up a robust defence etc)

And for theologists–example Al G.

bahamamike

jhborn..
Lawyers deal with man made laws which can be repealed and/or replaced. We hapless engineers are obliged to work with the Laws of physics, Thermodynamics, Young’s Modulus, Avagadro etc. which are immutable alas!
Imagine the possibilities if we could repeal the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics… perpetual motion.. for a start.. we could all have everything we wanted and for FREE.
Regards

Phil.

My first experience with feedback was with Chemical engineers particularly with regard to reactor engineering (part of my PhD thesis) Great book was by Rutherford Aris.

Ian Macdonald

Not quite. Science involves two aspects; theoretical predictions, usually based on mathematics, and empirical observation or experiment. Both are necessary to do valid science.

Engineering is the application of science to commercial projects, and it too involves both theory and practice. The difference is that the engineer has a more direct objective, whereas the scientist is concerned with knowledge itself.

The problem you mention arises when scientists simply start parroting textbooks without having any understanding. In fact what they are doing then is not science, it is something more akin to religion. This is less of a problem in the engineering sector, because an engineer who did that would be faced with a string of embarrassing and costly failures. The scientist, not so much.

I have been a member of committees which had oversight over research and development budgets, what I saw being proposed for research programs involved acquiring knowledge we could use to make more money. I think what we did in engineering research was similar to what biomedical labs do to find better drugs.

Doug S

Excellent point Ronald. My question is, where and how is this geothermal activity expressed in the various computer models? I’d like Dr. Mann or Dr. Schmidt to at least give us a thumb nail sketch as to how they included this into their projections of ice loss and SLR.

Sara

They didn’t include geothermal because it is not a steady state occurrence. Breathing, which produces CO2, is a steady state occurrence, and therefore, they find it useful for their models.

John Shotsky

The IPCC’s charter is to categorize HUMAN CAUSED climate change. Natural climate change is not part of their charter, thus the focus on CO2 that is human generated. You can read their charter, if you search hard enough for it. It is laughable…if CO2 does NOT cause climate change, the IPCC has absolutely no charter left.

As far as I know detailed mapping of geothermal heat flow isn’t included in reanalysis programs which are used to estimate ocean energy content. I would love to see this changed to see if it introduces changes in local ocean circulation, mixing and heat flow.

Latitude

The data is always hiding somewhere that it can only be modeled…

First they say the ice will melt at the bottom..and it will all slide off
..then they say it’s losing mass because of global warming..when the temp is below 0

Felix

“Imminent”.

The spelling Nazi.

HotScot

British US

centre center
fibre fiber
litre liter
tyre tire
colour color

The spelling Fuhrer.

🙂

HotScot

Pity I know nothing about HTML!

Smart Rock

you mean führer?

Google “extended ascii codes” to find out how to do exotic characters (must have numeric keypad with numlock on)

It has symbols and superscripts so we can write ±273°K and 1341W/m² but it won’t do subscripts so we still have to write CO2 and H2O

Alternatively, write in Word and copy and paste into WordPress – seems to work most of the time – but still won’t do subscripts

former Scot

“it won’t do subscripts so we still have to write CO2 and H2O”
CO₂, H₂O?
Unicode.

steven mosher

thanks nick. none of these engineers could figure it out.

Monna M

Unnecessary and snotty, Steve.

Clyde Spencer

Those twos look to me like smaller font, not actual subscripts.

And Canuckistan

Ed Zuiderwijk

Ach so!

Javier

Heat doesn’t have a tag of origin, so it is subject to interpretation.

Jeff Alberts

Again, failure to study history. Sea level is always a give and take. If Greenland loses all its ice, a whole new continent would be open for habitation, while existing continents might lose a little around the edges.

Then, in the distant future (hundreds or thousands of years), when all the skyscrapers on Greenland and northern Canadia are being crushed by advancing glaciers, it will be blamed on humans, by people with short attention spans. It’s the same situation we’re now in with SLR. Used to be a lot higher during the Holocene Climate optimum, then gradually dropped, and we kept building along the shorelines, cuz it’s purdy.

Now SLR is slowly rising, again, as is its wont, and its being blamed on humans by people with short attention spans. The beat goes on.

HotScot

Jeff

Knocking on an open door here.

Modern society grasped the wrong end of the King Canute stick.

Alley

“Lastly, let me make an obvious prediction predicated on the prediction that the Earth has recently begun to cool and assuming that some appreciable level of cooling (0.1-0.3 degree C) takes place over the next several years.

Atmospheric CO2 is going to spike hard in the coming years. And before it stops spiking it will likely attain an annual contribution level appreciably larger than the then-current anthropogenic emission.”

That was four years ago. Where is the obvious cooling?

goldminor

There certainly is no sign of obvious warming in the sat record. CO2 must be on holiday.

Alley

Maybe you’d want to look at this graph. Obvious warming. CO2 definitely not on holiday.

goldminor

You linked the same graph which is posted just above. So what is your point? Over the course of that sat record the atmosphere has gained around 74 ppm of CO2, a bit over half of the 122 ppm gain over the last 160+ years. Now some portion of that 0.5 C temp gain over the last 40 years is natural.

That doesn’t say much for the warming ability of CO2 when record amounts of CO2 have been entering into the system every year over the last 40 years. So no obvious warming caused by CO2, or it would be reflected in the above graph.

Alley

“You linked the same graph which is posted just above.”

Exactly. My point is that it shows a warming planet. Why someone would use it to show otherwise is hilarious.

fonzie

YOU gave a time frame of the last “four years” which is why someone would use it to show otherwise (hilarious)…

Alley

No, that was Ronald D Voisin that I quoted.

HE have a timeframe of four years, which is why people re laughing at him.

MarkW

You have to remember, to a troll, only those time frames that give the results he wants to see are legitimate.

Alley

One must remember that a denier’s explanation is always based on a cherry pick that gives the results they wanted. The author used a few years, and lost the bet.

Jeff Alberts

“One must remember that a denier’s explanation is always based on a cherry pick that gives the results they wanted. The author used a few years, and lost the bet.”

And Mann didn’t cherry pick his bristlecone pines, then grossly overweight them in order to obtain a hockey stick. No sirreee!

And Briffa didn’t cherry pick Yad06, no sirree!

Alley

No matter the proxy leading to the ground station record, there is a hockey stick.

YESSIREE!

MarkW

Not surprising since the algorithm was designed to create hockey sticks, even from random data.

MarkW

Fascinating how only the other side cherry picks.
For example, you are only interested in the small fraction of the temperature record that shows what you want to believe.

Steven Fraser

Hmmm, lessee… The May, 2014 Global lower troposphere anomaly was .24. May, 2018 value was .18 for the same metric.

Question: Where is the C02 warming over those 4 years?

Alley

Signed, other people who think cherry picking is the way to go.

Richard M

Alley, I’ve noticed a lot of denial in your comments. Better get used to it.

Richard M

It’s even worse that that.

May 2001 .20 C
May 2002 .25 C
May 2003 .21 C

Arguably no warming this century.

DW Rice

Richard M

“May 2001 .20 C
May 2002 .25 C
May 2003 .21 C

Arguably no warming this century.”
___________________________

Here are ALL the global May temperatures published by UAH TLT v6.0 since 2001, with trend:-

The trend shows a warming rate for May of +0.114 C/dec; a total warming of of +0.2C this century.

Richard M

DW Rice, trends are not that indicative of reality when they are influenced by outliers such as the recent El Nino. Sorry if you failed freshman math.

Gary Pearse

Rice .144/ decade is 1.44 C per Century! Hey this is just pre progressive post normal arithmetic.

Alley

Exactly! This is what we see from deniers. A listing of a few years, and sometimes something so stupid as a single month in one year to the same month in another.

When will they realize two things: use the entire earth (not a single location) and compare at least decades.

Jeff Alberts

Alley, do you know what intensive properties are? Do you know why a representation of a global temperature is a complete fantasy?

Alley

I see that you don’t believe in a human body temperature either. It is impossible to have an “average” body temp, and more to the point, impossible to know if the body is increasing in temp.

It’s why 1 out of 100 doctors tell you you don’t have a fever when you take your temp at two locations, because the body is so complex. Best to wait until you have 10,000 locations to see if that infection is the cause.

syccomputing

“I see that you don’t believe in a human body temperature either.”

Alley, you’ve made another logical error, i.e., the False Equivalence fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The human body is a non-chaotic (i.e., “closed”?) system, therefore, it has characteristics that are common to all humans and generally measurable.

The climate system is not the same type of system, as the IPCC documentation says:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ”

http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

The two systems cannot be considered comparable.

MarkW

Fascinating how the troll demands that anyone who looks at any portion of the temperature record that doesn’t show what it wants to believe is guilty of cherry picking. Even though he is doing just that.
It’s also fascinating how any method of looking at the data that doesn’t show what it wants to believe is by definition not legitimate.

Ed Zuiderwijk

Alan Tomalty

Can we at least agree that since UAH has learned their lesson of correcting for satellite drift, from now on we can all trust the UAH figures? It is certainly the only temperature record that we skeptics trust and since you alarmists are using it to bolster your global warming trends, I would expect that within the next 5 years when the UAH temperature trend goes down , that you alarmists won’t turn around and start calling the UAH results garbage.

Alley

“Can we at least agree that since UAH has learned their lesson of correcting for satellite drift, from now on we can all trust the UAH figures?”

YES!! That is why the number of people who said the earth isn’t warming has dropped off. UAH agrees with ground stations, and that’s what science does.

It is certainly not the only record we scientists trust. Deniers took a long while to come to their senses. Now most finally (finally) agree that adjustments are necessary.

A decade ago we heard about how scientists would be eating crow when the temps went down. Record warm years should have put a stop to that nonsense.

They are probably the very same people who today say that temps will go down next decade. See you in 10!

Latitude

Alley..since you are a “we scientists”…
..can you please explain how using the best science…the models so spectacularly failed?

Alley

The models from IPCC, including the first, and pretty much spot on.

Did you miss these simple facts? The models did a GREAT job. How else do you explain that the two of the past three years are ABOVE the center line of the model projections?

Answer: You can’t. Someone told you they failed, you believed them without any simple research. Will take you 5 minutes.

Latitude

Post a link to the graph that shows that……

Alley

No problem! Took me one Google search, and here is the first hit.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Intersting. Those are pretty amazing. These guys really had a lot of work at their fingertips, and did a great job.

Latitude

AMS Journals online…
January 2017
Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data

when the most recent versions of satellite datasets are used, the previously claimed ratio of three between simulated and observed near-global TMT trends is reduced to approximately 1.7.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1

Alley sez:

“The models from IPCC, including the first, and pretty much spot on.”

You should wear a climate T-shirt that says:
“I Am Clueless”.

Alley

Richard needs a shirt that says “I mock people who know more than me.”

MarkW

Alley needs a tee-shirt that says “Everything I know is wrong”.

fonzie
fonzie

https://m.imgur.com/BcodSWC

~graph courtesy of Javier (and promising to update soon)

Two of the past three years were impacted by the very strong 2016 El. Niño event. The temperature anomaly has dropped 0.7 deg C since the 2016 peak. A proper model comparison would involve rerunning the models with actual atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations, and by painting the grid in the Tropical pacific with the ENSO values from 2007 to 2017. But it seems nobody wants to check to see if the models even project well for 10 years.

“rerunning the models with actual atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations”
People have very strange ideas on how GCMs work. You can’t do that. You can prescribe initial values and boundary fluxes, and even distributed sources, but a GCM is about fluid transport with mass conservation. And you can’t “paint the grid”. AOGCMs model both air and ocean, with various fluxes at the surface which depend on the evolution in both domains. You can’t just “paint” stuff in.

It’s true that there are projects to develop decadal prediction, using recent initialization, rather than winding back, as GCMs usually do. It’s hard, and I don’t think progress is yet that good.

fonzie

And yet, UAH shows no net warming in the last fifteen years…

No. Trend since 2003 is about 1.2°C/Century, about the same as trend since 1979.

Latitude

Which was about the same as the previous trend…that no one can explain

Previous trend? In the lower troposphere? Tell us more.

Latitude

wasn’t there a same trend from around 1900 to 1940? yeah, I know there were no satellites…..but warmest claim that same temp history too

fonzie

Nick, i said NET warming. Besides, trend lines are worthless when dealing with transient events. Temps could dip below the anomaly of the pause and yet trend lines would indicate warming. (skeptics were making the same dopey argument that you’re making back in ’08 with the la nina cooling)…

“Besides, trend lines are worthless when dealing with transient events.”
So how can you say that net warming is zero?

Jeff Alberts

“So how can you say that net warming is zero?”

Net warming since when? Using 30 years is a cop out. Let’s go back 1000, 2000, 7000…

fonzie

i can say it because the earth is no warmer than it was fifteen years ago…

Richard M

Come on, Nick. Using ENSO to create a trend is anti-science nonsense. Is that all you’ve got?

I didn’t choose the interval. The claim was zero warming in the last fifteen years. No, the warming (UAH V6) was 1.2 °C/century. If you don’t like the presence of El Nino, cherry-pick a different interval.

Alley

And yet, UAH shows the same warming in the past 15 years, the same as ground stations.

Latitude

I thought you were only concerned about the last 2-3 years?
UAH does show the same…flat for a decade…the a minute warming on the tag end
Did you miss the part where the models missed that decade?
…models astronomical failure

Alley

“I thought you were only concerned about the last 2-3 years?”

Latitude

obviously….because you keep quoting it
…and accusing other people of cherry picking

Alley

YES! The author quotes three years. Why can’t I quote the author?

Richard M

Alley, UAH shows no trend if you remove the effects of ENSO. I do get a chuckle out of people who claim to be scientists and who clearly doesn’t understand basic math.

May 2018 .18 C

May 2001 .20 C
May 2002 .25 C
May 2003 .21 C

steven mosher

UAH does not have a great track record.
you cant even get the current code for their modelling of temperature. and they dont report structural uncertainty. bad.

MarkW

Funny how this is only bad when other people do it.

Funny how this is only bad when other people do it.

Sunsettommy

The one where they project a .30C / decade warming rate, while the chart YOU linked to shows about half that. That means it is mostly a natural warming rate with very little CO2 effect to brag about.

You need to do some homework if you want to stop being ignorant of something the IPCC first published this temperature rate in 1990, TWENTY EIGHT years ago!

Alley

Natural warming? What is causing the warming? It’s certainly not natural. If only natural, we would be slightly cooling.

Hold on to the word natural.

fonzie

High solar activity correlates with warming, low solar activity correlates with cooling. Solar activity has been high in recent decades hence (natural) warming…

(alley kat, whate’er it is that yer smokin’ there, pass it o’er to me… ☺️)

Alley

“Solar activity has been high in recent decades hence (natural) warming…”

Oh my. Since when did low solar activity (pretty low in the past few decades) suddenly become high? Up is down.

fonzie

Folks, this guy is a LIAR. We had high solar activity all the way up to THIS decade. (either that or he’s too stoned to read a graph)…

Sunsettommy

it is clear you have no argument, just noise.

You completely ignored the Per Decade warming rate projection from the IPCC.

You are indeed ignorant, and you CHOSE to be that way.

Jeff Alberts

“Natural warming? What is causing the warming? It’s certainly not natural. If only natural, we would be slightly cooling.”

It was naturally warmer in the past during this interglacial, therefore we have no reason to believe the modest warming of the lat 150 years isn’t natural. You need to prove otherwise.

MarkW

Alley, What caused the warming of 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000, and 20000 years ago.
The temperatures during those times were all warmer than today, Sometimes much warmer?

If you can’t specifiy a cause, how can you be so certain that it is impossible for the same factors to be acting now?

“The one where they project a .30C / decade warming rate”
OK, show that please, and show what they actually do say. I suspect you, like many, are stuck on the 1990 FAR, where they projected an average of 0.30°C/decade over the next century, at the surface. Not for the next two decades in the troposphere. And, of course, that was in the early days of GCMs. The IPCC has a lot more up-to-date analysis, but you would never think of referring to that.

Latitude

ok…I got it…..they didn’t know what they were talking about then
…but they do now

In fact, in 1990, they said 0.3°C/decade, range 0.2 to 0.5, in their then scenario A. 0.2°C/decade with Scenario B, 0.1 with scenarios C and D (all with ranges). It’s true that as GCMs developed, that was able to be improved. That’s why people work on this stuff.

Latitude

well, if they would quit claiming accuracy every time…only for it to change dramatically in the future….they wouldn’t have this credibility problem

It’s at the point, only some idiot would believe them now……..

“only for it to change dramatically in the future”
It hasn’t changed dramatically in the future. People just don’t seem interested in what they actually said. There were scenarios, time intervals (a century), and a range of expected values. And nothing since is outside the range they quoted.

Alley

I see that no cherry-picker would touch the IPCC projections vs where were are today.

There is a reason for that. The past few years actually exceeded the center line.

Sunsettommy

Again you offer NOTHING , but noise.

Try posting something with actual evidence/numbers…..

John F Pittman

In fact Nick, AR4 stated that 0.3 C/decade was expected for the next two decades. They also stated that a 0.2C minimum was already in the pipe. With BAU, approximately 0.3 C /decade would be expected for the past decade. Since the AR4 was specifically stating 2030 in terms of natural variation limits, the correct answer is yes, that the projection of 0.3C/decade has been invalidated at present. At 2030, if still invalidated, it will mean that natural variation was incorrectly minimized, or that the models’ sensitivities were to high. More importantly, it calls into question the attribution of natural versus anthropogenic and reduces the efficacy of the multiple lines of evidence.

“In fact Nick, AR4 stated that 0.3 C/decade was expected for the next two decades.”

Why is it so hard to give a quote. Or at least a specific reference. The AR4 SPM (p 12) was quite explicit:

“For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”

Sunsettommy

You left out the REST of the projection

“…Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. ”

You are pathetic.

You can’t read. They aren’t saying that it will be 0.2°C per decade, but if we do everything right, it will be 0.3°C per decade. They are saying that if we do everything right, it will be 0.1°C per decade. That is the committed warming.

In fact, of course, we did not keep all GHGs constant at year 2000 levels. So that bit doesn’t apply anyway.

Alley

“You are pathetic.”

You can always spot the non-scientist. Insults are key.

MarkW

Says the troll who has nothing but insults.

John F Pittman

It is in the AR4 chapters and supplemental material; not in SPM. In the AR4 it is in 2 chapters and if you include attribution 3 or more chapters.

If Sunsettommy is correct, then depending on the wording and attribution in SPM, the estimate stands at 0.3C/decade. That “about” has a bit of play to it. Why not quote what the actual chapters state?

I agree about the calendar decades, as far as the chapters go. They gave a summary of this for 2030 in a supplemental graph and discussion pdf version.

“It is in the AR4 chapters and supplemental material; not in SPM. In the AR4 it is in 2 chapters and if you include attribution 3 or more chapters.”
Well, for heavens sake, give a proper cite. Where?

The part in the SPM references Chap 10.3. They don’t give anything much more explicit in words, but they do show a graph (10.4). Here it is; I’ve added trend and marker lines:

The brown line is 2°C/century, and is tangent to the scenario curves at 2000.The red line is 1 °/century and is tangent to the orange constant composition curve.

steven mosher

no john. ar4… 0.2c

John Pittman

Yes. I do remember, Thanks for the reminder.

Sunsettommy

Typical Nick, who keeps getting behind the curve, try this from 2007 IPCC report:

“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. ”

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

That was ELEVEN years ago!

“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
They actually meant calendar decades, if you check with the section they refer to. But OK, for that period Jan 2008 to now, Hadcrut warmed at 0.285°C/decade.

Alley
A tenth of a degree C., or two tenths,
of warming since 1980,
is just as likely to be measurement error,
as the alternative — a small, harmless variation
of temperatures that no one would notice
unless smarmy loud leftists (like you?)
kept bellowing that the world was coming
to an end from “climate change” !

Alley

0.63°C since 1980, straight line. Definite warming.

The UAH satellite data, which has far less infilling (wild guessing) than any compilation of surface data, shows the peak warm temperature in the year 1980 is less than two tenths of a degree C. cooler than the May 2018 average.

The UAH chart is above in these comments.

You cherry-picked a low point in 1979 to come to a different conclusion.

The 1998 El Nino peak was just 0.1 degree C.
cooler than the 2015/2016 El Nino peak.

Note that EL Nino (ENSO)
heat releases
are INCLUDED
in temperature charts,
even though they are
local events, not global,
and natural events, not man made,
and of course they have nothing
to do with CO2.

I’m really surprised you didn’t
use the 2015/2016 El Nino heat peak
as the end point of your own measurement,
because then you could have said +1.3 degrees C. !

Alley

“cooler than the May 2018 average.”

CHERRY PICK!!!!!

HotScot

Alley

Excellent!

Now the northern and southern hemispheres will warm a little at night and the equatorial regions will stay largely the same.

The vast areas of Canada and Russia currently under perma frost might be released to productive agricultural land to feed a growing global population.

Well, growing in the developing world because they have limited access to electricity, just burning wood and dung which will kill 120,000,000 inhabitants (WHO*) prematurely by 2050 (32 years away) from conditions caused by burning wood and dung to cook and heat with. BTW ‘prematurely’ frequently = kids.

But that’s OK, your comfortable existence will be maintained the more you shout and wave your arms about CO2 being the enemy, restricting these countries from receiving international funds to build the very fossil fuelled power stations you and your ancestors built your prosperity on.

The world id doomed, as long as you’re doomed last.

How very effing scientific of you.

*World Health Organisation

jorgekafkazar

Can we hold you to that “See you in 10?” That will be plenty soon.

Alley

1980s: I bet the next decade will be warmer than the current.
Winner
1990s: I bet the next decade will be warmer than the current.
Winner.
2000s: I bet the next decade will be warmer than the current.
Winner. We don’t even need to complete the next few years.
2010s: I bet the next decade will be warmer than the current.

DonM

During any past or present decade: There has not been any reasonable correlation between CO2 concentration and temp.

2020’s: There will not be any reasonable correlation between CO2 and temp.

Alley

Rise in CO2, rise in temps.

Se, not so hard, is it?

MarkW

Over the last 100 years temperatures have gone up, temperatures have gone down and temperatures have held constant for decades. All while CO2 levels have risen.

Reality is a lot more complex than your mind appears to be able to handle.

MarkW

Alley is another troll that believes that absent man, nothing would ever change.
Therefor if it’s warming, that alone is proof that man has caused it.

Chris

False, that is just your projection. Scientists look at the various forcings in their analysis, it’s ludicrous to say they don’t. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

MarkW

If it’s warming, it must be caused by CO2.

Yea, you’ve repeated that whopper quite a few times. I’m almost convinced that you actually believe it.

steven mosher

except thats not the sat record. thats one data product with no reported uncertainties

Ozonebust

Alley
Ocean heat removal leaves a trend in the temperature records.

Ocean heat release alters atmospheric mass and density. It is those trends that are not being recognised and recorded currently.

When only one metric is used, (temperature) you only get one dimension. Earths systems are multi dimensional, that is my area of interest.

The trends that I am recording are all declining having peaked around 2006. Yes some little upward spikes occur, cbut understanding the cause of those spikes is important.

Ocean heat release by water vapour is volumetric.
Regards

Ian Macdonald
Bruce Cobb

“Can not the alarmist scientific folks (I’m thinking here of Mann, Alley, Schmidt, Hansen, etc.) be just a little bit honest about what is actually going on?”

Why start now?

Alley

Why are you assuming that the super majority of climate scientists AND scientists in other disciplines who have all come to the same basic conclusions are wrong, and that the few remaining scientists who keep cherry picking to show otherwise are right?

Latitude

Mostly because it no longer makes any sense………

Alley

So where is the additional warming coming from?

Latitude

I really don’t care….the only thing that would be scary..is the warmest idea that that temperature is supposed to be constant
Besides that…..no one has one single clue…our science is not there yet
….the rest of it is all lying hysterical hyperbole

Alley

“is the warmest idea that that temperature is supposed to be constant”

OK, then. That is what no scientists ever has said, but I hear it all the time on sites like these.

Latitude

That’s because we don’t believe anyone…..that has predicted nothing accurately so far……
Balls not in our court….balls in your court….prove it’s not natural

Alley

So you believe the IPCC, who have consistently done a great job!

Chris

False, the ball is not in our court. It’s in yours. You need to convince the world’s scientific organizations of your position. You don’t have to, of course, but then you’ll just be crowing about your position here on WUWT.

fonzie

(the sun)…

Alley

HA HA HA!!! The sun?

How does less solar irradiance mean more warming?

fonzie

(there hasn’t been less solar irradiance)…

fonzie

(ha ha ha)…

Anthony Banton

“(there hasn’t been less solar irradiance)…”

ha ha ha

Bruce Cobb

Why do you assume some “super majority” of scientists have come to “basic conclusions” honestly and scientifically? Oh wait, I know why – because you have guzzled the Klimate Koolade, and because you find the ideolgy to your liking.

Alley

Sorry to hear about your Koolade habit. Makes you think the super majority of scientists are all in on an elaborate hoax. You know the odds of tat happening are about 1:1,000,000,000, right?

fonzie

No, not necessarily an elaborate hoax, rather spectacular groupthink/bias/greed. (much like yourself)…

BTW, are you actually the Alley referred to in this post? (and i thought you were some lightweight troll)…

Sweet Old Bob

Bingo !

Alley

No, I wish I was that Alley.

Sara

Why? Because, Alley, they get grant money for toeing the line of “manmade CO2 is the cause of it all”.

They fail to admit or recognize that the planet has gone through many, many climate changes when humans did NOT exist, but they blaming EVERYTHING on a gas that is generated ONLY PARTLY by humans. When they stick to the line that “it’s all the fault of H. Sapiens”, they are refusing to recognize any other influences of any kind that are natural, NOT man-made, and NOT something they can control.

Alley

Is getting money from oil interests part of that equation?

HotScot

Alley

You benefit from it, but we don’t see you throwing your plastic computer out the window.

Does that make you an oil harlot?

Alley

I see. So the BEST program which was paid for by the Koch brothers is OK with you?

It was OK with me.

MarkW

When reality doesn’t support your lies, just make up more lies.

Sara

Can you read, Alley? I said GRANT money. I did not designate the source.

Furthermore, how would the oil industry benefit by funding research that wants to shut it down and put you and the rest of us OUT in the cold weather with no source of fuel for cooking or heating?

Don’t change the subject. I said GRANT money. In the USA science grants are funded by the NSF, a government agency, just as art grants are funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.

Latitude

“Furthermore, how would the oil industry benefit by funding research that wants to shut it down and put you and the rest of us OUT in the cold weather with no source of fuel for cooking or heating?”

……….THIS

Alley

They benefit because Heartland gives you people like Watts and Curry.

MarkW

Once again, the troll has run out of ideas and has to instead make up lies to attack those who refuse to worship as it does.

Jeff Alberts

“They benefit because Heartland gives you people like Watts and Curry.”

I assume you left a word or two out there. Anyway, do you have any evidence of your claim?

fonzie

(no question, alley, money talks)…

PiperPaul

Who pays *you*?

Alley

*I* pay me. Well, technically my company pays me.

Milocrabtree

You mean your Mom pays you. It’s called an allowance.

Chris

Impressive, Milo, an insult that a high school kid would be embarrassed to trot out.

milocrabtree

Your knowledge of high school thinking is awesome. We don’t get many high schoolers commenting here so your adolescent insight is quite welcome. Thanks for a different point of view.

Chris

You’re right, Milo, it’s mainly geriatrics.

milocrabtree

You sticking up for Alley is touching. Ineffective, but touching.

Chris

Better than yours, which are light on substance AND light on creativity.

milocrabtree

I’m clearly casting pearls before swine…

MarkW

Chris, we’re just dealing at a level you capable of understanding.

Chris

That is true, Mark, you are. One sentence posts with no supporting links – ever. That’s Mark’s level!

Gary Pearse

Because it is profitable “to come this conclusion, Mr Alley and hazardous to your career if you dont buy in.

Alley

Profitable would be the one who came to an opposite conclusion and proves it.

Still waiting.

Pop Piasa

Funny, the proof is in front of you in the form of miserably failed models. You can’t see that, or are you waiting for that “delayed acceleration” that the trolls here touted several years back?

Alley

Models have doen EXTREMEMLY well. How else do you get all IPCC models to be on target the last few years?

Impressive, if you’ve been paying attention.

Alan Tomalty

ha ha ha ha ha Show me 1 model that has predicted anything correctly. The only one that comes close is the Russian one.

Pop Piasa

May I also respectfully add that “conclusions” are not yet possible on this subject, which tends to get the alarmist camp much less traction among those of the general populace who are well informed on the subject. You are not helping your cause here, with all due respect.

Alley

Conclusion: Earth is warming, CO2 is the primary forcing.

Alley
Why would you care about what
government bureaucrat “scientists”
predict for the climate in 100 years,
when their predictions in the past
30 years were for triple the warming
that actually happened … and no one
predicted the flat trend from 2003
to 2015 … and no one predicted no change
in the average temperature of Antarctica
since the 1970s ?

of wrong predictions do you require
before you stop parroting the predictions

When you grow up, and gain more (some) wisdom,
you will find out that “experts” are worse at
predicting the future than laymen …
and laymen are really bad !

Alley

“when their predictions in the past
30 years were for triple the warming
that actually happened”

Um, OK. SO since their projections were very accurate, and two of the past three years were ABOVE the projections at those points, then you’re going to have to change your gut feelings.

Welcome to the science!

Sara

Wow, Alley, you ARE illiterate. You completely lack comprehension of what you just quoted.

Their predictions were wildly inaccurate, so tell me WHERE in that phrase you quoted did you get ‘VERY accurate’????

I am concerned that you quote things with no understanding. When something is quoted at 300% of the actual results, that is a vast FAILURE on the part of the forecaster.

Alley

“Their predictions were wildly inaccurate,”

You really are aliterate. All you need to do is read. I gave a link above, shows that the models did extremely well.

Read something. Stop waving your hands around telling people that they are not accurate. I proved they were, you never showed otherwise.

Sara

Alliterate? Not a bit, and certainly not in what I said, since ALLITERATE does not mean the same thing as ILLITERATE/

Alley is so busy finding ways to poke people purposelessly that there is no need to notice niggling nonsense.

That’s a little alliteration with a lot of information.

“Alliterate?”
No. Illiterate that from your memory. He said aliterate.

Alley

“ALLITERATE does not mean the same thing as ILLITERATE/”

Did you have to look that up?

No one has any idea what you just said …
including you !

MY CLIMATE BLOG FOR
people who don’t believe
a climate catastrophe is in progress,
because they have common sense:
Over 18,000 page views so far —
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Alley

I will type slower next time. Not sure what you are having a problem with.

MarkW

18K views? And you are proud of that?

Latitude

” and two of the past three years”

LOL……they totally missed the bump
and the entire precious decade they blew it!

Alley

Still warming, still at the projected rate. Only a cherry picker would be concerned about specific years.

Gee, what could be warming the earth?

fonzie

(we were, but we aren’t warming)…

Latitude

Alley> “Only a cherry picker would be concerned about specific years.”

Alley again> ” and two of the past three years were ABOVE the projections”

…and what happened in the decade before El Nino….
no model predicted that…not even close
If the models can’t predict something that obvious, they are worthless

Alley

” and two of the past three years were ABOVE the projections”

I know. I wish the author would stop making predictions about the next few years, but since he failed, he should own up to it.

HotScot

Richard Greene

Oi!

As a layman, I resent that remark. My predictions over the last 40 years have been pretty accurate i.e. eff all out the ordinary is happening climate wise.

fonzie

(because scientists have been wrong before and will be wrong again)…

commieBob

Why are you assuming that the super majority of climate scientists AND scientists in other disciplines who have all come to the same basic conclusions are wrong, …

First, we have to demonstrate that such a thing can happen. Exhibit A would be forty years of disastrously bad nutrition science. link In particular, good science was harshly suppressed.

Second, if climate science were completely solid, they wouldn’t have to resort to junk like Dr. Mann’s hockey stick to bolster it.

We find in climate science exactly the same mechanisms that beset nutrition science. For that reason I find a super majority of scientists utterly unconvincing.

Steven Mosher

“are presented as proof-positive that human burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to overly warm and therefore causing these melts…which will lead to coastal inundation…and we must therefore change our ways at any cost.”

Err no they are not presented as proof positive. Science is about evidence supporting a contingent conclusion. Physics tells us that more c02 will warm the planet. Physics also tells us that a warmer planet is likely to have less ice. Evidence. As for changing our way of life at any cost? Nope, nobody argues that.
Cutting back on c02 is not “any cost”. It is one cost. Expensive for sure.

You do better as an engineer if you dont use hyperbole.

Richard Brimage

Steven, I have seen this assertion over and over. As one with a degree in physics I can understand the roots of the assertion. However I have a question for you since I trust your expertise in the field. Does this assertion make the assumption that nothing else changes? My experience in working with a single variable and making strong conclusions is you must consider all the variables in concert.

Tom Dayton

Richard, climatologists have carefully considered the effects of many factors. A good and recent summary is an article written six months ago by Zeke Hausfather. An excellent animated graph was published by Bloomberg. A few years older is a post at SkepticalScience (read the Basic tabbed pane and then the Intermediate one). Michael Tobis explained how to properly interpret the IPCC reports’ statements on attribution. A good, brief explanation of the topic of attribution from 2010 is a post at RealClimate.

Sunsettommy

This B.S. NEEDS to stop since you over educated fellas miss the simple evidence that utterly destroys the AGW conjecture.

Why persist in the lie?

Pop Piasa

That stuff reads like the worship folder at the Model Fellowship of Mann, Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse In Carbon.You offer us circular thinking based on conjecture by folks supporting their own agendas.

HotScot

Tom Dayton

Meantime, in the real world, the only empirical manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14%.

Anything else is conjecture, or what you would call computer models.

HAS

Tom, thought this looks interesting, must read it through. Started with Hausfather and the first thing he does is produce a graph of Haustein’s global warming index against Berkeley Earth’s temp series and says:

“The combination of all radiative forcings generally matches longer-term changes in observed temperatures quite well. ….. There are also periods from 1900-1920 and 1930-1950 where some larger disagreements are evident between projected and observed warming, ….”

Since the index is created by regressing temp against forcings over the same period, I decided to give up at this point. An author that either didn’t know how the index was constructed (or worse still, did and was out to deceive), and knew so little about statistics didn’t know what a projection is.

Tom Dayton

HAS, you completely missed the point of that graph, which is to decompose the temperature trend into components explained by (correlated with) several factors known from basic physics to influence temperature. Perhaps you should take an actual statistics class instead of pretending you know statistics.

HAS

Tom, I’ve taken a few statistics classes in my time, and I sorry to say had you been one of my students you mightn’t have passed.

Tom Dayton

HAS, I’ve taught several statistics classes in my time, including graduate ones.

Teaching people how to lie with statistics is not something to be proud of.

HAS

So you’ll understand about circularity and projections being inferences out of sample then. Why defend the indefensible? Regardless of what one might say about the construction of the index (and perhaps set a critique of that as an assignment for your class), Hausfather misrepresents it in his first comment. Polemic not science.

I am sorry my little attempt to defuse your abuse passed you by. I was making a pun on the fact that ‘take’ could mean ‘teach’, and the later was the meaning I was using it in, when you were rudely implying that even attending would be outside my competence. Do you get that now?

Jeff Alberts

The fact that we’re presented with a single line purporting to be “global temperature” or “anomaly” makes it bogus from the start. You can’t average temperature readings from all over the place and expect a meaningful result. Intensive properties dude.

joelobryan

that animated graph has model derived CO2 levels based on GHG theory, not the MLO measured CO2.
They had the computer program back calculate a CO2 based on temps. The way you can know that is subsequent years in their plot have lower CO2 levels than previous years average.

A total joke. Penultimate Fake science.

Wrong. Physics tell us CO2 is a GHG. Common sense tells us that will lead to warming. But it is alarmist models that tell us the planet will overheat, leading to massive ice loss, stronger, more frequent storms, crop losses, disease migration, polar bear extinction, etc. Models are not evidence. They are, as their creators honestly state, simply scenarios of what might happen if their thousand variable model of a non-linear, chaotic system are correct. There. Fixed it for ya.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Physics tells us no such thing. Remember, an efficient IR absorber is also an efficient IR emitter.

The warmists have constructed a very complex fantasy about how CO2 causes global warming… so complex that they probably never thought anyone would catch on to the very-well-hidden violation of 2Lot (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
————————————————————
Let’s do a gedanken experiment:
—————
CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C, which makes that an extremely low-energy (long wavelength) regime. It also happens to be a relatively energy-sparse region of the blackbody curve, given that there’s not a lot of matter radiating at ~-80 C.

So which do you think is more likely:

1} That CO2 is absorbing extremely low-energy photons, increasing its vibrational quantum state (and thus its collisional radiationless transition probability… because remember, for collisional radiationless transition to have a very high probability, the molecule must be highly excited… as you can see from the UMLT monoatomic oxygen in this study…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2006JA011736
…such that it’s transferring its vibrational quantum state energy to the translational kinetic energy of other molecules…

or…

2} Other molecules with a much higher-energy (shorter wavelength) absorption spectrum absorbing photons of a higher energy level than that which CO2 can absorb, becoming vibrationally excited then transferring that energy to and via collision with CO2, which then undergoes emission relaxation by emitting a 15 micron photon (as outlined in the study I cited prior:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2006JA011736

{HINT: #2 is the correct answer.}

In arguing for their position, the warmists are essentially arguing that energy is flowing from a lower-energy to a higher-energy regime… I think you can see the problem in that, yes? It’s a very sneaky and round-about way of violating 2Lot. Energy cannot flow from a lower-energy regime to a higher-energy regime.
————————————————————

There are four forms of molecular energy:
1} Electron quantum state (quantized potential energy)
2} Vibrational state (quantized kinetic energy)
3} Rotational state (quantized kinetic energy)
4} Translational energy (unquantized kinetic energy, the only energy which we can measure as temperature)

The time-independent Schrodinger equation treats translational kinetic energy separately from electron quantum state, vibrational quantum state and rotational quantum state because translational energy is the only energy which is not quantized.

The warmists have it exactly backward.

Remember back when they claimed that CO2 would cause stratospheric warming? That was because they were claiming that CO2 was absorbing a photon, increasing its vibrational quantum state, then transferring that vibrational (kinetic) energy to other molecular constituents of the atmosphere in the form of translational energy (the only form of molecular energy which we can measure as temperature). Since that sort of energy transfer has a probability distribution which depends upon molecular abundance, pressure and excitation level, it generally only happens at certain altitudes.

The warmists were claiming it happened in the stratosphere, but empirical observation proved them wrong.

When no stratospheric warming was empirically observed (indeed, the stratosphere cooled), they then switched to claiming that CO2 would cause the stratosphere to cool (to come into line with empirical observation), but it would cause the troposphere to warm… by the very same collisional radiationless transition mechanism… but they forgot that the wide absorption spectrum of water in the troposphere precludes there being many sufficiently energetic photons in the troposphere to sufficiently excite CO2’s vibrational quantum state to make the collisional radiationless transition probability very high. And they forgot that energy cannot flow from a lower-energy to a higher-energy regime… that violates 2LoT.

In reality, the reverse happens throughout the atmosphere (the process shown in the UMLT (upper mesosphere, lower thermosphere) in the above-cited study)… other molecular constituents absorb higher-energy photons, become vibrationally excited and transfer that energy to CO2 via collisional radiationless transition, whereupon CO2 undergoes emission relaxation by emitting a 15 micron photon.

We know that CO2 is not undergoing collisional radiationless transition and thereby increasing the translational kinetic energy of other molecules because the emission spectrum for CO2 is sharply defined, not a quasi-continua:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision-induced_absorption_and_emission
“Molecular fly-by collisions take little time, something like 10^-13 s. Optical transition of collisional complexes of molecules generate spectral “lines” that are very broad – roughly five orders of magnitude broader than the most familiar “ordinary” spectral lines. The resulting spectral “lines” usually strongly overlap so that collision-induced spectral bands typically appear as continua (as opposed to the bands of often discernible lines of ordinary molecules).”

So in fact, other molecular constituents of the atmosphere absorb radiation at a region of the blackbody curve which is higher-energy and less-sparse, become vibrationally excited, collide with CO2, the CO2 becomes excited and emits a low-energy ~15-micron photon.

Given that the mean free path length for the IR emitted by CO2 increases with increasing altitude, the net vector for that emitted IR is upward.

That’s why CO2 has been shown to cause cooling throughout the atmosphere, except for a very slight amount of warming at the tropopause:

You’ll further hear warmists talking about increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration causing a widening of the ‘shoulders’ of the purported absorption band of CO2… but take a look at the image above.

You are looking downward on those ‘shoulders’, and you can see that CO2 causes cooling… so a widening of those ‘shoulders’ as CO2 atmospheric concentration increases means it’ll cause cooling at a wider band of frequencies. And as CO2 atmospheric concentration increases, you’ll see the center of that rainbow of colors labeled ‘CO2’ go toward even more extreme cooling.

This utterly destroys the entire underlying basis for CAGW. It cannot continue to exist as a reasonable hypothesis. It has been nullified.

Thus dies CAGW… in reality, CO2 causes global cooling (as has been empirically observed in several studies which you can Google for yourself if you’re so inclined… they’re all publicly available), and more of it will cause more global cooling.

So CO2 acts as a negative feedback to the completely natural warming the planet had recently experienced. That forcing has ended, the planet is now cooling, and as CO2 atmospheric concentration continues to increase, it will exacerbate the cooling.

That’s why the planet never went into runaway warming back when CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher than today, and in fact when CO2 was that high, an ice age started. That ice age lasted until the CO2 had sufficiently rock-weathered out of the atmosphere to allow warming.

Clyde Spencer

You said, ““Molecular fly-by collisions take little time, something like 10^-13 s. ” This sounds like a description of Mosher’s activity here.

Steve Keohane

Yes, the mosher molecule, and brownian motion. The latter could be taken as a double entendre.

WBWilson

Excellent synopsis, LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks.

It is refreshing to see some actual physics based reasoning. This should help make it clear that the condensing GHG (H2O) is preeminent in the formation of the self-organizing dissipative structures (which we call weather). It is these structures that disseminate the energy from the sun over the whole earth. CO2 is only ever a bit player, of little relevance and opposite sign.

http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/images/latest/goes-west_goes-east/goes-west_full_disk_water_vapor.gif

WBWilson

P.S.- LOL, I don’t think you will see any replies from Mosher, Stokes, Alley, Silber or any of the common trolls here.

Phil.

A synopsis which opens with:

“CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C, which makes that an extremely low-energy (long wavelength) regime. It also happens to be a relatively energy-sparse region of the blackbody curve, given that there’s not a lot of matter radiating at ~-80 C.”

shows anything but ‘actual physics based reasoning’.
CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a region near the maximum radiance of the blackbody curve at a temperature of 288K.

Jim Masterson

>>
CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a region near the maximum radiance of the blackbody curve at a temperature of 288K
<<

According to Wien’s displacement law, the maximum of a BB curve at 288K is 10.06 microns.

teerhuis

The maximum of a BB curve at 288 K in the frequency spectrum, inversed to wavelength, is at 17.7 µm. Energy has an even distribution in that spectrum.

teerhuis

Last sentence should be: ‘Energy is linearly distributed in that spectrum.’
In a spectrum with uniform energy distribution the maximum of 288 K radiation is at 13.1 µm.

So the maximum depends on which distribution you choose.
For 288 K the distributions according to wavelength, energy, frequency give maxima (expressed as wavelength) at resp. 10.1, 13.1 and 17.7 µm.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“A synopsis which opens with:

‘CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C, which makes that an extremely low-energy (long wavelength) regime. It also happens to be a relatively energy-sparse region of the blackbody curve, given that there’s not a lot of matter radiating at ~-80 C.’
shows anything but ‘actual physics based reasoning’.
CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a region near the maximum radiance of the blackbody curve at a temperature of 288K.”

You were saying?

Phil.

Phil wrote:
“A synopsis which opens with:

‘CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C, which makes that an extremely low-energy (long wavelength) regime. It also happens to be a relatively energy-sparse region of the blackbody curve, given that there’s not a lot of matter radiating at ~-80 C.’
shows anything but ‘actual physics based reasoning’.
CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a region near the maximum radiance of the blackbody curve at a temperature of 288K.”

You were saying?

Yes, I was saying that the absorption spectrum of CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature of a black body emitter!
To put you straight the CO2 absorption spectrum is centered on the energy separation between the ground state vibrational energy level and the excited vibrational level (v=1). It corresponds to an energy separation of 7.98 kJ/mole (667 cm^-1). The BB radiation being emitted by the surface at a temperature of ~288K peaks at 565cm^-1 with a spectral radiance of 0.136 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1, the spectral radiance at the center of the CO2 absorption band is 0.131 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1.
You’re right about there being not much radiance at -80ºC, the spectral radiance in that case is 0.041 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Now let’s flip the argument on its head, Phil… what is the absorption spectrum of CO2? Is it not the same as the emission spectrum?

So therefore, per quantum physics, CO2 cannot absorb any radiation except on those CO2 spectrum brightlines, and as you stated, the spectral radiance in that case is extremely low.

So the method by which you warmists are claiming CO2 causes atmospheric heating cannot take place, except for a mere 0.041 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1.

In other words, Phil, you’ve just proven my point that the warmists have the process exactly backward. Is that what you wanted to do? LOL

Phil.

Now let’s flip the argument on its head, Phil… what is the absorption spectrum of CO2? Is it not the same as the emission spectrum?

So therefore, per quantum physics, CO2 cannot absorb any radiation except on those CO2 spectrum brightlines, and as you stated, the spectral radiance in that case is extremely low.

Actually I said no such thing, I said that the CO2 spectrum absorbs at ~96% of the peak of a 288K blackbody (131/136)

So the method by which you warmists are claiming CO2 causes atmospheric heating cannot take place, except for a mere 0.041 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1.

So you’re still trying to spout the nonsense that the earth’s surface is emitting at a temperature of -80ºC

In other words, Phil, you’ve just proven my point that the warmists have the process exactly backward. Is that what you wanted to do? LOL

Actually I’ve just proved you don’t have a clue about the subject!

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“You’re right about there being not much radiance at -80ºC, the spectral radiance in that case is 0.041 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1.”

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“So therefore, per quantum physics, CO2 cannot absorb any radiation except on those CO2 spectrum brightlines, and as you stated, the spectral radiance in that case is extremely low.”

Phil trips over himself:
“Actually I said no such thing…”

Phil… you do yourself a great disservice in proffering a dishonest stance. You’re better than that, Phil. Don’t resort to outright lies so early after having lost the argument. LOL

Phil.

Phil wrote:
“You’re right about there being not much radiance at -80ºC, the spectral radiance in that case is 0.041 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1.”

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“So therefore, per quantum physics, CO2 cannot absorb any radiation except on those CO2 spectrum brightlines, and as you stated, the spectral radiance in that case is extremely low.”

Phil trips over himself:
“Actually I said no such thing…”

Exactly as I keep telling you your idiotic stance that CO2 can only absorb radiation emitted by an object at -80ºC is total nonsense. Such an object doesn’t emit much radiance but it’s irrelevant because everywhere on the planet except the S Pole in winter is emitting far more 15µm photons. In fact as I said above at the average temperature of 288K the radiance is ~95% of the peak value.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Now, Phil. We all know I said no such thing, so your attempt at FUD’ing things up just isn’t going to work.

I specifically stated that CO2 absorbs at 15 um. I also specifically stated that 15 um photon flux is negligible in comparison to the flux of shorter-wavelength photons. I also specifically stated that the molecules absorbing those shorter-wavelength photons are already more vibrationally excited than CO2 could ever hope to make them, therefore your arguing for the warmist CAGW mantra (that CO2 absorbs a 15 um photon, becomes vibrationally excited, collides with other molecular constituents of the atmosphere and thereby increases their translational kinetic energy (temperature)) means you’re arguing against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics… namely that energy cannot flow from a lower-energy regime to a higher-energy regime.

Why do you persist in your science denialism, Phil? Is it because you’re trying to defend liberalism’s title of “The Party For Dummies”? LOL

“I also specifically stated that 15 um photon flux is negligible in comparison to the flux of shorter-wavelength photons.”
And that is just totally wrong. Here again is that observed Barrow Alaska spectrum. It shows downwelling IR at the surface. Since it doesn’t seem to be getting through to you, I have marked 15 μm with a red line and the intensity at 15 μm with a green arrow. It is not negligible. It is close to peak.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Now superpose the two, Nick. Did you forget the effects of water vapor in your desperate attempt to attribute the spectral curve to CO2? LOL

Water vapor has nothing to do with it. Here is your statement again:
“I also specifically stated that 15 um photon flux is negligible in comparison to the flux of shorter-wavelength photons.”
Just stupidly, provably wrong.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Nick Stokes denies that water vapor absorbs in the same frequency bands as CO2! How’s that science-denialism working for you, Nick? LOL

Do try to think tangentially, Nick. [SNIP] LOL

Now Nick, do you deny that the spectral curve expands upward and leftward upon a temperature increase?

You’ll note that photon energy increases going leftward.

So while the low-energy long-wavelength photon absolute count does indeed increase, the proportion of low-energy to high-energy photons falls with increasing temperature.

[SNIP]

If temperature is increasing, and higher-energy photon flux is proportionally increasing, do you suppose the other molecular constituents of the atmosphere are already more vibrationally excited due to vibronic coupling than CO2 could ever hope to make them?

What’s this say, Nick?
“Since electronic transitions are very fast compared with nuclear motions, vibrational levels are favored when they correspond to a minimal change in the nuclear coordinates. The intensity of a vibronic transition is proportional to the square of the overlap integral between the vibrational wavefunctions of the two states that are involved in the transition.”

Didn’t you know that homonuclear diatomic molecules are only approximated as rigid rotors with a fixed bond length because that makes solving the time-independent Schrodinger equation simpler, Nick? That’s what leads simpletons to state that homonuclear diatomic molecules cannot absorb photons because those simpletons think the homonuclear diatomic molecule’s dipole moment never changes. So they think the molecule can never become vibrationally excited.

Didn’t you know that molecular vibrational quantum state energy can only be approximated as a harmonic oscillator near the ground state, but for excited molecules in the real world, they have anharmonic potentials (the restoring force is no longer proportional to the square of the displacement from the equilibrium position)?

So in your simplistic world, nitrogen (being a homonuclear diatomic molecule) cannot under any circumstances absorb photons and therefore can never become excited except by collision! Isn’t that what Phil stated? Isn’t that what every warmist believes, Nick?

Now Nick… you’ve agreed with Phil (and you obviously agree with the warmist position), so you’re now forced to defend both your and his position.. the warmist position.

What’s this say, Nick?
“In the case of nitrogen, the 1 s electrons are screened and localized, so their orbitals do not overlap effectively. In turn, the remaining 10 valence electrons occupy molecular orbitals resulting from mixing the atomic orbitals 2s and 2p, including s–p interactions due to their proximity. The discrete electron energy structure of the molecule is furthermore split into the superimposed fine spectrum of vibrational states. Because each electronic state is characterized by a different bond length and strength due to the various electron distributions, the molecular oscillator will have a variety of potential energy curves associated with distinctive vibrational states, each with a range of differently spaced vibrational levels. The molecule also has quantized rotational degrees of freedom complicating even more the energy level diagram. However, these levels are much closer than the vibrational levels, such that they form only a band spectrum.”

[SNIP]

[No mocking is necessary in polite conversation. Please make your technical points without resorting to insults. -mod]

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“So you’re still trying to spout the nonsense that the earth’s surface is emitting at a temperature of -80ºC”

That’s kind of the point, Phil. I’m arguing that it’s *not* emitting much at that temperature, therefore there aren’t many 15 um photons for CO2 to absorb, therefore the entire premise for how you warmists claim CO2 to cause atmospheric heating cannot take place as you claim.

But as you said, it is “nonsense that the earth’s surface is emitting at a temperature of -80ºC”.

So you’ve been backed into yet another corner, from which you’re forced to agree with me.

If you’re trying to defend warmism, you’re utterly incompetent at it, Phil. LOL

Phil.

Phil wrote:
“So you’re still trying to spout the nonsense that the earth’s surface is emitting at a temperature of -80ºC”

That’s kind of the point, Phil. I’m arguing that it’s *not* emitting much at that temperature,

You’re right it isn’t, but since the earth’s surface isn’t at -80ºC it is irrelevant!

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Do you deny that 15 um photon flux is negligible in comparison to shorter-wavelength photon flux, Phil?

Do you deny that atmospheric molecules which absorb those shorter-wavelength photons are already more vibrationally excited than CO2 could ever hope to make them, Phil?

You’re still arguing against 2LoT, Phil. I’ve presented heaps of evidence that you’re wrong (including discussing the physics of how a CO2 laser works… by the same principle which applies in the free atmosphere), yet you persist in trying to squirm away from reality.

You’ve already argued from the perspective that water vapor causes cooling, what makes it so difficult for you to admit that CO2 does the same?

Do the warmists have a metaphorical gun to your head, Phil? [Snip] LOL

Phil.

Do you deny that 15 um photon flux is negligible in comparison to shorter-wavelength photon flux, Phil?

Under what circumstances?

Do you deny that atmospheric molecules which absorb those shorter-wavelength photons are already more vibrationally excited than CO2 could ever hope to make them, Phil?

Which molecules and which photons?
The three major species in the atmosphere can’t be vibrationally excited (N2, O2, Ar).

You’re still arguing against 2LoT, Phil. I’ve presented heaps of evidence that you’re wrong (including discussing the physics of how a CO2 laser works… by the same principle which applies in the free atmosphere), yet you persist in trying to squirm away from reality.

You made a garbled attempt at copying how a CO2 laser works from a book and made mistakes and the same principle does not apply in the free atmosphere.

You’ve already argued from the perspective that water vapor causes cooling, what makes it so difficult for you to admit that CO2 does the same?

It certainly does, in the stratosphere; the reasons for the strong cooling effect shown by water vapor in the troposphere as shown in the figure you presented from Clough and Iacono were clearly explained in their paper. You couldn’t be bothered to read them, a bit careless on your part.

Do the warmists have a metaphorical gun to your head, Phil? Be a man, stand up for the truth, for once in your rotten life. LOL

Mods: Is the above consistent with site policy?
“Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.”

[The above is absolutely not consistent with site policy. The unacceptable portions of this conversation are being snipped, and warnings are being issued. Please rest assured that continued behavior by the offending party will result, first in moderation, and then banning (if politeness and respectability cannot be maintained). We apologize for the delay in addressing this conversation…just saw these posts this morning. -mod]

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“The three major species in the atmosphere can’t be vibrationally excited (N2, O2, Ar).”

What’s this say, Phil?
“In the case of nitrogen, the 1 s electrons are screened and localized, so their orbitals do not overlap effectively. In turn, the remaining 10 valence electrons occupy molecular orbitals resulting from mixing the atomic orbitals 2s and 2p, including s–p interactions due to their proximity. The discrete electron energy structure of the molecule is furthermore split into the superimposed fine spectrum of vibrational states. Because each electronic state is characterized by a different bond length and strength due to the various electron distributions, the molecular oscillator will have a variety of potential energy curves associated with distinctive vibrational states, each with a range of differently spaced vibrational levels. The molecule also has quantized rotational degrees of freedom complicating even more the energy level diagram. However, these levels are much closer than the vibrational levels, such that they form only a band spectrum.”

It says your [Snip] view of how the world works is wrong, Phil. LOL

[Snip]

[If you’re incapable of making your point without resorting to insults, then don’t post. -mod]

Phil.

[The above is absolutely not consistent with site policy. The unacceptable portions of this conversation are being snipped, and warnings are being issued. Please rest assured that continued behavior by the offending party will result, first in moderation, and then banning (if politeness and respectability cannot be maintained). We apologize for the delay in addressing this conversation…just saw these posts this morning. -mod]

Thanks

Phil.

Mod: This is the most offensive but you have to know British english to know that!
Phil, you pedantic twat.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Now you’ll have to explain how a 15 micron photon (corresponding to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C) is warming an atmosphere at 288 K (~14.85 C).

Or do you believe the Laws of Thermodynamics can be nullified to further your religious belief in CAGW?

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Now you’ll have to explain how a 15 micron photon (corresponding to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C) is warming an atmosphere at 288 K (~14.85 C).

Or do you believe the Laws of Thermodynamics can be nullified to further your religious belief in CAGW?”

Phil, can you get your crickets to pipe down a bit? I’m trying to sleep. LOL

“Now you’ll have to explain how a 15 micron photon (corresponding to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C) is warming an atmosphere at 288 K (~14.85 C).”
This is a silly argument. A 15 μm photon does not “correspond” to a BB temperature of -80°C. That is simply the maximum of the BB spectrum if the units are spectral radiance per unit wavelength. But the spectrum is quite broad. With those units, the Wien formulation is indeed
T = b/λ, where b = 2.898e-3 m K
and as your calculator says, with λ=15 μm, that is 193.2 K.

But if it is expressed as flux per unit frequency, the Wien maximum is
T = bf/λ, where bf = 5.099e-3 m K
giving a temperature of 340 K. This is what Phil. and teerhuis are using.

Both are valid, and as teerhuis says, the frequency version has the virtue that it corresponds to energy. All it means is that the max of the spectrum has no special significance. It doesn’t mean that photons can’t heat air at normal temperature. In fact, CO₂ lasers at 10 μm are used for thermally cutting steel, even though the corresponding peak is at b/1e-5=290K.

Just to check the calculation there, as teerhuis says, for 17.7 μm the peak is at 288K.

Jim Masterson

>>
Just to check the calculation there, as teerhuis says, for 17.7 μm the peak is at 288K.
<<

If you are getting different answers from the same law, then the math isn’t correct.

Wien’s displacement law for frequency is:
$\displaystyle {{\nu }_{\max }}=T\times 1.04\times {{10}^{11}}Hz/K$

Plugging in 288K gives us:
$\displaystyle {{\nu }_{\max }}=2.9952\times {{10}^{13}}Hz$

Converting to seconds:
$\displaystyle \frac{1}{{{\nu }_{\max }}}=3.3387\times {{10}^{-14}}sec$

And converting to wavelength:
$\displaystyle {{\lambda }_{\max }}=(3.3387\times {{10}^{-14}}sec)\centerdot (299,792,458\ m/\sec )=10.01microns$

That’s pretty close to my previous calculation.

Jim

“If you are getting different answers from the same law, then the math isn’t correct.”
No. It’s very well known that in spectral matters, you can use frequency or wavelength on the x-axis. And it makes a difference to the maximum, which is why claiming that there is a unique temperature related to a wavelength makes no sense. The difference is spelt out here, with a calculator. For 288K it shows:

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

It’s only a “silly argument”, Nick, because you don’t understand enough to understand that you’re wrong. You’ve obviously never studied quantum physics… if you had, you’d understand how wrong you are.

Was Niels Bohr just blowing smoke up everyone’s butt when he introduced quantization, Nick?

No. You’re just misapplying the Wien formula because you lack the knowledge necessary to properly use the tools available. Somewhat akin to you warmists attempting to hammer the CAGW nail with a red herring. LOL

Is CO2 a blackbody emitter, Nick? You appear to believe that it is (as do Phil and teerhuis), which highlights your lack of knowledge of quanta, the underlying premise of quantum mechanics.

Why do we speak of the 15 um brightline for CO2, Nick, if CO2 is a blackbody emitter with a wide emission spectrum? Oh, that’s right… because it’s not a blackbody emitter… so you can’t use the Wien formula to calculate a blackbody curve for maximum energy flux… the energy flux is all centered around that brightline. That’s how quantum mechanics works, Nick.

Here’s CO2, Nick:

Is that a “spectrum” for CO2, Nick? No? No. Quantum mechanics dictates that atoms and molecules, when excited, emit very specific wavelength photons.

Why, you even (unwittingly) had the answer in your own question above, Nick! Do you even understand where?

Of course, you knew already that what you were spouting was utter BS, Nick… why would you speak of brightlines in the CO2 spectrum (such as at 15 um, right, Nick?), then turn around and claim that using the Wien formula to calculate a blackbody curve for maximum energy flux is perfectly acceptable, when you know full well that CO2 emits in brightlines?

Or are you merely confused, Nick?

Educate yourself, Nick. You’re making a fool of yourself.

Phil.

No. You’re just misapplying the Wien formula because you lack the knowledge necessary to properly use the tools available. Somewhat akin to you warmists attempting to hammer the CAGW nail with a red herring. LOL

Actually it was your original post which misapplied the Wien equation and you got all bent out of shape when I corrected your mistake.

Is CO2 a blackbody emitter, Nick? You appear to believe that it is (as do Phil and teerhuis).

I certainly do not as is clear from my earlier post. I guess you realized that you misapplied the Wien equation and are trying to wriggle out of it.

This is what you said: “CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C, which makes that an extremely low-energy (long wavelength) regime”

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

[Snip] matter other than CO2 will emit at 15 um when it’s temperature is at ~-80 C.

But as you said in your being forced to agree with my original post, the spectral radiance in that region is extremely sparse.

Now, Phil… if the spectral radiance in that region is extremely sparse, just how is the warmist claim (that CO2 is absorbing photons, becoming vibrationally excited, colliding with other molecular constituents of the atmosphere, and transferring its vibrational quantum state kinetic energy to the translational energy (which we measure as temperature) of those other molecular constituents via radiationless collisional transfer) going to work?

Stop dodging the question, Phil.

Phil.

Matter other than CO2 emits at 15µm at a whole range of temperatures and at the surface temperature of 288K it emits much more than at -80ºC. That’s the stupid idea you need to get out of your head. Look here for example:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod/bbrc4b.gif

You’ll see that 15000nm (15µm) is emitted as an increasing function of temperature.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Only when viewed in terms of total photon flux at 15 um, Phil.

When viewed in relation to total photon flux of all photons, the 15 um photon flux proportionally falls with increasing temperature.

Do you deny that 15 um photon flux is negligible in comparison to shorter-wavelength photon flux, Phil?

Do you deny that atmospheric molecules which absorb those shorter-wavelength photons are already more vibrationally excited than CO2 could ever hope to make them, Phil, therefore the mechanism by which you warmists claim CO2 causes warming cannot occur?

Stop evading those hard questions, Phil. The fate of your religious belief in CAGW hangs in the balance. LOL

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Further, Nick, your lack of knowledge of how laser cutting works is on full display, as is your desperate attempt at diverting the conversation from atmospheric CO2 quantum physics via non sequitur.

A laser cutter cannot cut steel without using a laser gas, which is usually pure oxygen. Now Nick… what happens to steel when thermally excited in a pure oxygen environment? It burns, Nick. It literally burns.

The laser isn’t “cutting” the steel, it’s merely facilitating an exothermic chemical reaction which causes the steel to burn.

The reason they use CO2 lasers, rather than shorter-wavelength lasers, is because CO2 lasers have a higher gain and thus allow a higher energy input than other lasers (pump:output can be as high as 20%)… we simply couldn’t make a more powerful UV laser until recently. The CO2 laser was developed in 1964, giving it a development head start. And it’s not pure CO2… it’s a mixture of CO2, N2, H2 or Xe, and He.

But take a look at this, Nick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
“The population inversion in the laser is achieved by the following sequence: electron impact excites vibrational motion of the nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a homonuclear molecule, it cannot lose this energy by photon emission, and its excited vibrational levels are therefore metastable and relatively long-lived. Collisional energy transfer between the nitrogen and the carbon dioxide molecule causes vibrational excitation of the carbon dioxide, with sufficient efficiency to lead to the desired population inversion necessary for laser operation.”

Just as I described happens in the atmosphere, happens in a CO2 laser, Nick! You’ve just demonstrated my point. Thanks, Nick. You’re a real pal. LOL

Phil.

But take a look at this, Nick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
“The population inversion in the laser is achieved by the following sequence: electron impact excites vibrational motion of the nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a homonuclear molecule, it cannot lose this energy by photon emission, and its excited vibrational levels are therefore metastable and relatively long-lived. Collisional energy transfer between the nitrogen and the carbon dioxide molecule causes vibrational excitation of the carbon dioxide, with sufficient efficiency to lead to the desired population inversion necessary for laser operation.”

Just as I described happens in the atmosphere, happens in a CO2 laser, Nick! You’ve just demonstrated my point. Thanks, Nick. You’re a real pal. LOL

Except the N2 absorption line required is a forbidden transition and so the N2 level can’t be optically excited that’s why in a CO2 laser an electronic discharge is used to excite that level. Can’t happen in the atmosphere (except perhaps in a lightning strike).

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Now Phil is claiming that the N2 molecule can determine how it was vibrationally excited, and only undergo certain types of relaxation for certain types of excitation!

[Snip]

Phil.

Now Phil is claiming that the N2 molecule can determine how it was vibrationally excited, and only undergo certain types of relaxation for certain types of excitation!

My, your fantasy world is certainly a rich one, Phil.

It’s not a fantasy world, it’s called quantum mechanics, you appear to be unfamiliar with it. Homonuclear diatomics such as N2 don’t have a dipole and can’t be vibrationally excited by radiation. They can be excited by an electronic discharge which is how the N2 in the CO2 laser is excited.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

The Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition says you’re wrong, Phil. I suggest you review what I’d written prior:

Now Phil, what does this say:
http://www.kinetics.nsc.ru/chichinin/books/Chem_Phys/Svelt09.pdf#page=458

“Finally the higher vibrational levels of N2 are also closely resonant with the corresponding CO2 levels, and transitions between the excited levels and the 001 level of the CO2 molecule occur rapidly.”

Why, that says the vibrational quantum states of N2 are closely resonant with the corresponding CO2 levels! Do you think that relationship somehow magically changes in the free atmosphere, Phil?

So while the lowest N2 transition is indeed electric-dipole forbidden, that transition isn’t purposely used in a CO2 laser!

Again quoting the Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition:
“Note that, since the 01 – 00 transition is the least energetic transition in any of the molecules in the discharge, relaxation from the 01 level can only occur by transferring this vibrational energy to translational energy of the colliding partners (VT relaxation). From the theory of elastic collisions we then know that energy is most likely to be transferred to the lighter atoms, i.e., to helium in this case.”

The higher vibrational levels of N2 *are* used (see the first quote above)… and they’re optically allowed.

Don’t you feel silly now, Phil? LOL

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

[Snip]

Phil wrote:
“It’s not a fantasy world, it’s called quantum mechanics, you appear to be unfamiliar with it. Homonuclear diatomics such as N2 don’t have a dipole and can’t be vibrationally excited by radiation.”

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.043422
“Combining with theoretical calculation, our results demonstrate that both vibrational and electronic excitation occurs for ionized nitrogen molecules in 800-nm femtosecond laser fields.”

That’s 0.8 um photons, Phil, just on the infrared side of the visible spectrum. It is also the strongest output range of the Sun’s total irradiance spectrum. That reaches all the way down through the entire atmosphere, Phil.

But… but… but Phil, you said N2 cannot be vibrationally excited by photons under any circumstances! [Snip]

Phil.

My reply to this trolling appears to have gone astray, so I’ll try again.
Phil, you said N2 cannot be vibrationally excited by photons under any circumstances! How, oh how, Phil, are you going to recovery from this, your greatest loss of credibility to date? LOL

It’s quite apparent that you haven’t the faintest clue about quantum mechanics, Phil. LOL
Oh I know a lot about QM, you on the other hand just post any paper you find which you think might fit and don’t read past the title. It’s not my credibility that’s at stake.
A minor detail to you I’m sure but this isn’t about vibrationally excited N2 it’s about Nitrogen ions (N2+) created by an intense laser beam.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“Oh I know a lot about QM”

Says the guy who claims that N2 cannot, under any circumstances, become vibrationally excited.

Don’t you know about vibronic coupling of the electronic quantum state to the vibrational quantum state, Phil?

What’s this say, Phil?
“In the case of nitrogen, the 1 s electrons are screened and localized, so their orbitals do not overlap effectively. In turn, the remaining 10 valence electrons occupy molecular orbitals resulting from mixing the atomic orbitals 2s and 2p, including s–p interactions due to their proximity. The discrete electron energy structure of the molecule is furthermore split into the superimposed fine spectrum of vibrational states. Because each electronic state is characterized by a different bond length and strength due to the various electron distributions, the molecular oscillator will have a variety of potential energy curves associated with distinctive vibrational states, each with a range of differently spaced vibrational levels. The molecule also has quantized rotational degrees of freedom complicating even more the energy level diagram. However, these levels are much closer than the vibrational levels, such that they form only a band spectrum.”

It says your [snip] view of how the world works is wrong, Phil. LOL

[Snip]

Phil.

Phil wrote:
“Oh I know a lot about QM”

Says the guy who claims that N2 cannot, under any circumstances, become vibrationally excited.

Didn’t say that, it can’t be excited by absorbing a photon corresponding to the vibrational energy level. I clearly stated that it can be excited by an electronic collision such as in the CO2 laser.

Don’t you know about vibronic coupling of the electronic quantum state to the vibrational quantum state, Phil?

Yes.

What’s this say, Phil?

It says that the N2 molecule has discrete electronic, vibrational and rotational energy levels, what it does not say is how transitions between those levels can be achieved which is the point.

It also says that your [Snip] view of how the world works which you acquired from Wikipedia and googling is wrong, Kook.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Says the guy who claims that N2 cannot, under any circumstances, become vibrationally excited.”

Phil wrote:
“Didn’t say that…”

Phil previously wrote:
“The three major species in the atmosphere can’t be vibrationally excited (N2, O2, Ar).”

I’ll leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions about Phil.

Phil.

The readers will no doubt note that the “under any circumstances” was added by you. They will no doubt then draw their own conclusions about you.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

You’re being pedantic, Phil. You didn’t state any exceptions to your wholly manufactured “rule”. “Can’t be vibrationally excited” isn’t really open to interpretation, wouldn’t you say?

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“Didn’t say that, it can’t be excited by absorbing a photon corresponding to the vibrational energy level.”

So Phil denies that N2 can undergo nonresonant Raman scattering in his stating that N2 has a net electric dipole and thus cannot be excited by radiation, and he specifically denies above that N2 can undergo resonant Raman scattering (a subset of Raman scattering where the incident photon just so happens to correspond to the difference between two vibrational energy levels).

Unbelievable… this is the same guy who’s stated emphatically that he knows a lot about Raman scattering… but who couldn’t accurately describe the process, and simultaneously admitted and denied that it occurred for N2. LOL

Of course, we all know that N2 can undergo Raman scattering… including Phil. He’s just confused, is all. LOL

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Seriously, Phil. Think about what you write before you write it.

It matters not how the N2 molecule becomes vibrationally excited, it’ll transfer its vibrational quantum state kinetic energy to the other molecular constituents of the atmosphere (whether that atmosphere is in the… erm… atmosphere, or in a CO2 laser) via collisional radiationless transition.

Now Phil… can you think of any ways a N2 molecule may become vibrationally excited in the free atmosphere? Perhaps by impinging upon a warmer surface?

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Eh, the forum mangled my last reply, so let’s try that again:

Finally, Phil, stop being so literal. A ‘forbidden transition’ is as ‘forbidden’ as you lead people to believe. It merely violates the selection rules.

Now Phil, what does this say:
http://www.kinetics.nsc.ru/chichinin/books/Chem_Phys/Svelt09.pdf#page=458

“Finally the higher vibrational levels of N2 are also closely resonant with the corresponding CO2 levels, and transitions between the excited levels and the 001 level of the CO2 molecule occur rapidly.”

Why, that says the vibrational quantum states of N2 are closely resonant with the corresponding CO2 levels! Do you think that relationship somehow magically changes in the free atmosphere, Phil?

So while the lowest N2 transition is indeed electric-dipole forbidden, that transition isn’t purposely used in a CO2 laser!

Again quoting the Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition:
“Note that, since the 01 – 00 transition is the least energetic transition in any of the molecules in the discharge, relaxation from the 01 level can only occur by transferring this vibrational energy to translational energy of the colliding partners (VT relaxation). From the theory of elastic collisions we then know that energy is most likely to be transferred to the lighter atoms, i.e., to helium in this case.”

The higher vibrational levels of N2 *are* used (see the first quote above)… and they’re optically allowed.

[Snip]

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Should be “A ‘forbidden transition’ isn’t as ‘forbidden’ as you lead people to believe.”

Phil.

Finally, Phil, stop being so literal. A ‘forbidden transition’ is as ‘forbidden’ as you lead people to believe. It merely violates the selection rules.

This makes no sense.

Now Phil, what does this say:
http://www.kinetics.nsc.ru/chichinin/books/Chem_Phys/Svelt09.pdf#page=458

“Finally the higher vibrational levels of N2 are also closely resonant with the corresponding CO2 levels, and transitions between the excited levels and the 001 level of the CO2 molecule occur rapidly.”

Why, that says the vibrational quantum states of N2 are closely resonant with the corresponding CO2 levels! Do you think that relationship somehow magically changes in the free atmosphere, Phil?

It certainly does since in our atmosphere we lack the necessary electrical discharges to excite the N2 to its first vibrational level.

So while the lowest N2 transition is indeed electric-dipole forbidden, that transition isn’t purposely used in a CO2 laser!

It certainly is, it’s responsible for the collisional excitation to the CO2 001 state. In order for the CO2 to lase there needs to be a population inversion so the 100 and 020 lower levels need to be deactivated and this is enhanced by the collisional deactivation with helium. The 010 level is the excited state that occurs as a result of FIR excitation in the atmosphere.

You’ll see the energy diagram below:
?cb=1436779386

Again quoting the Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition:
“Note that, since the 01 – 00 transition is the least energetic transition in any of the molecules in the discharge, relaxation from the 01 level can only occur by transferring this vibrational energy to translational energy of the colliding partners (VT relaxation). From the theory of elastic collisions we then know that energy is most likely to be transferred to the lighter atoms, i.e., to helium in this case.”

The higher vibrational levels of N2 *are* used (see the first quote above)… and they’re optically allowed.

The transitions referred to here are the CO2 transitions to the ground state referred to above. (020-010)

[Snip]

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

[Snip]

https://www.rp-photonics.com/forbidden_transitions.html
“Dipole-forbidden transitions between energy levels may nevertheless occur based on other mechanisms such as quadrupole transitions.”
You’ll note that “such as quadrupole transitions” doesn’t denote solely quadrupole transitions, Phil, you pedantic twat. LOL

“forbidden transitions of isolated atoms or ions can have upper-state lifetimes of milliseconds or even many seconds”

According to Phil, once those atoms are in an upper-state, they just have to stay there… forever. LOL

Further, the lowest N2 transition in a CO2 laser is used to fully de-excite the N2 molecule via collision with He, after it’s collided with CO2. This is why the He must be cooled for population inversion to be a continuous process. It is not “responsible for the collisional excitation to the CO2 001 state”, Phil.

That’s why I wrote:
‘Again quoting the Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition:
“Note that, since the 01 – 00 transition is the least energetic transition in any of the molecules in the discharge, relaxation from the 01 level can only occur by transferring this vibrational energy to translational energy of the colliding partners (VT relaxation). From the theory of elastic collisions we then know that energy is most likely to be transferred to the lighter atoms, i.e., to helium in this case.”’

[Snip]

Phil.

“forbidden transitions of isolated atoms or ions can have upper-state lifetimes of milliseconds or even many seconds”

According to Phil, once those atoms are in an upper-state, they just have to stay there… forever. LOL

Yeah they just sit there waiting for a collision. 🙂

Further, the lowest N2 transition in a CO2 laser is used to fully de-excite the N2 molecule via collision with He, after it’s collided with CO2. This is why the He must be cooled for population inversion to be a continuous process. It is not “responsible for the collisional excitation to the CO2 001 state”, Phil.

You have it completely backwards, the N2 molecule is excited to its first vibrationally excited state by an electronic discharge. That excited N2 collides with a CO2 molecule exciting it to its 001 vibrational state and deactivating the N2. The CO2 then emits photons (lases) and falls to either the 100 or 020 vibrational states which are collision ally deactivated to the ground state.

That’s why I wrote:
‘Again quoting the Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition:
“Note that, since the 01 – 00 transition is the least energetic transition in any of the molecules in the discharge, relaxation from the 01 level can only occur by transferring this vibrational energy to translational energy of the colliding partners (VT relaxation). From the theory of elastic collisions we then know that energy is most likely to be transferred to the lighter atoms, i.e., to helium in this case.”’

Yes you copied that but not for the first time you misunderstood what you read and thought it was the N2 states that were being deactivated!

You keep making a fool of yourself, Phil. Are all warmists gluttons for punishment, or are you speshul? LOL

Clearly it’s not me who’s being foolish. (except perhaps for wasting my time with someone who clearly doesn’t have a clue about the subject and is probably boring everyone to tears.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“Yeah they just sit there waiting for a collision.”

They could (but don’t). That doesn’t explain the fact that homonuclear diatomics have an upper state lifetime… even isolated molecules. Didn’t you read what I wrote, Phil? How do you explain the upper state lifetime of an isolated homonuclear diatomic, Phil?

Here’s a question, Phil: Why is the sky blue?

Could it be Rayleigh scattering of molecular nitrogen and oxygen (which includes elastic scattering as well as the inelastic contribution from rotational Raman scattering ), Phil?

For homonuclear diatomics under an IR photon flux, vibrational quantum state-Raman coupling is enhanced significantly due to vibrational resonance, Phil.

[Snip]

Phil claims the sky isn’t blue, because he doesn’t know about inelastic scattering! How’s that science denialism working for you, Phil? LOL

[Um, I’m pretty sure you literally just made up this claim “out of blue” right now. -mod]

As regards a CO2 laser, helium provides elastic collisions, not inelastic ones, Phil. Thus the increased elastic collision rate provides a greater randomization rate. It does not “deactivate to the ground state” CO2… that’s what laymen are lead to believe [Snip]. It increases the translational kinetic energy per inelastic mean free path. This *raises* the effective vibrational excitation cross-section (the ‘electron temperature’) to the optimum 1.8 eV necessary for population inversion to occur in a CO2 laser. In other words, Phil, it *depopulates* the lower energy level and thus supports the population inversion. It also cools the lasing medium, which is why the helium must be cooled for population inversion to be a continuous process.

See:
Roles of Helium and Nitrogen in CO2 Laser Excitation
Offenberger, Rose
Journal of Applied Physics 41, 3908 (1970)

Hey, Phil, I thought you said N2 cannot absorb photons under any circumstances because it’s a homonuclear diatomic with no net electric dipole, and therefore is optically forbidden. How, then, do you explain a microwave-excited CO2 laser, Phil? Are you claiming microwave radiation is not mediated by photons, Phil? LOL

Optimization of Microwave-Excited CO2 Laser System and Generation of Pulsed Optical Discharges in Strong Magnetic Fields
https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-2178/178.pdf

[Snip]

Phil.

Still flailing around with more and more ridiculous rants I see.

Here’s a question, Phil: Why is the sky blue?

Could it be Rayleigh scattering of molecular nitrogen and oxygen (which includes elastic scattering as well as the inelastic contribution from rotational Raman scattering ), Phil?
Exactly, absolutely nothing to do with the absorption of photons and relies on the polarizability of the molecule. Raman is extremely weak, its signal about 1000 times weaker than Rayleigh and depends on 1/wavelength^4 which is why blue is scattered more effectively than red.

Phil claims the sky isn’t blue, because he doesn’t know about inelastic scattering! How’s that science denialism working for you, Phil? LOL

More nonsense from the ‘proud troll’.

As regards a CO2 laser, helium provides elastic collisions, not inelastic ones, Phil. Thus the increased elastic collision rate provides a greater randomization rate. It does not “deactivate to the ground state” CO2…

Certainly does, that’s how the population inversion is maintained, populate the upper level by collisional excitation by N2 and depopulate the lower level.
Notable that the ‘proud troll’ references the first link that a Google search finds for ‘the role of He in CO2 lasers’, which is a letter to the editor dating back to 1969! You’d think he could find something more substantial given the almost 50 years of development and use of CO2 lasers. His previous error in stating that the helium deactivated the lower excited state on N2 originates with an error in the Wikipedia page on CO2 lasers!
Notice in the energy diagram of the laser process how it states that He deactivates the 020 and 010 levels exactly as I described. Also see that the N2 excited state is at almost the exact energy as the 001 CO2 level (that’s why the energy transfer process is termed ‘resonant’). In order to excite the CO2 molecule the N2 molecule has to transfer all its energy and to return to its ground state, there is no energy in a ‘lower excited N2 state’ to be transferred to the He.
?cb=1436779386

Last but not least:

Hey, Phil, I thought you said N2 cannot absorb photons under any circumstances because it’s a homonuclear diatomic with no net electric dipole, and therefore is optically forbidden. How, then, do you explain a microwave-excited CO2 laser, Phil? Are you claiming microwave radiation is not mediated by photons, Phil? LOL

CO2 is not N2, nor is it a homonuclear diatomic!

What we have in the ‘proud troll’ is a troll who googles the topics, posts the first one he finds and posts it without reading it (doesn’t much matter because he doesn’t understand it any way). Not a good source for reliable science.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“Exactly, absolutely nothing to do with the absorption of photons and relies on the polarizability of the molecule. Raman is extremely weak, its signal about 1000 times weaker than Rayleigh and depends on 1/wavelength^4 which is why blue is scattered more effectively than red.”

Raman scattering, according to Phil, has “absolutely nothing to do with the absorption of photons”! Unbelievable.

Did you forget that for homonuclear diatomics under an IR photon flux, vibrational quantum state-Raman coupling is enhanced significantly due to vibrational resonance, Phil?

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Hey, Phil, I thought you said N2 cannot absorb photons under any circumstances because it’s a homonuclear diatomic with no net electric dipole, and therefore is optically forbidden. How, then, do you explain a microwave-excited CO2 laser, Phil? Are you claiming microwave radiation is not mediated by photons, Phil? LOL”

Phil wrote:
“CO2 is not N2, nor is it a homonuclear diatomic!”

Now, Phil, just who are you trying to fool here? What gasses are used in a CO2 laser, Phil?

I thought you said N2 cannot absorb photons under any circumstances because it’s a homonuclear diatomic with no net electric dipole, and therefore is optically forbidden. How, then, do you explain a microwave-excited CO2 laser, Phil?

Phil wrote:
“there is no energy in a ‘lower excited N2 state’ to be transferred to the He.”

Vibrational spectra of N2: An advanced undergraduate laboratory in atomic and molecular spectroscopy
http://users.df.uba.ar/dmitnik/estructura3/articulostrabajo/vibrationalN2.pdf
“In the case of nitrogen, the 1 s electrons are screened and localized, so their orbitals do not overlap effectively. In turn, the remaining 10 valence electrons occupy molecular orbitals resulting from mixing the atomic orbitals 2s and 2p, including s–p interactions due to their proximity. The discrete electron energy structure of the molecule is furthermore split into the superimposed fine spectrum of vibrational states. Because each electronic state is characterized by a different bond length and strength due to the various electron distributions, the molecular oscillator will have a variety of potential energy curves associated with distinctive vibrational states, each with a range of differently spaced vibrational levels. The molecule also has quantized rotational degrees of freedom complicating even more the energy level diagram. However, these levels are much closer than the vibrational levels, such that they form only a band spectrum.”

You’ll especially note the text: “Because each electronic state is characterized by a different bond length and strength due to the various electron distributions, the molecular oscillator will have a variety of potential energy curves associated with distinctive vibrational states, each with a range of differently spaced vibrational levels.”

Did you forget about vibronic coupling again, Phil?

Phil.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Hey, Phil, I thought you said N2 cannot absorb photons under any circumstances because it’s a homonuclear diatomic with no net electric dipole, and therefore is optically forbidden. How, then, do you explain a microwave-excited CO2 laser, Phil? Are you claiming microwave radiation is not mediated by photons, Phil? LOL”

Phil wrote:
“CO2 is not N2, nor is it a homonuclear diatomic!”

Now, Phil, just who are you trying to fool here? What gasses are used in a CO2 laser, Phil?

I thought you said N2 cannot absorb photons under any circumstances because it’s a homonuclear diatomic with no net electric dipole, and therefore is optically forbidden. How, then, do you explain a microwave-excited CO2 laser, Phil?

If you actually read the thesis you linked to you’d find that the laser was not microwave-excited rather it was a microwave amplifier.
“The beamline system consists of a Q-switched CO2 laser oscillator, a beam expander, and a microwave-excited CO2 laser amplifier. ”

Phil wrote:
“there is no energy in a ‘lower excited N2 state’ to be transferred to the He.”

Vibrational spectra of N2: An advanced undergraduate laboratory in atomic and molecular spectroscopy
http://users.df.uba.ar/dmitnik/estructura3/articulostrabajo/vibrationalN2.pdf

You’ll especially note the text: “Because each electronic state is characterized by a different bond length and strength due to the various electron distributions, the molecular oscillator will have a variety of potential energy curves associated with distinctive vibrational states, each with a range of differently spaced vibrational levels.”

Did you forget about vibronic coupling again, Phil?

No, but we’re not talking about electronically excited N2 so it’s not relevant. As I have pointed out a few times the vibrationally excited N2 (by electronic discharge) gives up its energy to the CO2 and falls back to its ground state, hence no energy left to give up to the He.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil wrote:
“If you actually read the thesis you linked to you’d find that the laser was not microwave-excited rather it was a microwave amplifier.”

A microwave amplifier is a laser, Phil, it just has its feedback suppressed (or doesn’t have an optical cavity), and its output is fed into the Q factor-modulated CO2 laser.

You’ll note both the amplifier and the laser were, by definition, CO2 lasers.

“microwave-excited CO2 laser amplifier”
“Q-switched CO2 laser oscillator”

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

mod wrote:
“[Um, I’m pretty sure you literally just made up this claim “out of blue” right now. -mod]”

Phil wrote:
“Homonuclear diatomics such as N2 don’t have a dipole and can’t be vibrationally excited by radiation.”

Without Raman scattering (which results in vibrational excitation of homonuclear diatomics, and which also exhibits a substantially increased vibrational quantum state-Raman cross-section under IR photon flux) in the atmosphere, the sky would be more purplish. So no, I didn’t make it up “out of the blue”.

That’s why astrophysicists using differential optical absorption spectroscopy must account for Vibrational Raman Scattering (VRS) via a corrective spectra in determining the molecular constituents of the atmospheres of exoplanets.

While O2 (also a homonuclear diatomic) and water vapor causes much more in-filling of Fraunhofer lines than N2, the warmists are arguing that the process simply doesn’t exist for homonuclear diatomics. While scientists first thought VRS was inconsequential, it was found that satellite limitations prevented retrieval of accurate data at wavelengths beyond 0.431 um for strong Fraunhofer in-filling.

Phil.

As pointed out above a 15 micron photon has nothing to do with -80ºC. Any 15 micron photon carries the same amount of energy, 7.98 kJ/mole, regardless of the temperature of its emitter. Whether it is absorbed has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermodynamics, if the energy exactly matches the separation between the currently occupied energy level and another higher level then the photon will be absorbed.
In most cases the atmosphere will be cooler than the surface so your appeal to the LoT is moot.

Hopefully some scientific facts will help to nullify your religious belief in ‘fake’ science and get you to actually read the papers you link to.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Yes, Phil… the Wien formula is just a fairy tale made up to confuse warmists. LOL

A 15 um photon isn’t going to be emitted by any matter on this planet unless it’s extremely cold. You yourself have said the spectral radiance in that region is extremely sparse. So you’ve been forced into a corner and now you’re in agreement with me on that point, at least.

Now, Phil… if the spectral radiance in that region is extremely sparse, just how is the warmist claim (that CO2 is absorbing photons, becoming vibrationally excited, colliding with other molecular constituents of the atmosphere, and transferring its vibrational quantum state kinetic energy to the translational energy (which we measure as temperature) of those other molecular constituents via radiationless collisional transfer) going to work?

Once again, you’ve proven my point. You’re really not very good at this, Phil. LOL

Phil.

Yes, Phil… the Wien formula is just a fairy tale made up to confuse warmists. LOL

It appears to confuse you, it just relates the shape of the bb emission curve to temperature.

A 15 um photon isn’t going to be emitted by any matter on this planet unless it’s extremely cold. You yourself have said the spectral radiance in that region is extremely sparse.

On the contrary 15 µm photons will be emitted everywhere on this planet even at the S Pole! There will be more emitted in the hotter regions.

300……………………0.150
288……………………0.131
273……………………0.108
250……………………0.077
200……………………0.029

So you’ve been forced into a corner and now you’re in agreement with me on that point, at least.

Not in a corner at all, just astounded how little you understand about the subject and continue to pontificate about it!

Now, Phil… if the spectral radiance in that region is extremely sparse, just how is the warmist claim (that CO2 is absorbing photons, becoming vibrationally excited, colliding with other molecular constituents of the atmosphere, and transferring its vibrational quantum state kinetic energy to the translational energy (which we measure as temperature) of those other molecular constituents via radiationless collisional transfer) going to work?

Again your myth that 15µm photons can only occur at -80ºC is the origin of your complete misunderstanding of the physics. As I’ve pointed, out such photons are emitted from the whole earth’s surface, the hotter it is the more there are.

Once again I’ve proved your ideas to be false

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Phil states:
It is “nonsense that the earth’s surface is emitting at a temperature of -80ºC”.

Phil trips over himself again:
“On the contrary 15 µm photons will be emitted everywhere on this planet even at the S Pole! There will be more emitted in the hotter regions.”

You seem confused, Phil. That’s four times you’ve tripped over yourself. LOL

Phil wrote:
“Again your myth that 15µm photons can only occur at -80ºC”

Phil… resorting to dishonesty is no way to win an argument. Where have I ever stated that?

Now as to your statement that 15 um photons are being emitted everywhere… of course they are, for the simple reason that more photons of all wavelengths are being emitted for a given increase in temperature… for a blackbody emitter.

Is soil a blackbody emitter, Phil? Soil exhibits increasing reflectance with increasing wavelength from the visible through the mid-IR ranges.

Is water a blackbody emitter, Phil? LWIR penetration is measured in nanometers, and water is SW selective.

Is snow a blackbody emitter, Phil? It is highly reflective to radiation centered around 0.5μm, yet highly absorbing to radiation centered around 10μm. Dry snow is highly reflective, whereas wet snow is a strong absorber/emitter.

You know… the stuff that makes up the great majority of the surface of the planet. Not exactly a blackbody… which is why all the models which attempt to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to the planet fail miserably.

“You’re right about there being not much radiance at -80ºC, the spectral radiance in that case is 0.041 W/m^2/sr/cm^-1.”

Even at 288 K, the 15 um photon flux is tiny in comparison to the shorter-wavelength photons being emitted.

And that still doesn’t account for the fact that the same relationship between N2’s vibrational quantum states and CO2’s vibrational quantum states (a close resonance such that N2 tends to transfer its vibrational kinetic energy to CO2 via collisional radiationless transition) which occurs in a CO2 laser also takes place in the free atmosphere.

In your arguing for the opposite process taking place, you warmists are arguing that a lower-energy photon is being absorbed by CO2, that CO2 becomes vibrationally excited, it collides with other molecules and increases their translational kinetic energy, causing heating of molecules which are already absorbing much higher-energy photons (and are thus much more vibrationally excited than CO2). That violates 2LoT, Phil, no matter how much you try to obfuscate the issue with straw men, sidelines and outright lies.

In reality, CO2 doesn’t cause atmospheric warming, but instead causes cooling (just as it does in a CO2 laser, Phil), just as you now admit water vapor does… in fact, CO2 accounts for ~48 W/m^2 worth of OLR.

Phil.

Phil wrote:
“Again your myth that 15µm photons can only occur at -80ºC”

Phil… resorting to dishonesty is no way to win an argument. Where have I ever stated that?

Here are three times:

“You moron, matter other than CO2 will emit at 15 um when it’s temperature is at ~-80 C.”

“A 15 um photon isn’t going to be emitted by any matter on this planet unless it’s extremely cold. ”

“CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C, which makes that an extremely low-energy (long wavelength) regime. It also happens to be a relatively energy-sparse region of the blackbody curve, given that there’s not a lot of matter radiating at ~-80 C.”

“The laser isn’t “cutting” the steel, it’s merely facilitating an exothermic chemical reaction which causes the steel to burn.”
Red hot steel doesn’t burst into flame. The laser had to get it very hot before cutting could happen. And as your link says, it is also used for welding, which doesn’t involve combustion. If CO2 emission can do that, I think it can warm the atmosphere.

“A 15 um photon isn’t going to be emitted by any matter on this planet unless it’s extremely cold. You yourself have said the spectral radiance in that region is extremely sparse”

Absolute nonsense. Here are two real, measured spectra, from Barrow Alaska. They are taken over a thawing ice-field at about 268K. They are in wave number, so 15 μm is 667 cm⁻¹. You can see looking up from ground that that is a region of peak emission from the air. And looking down from 20 km, it is part of the bite that CO₂ takes out, so that it shows as if emitted from about 225K (TOA, rather than in the atmospheric window region (8-14 μm) which comes at the intensity appropriate for ground emission (268K).

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Still attempting to non sequitur your way out of this, Nick? LOL

I didn’t say it “burst into flames”, Nick. I stated that the steel burns, as in “it’s an exothermic chemical reaction”. I explicitly stated same in my prior post.

https://www.acsys.de/en/laser-cutting/laser-burn-cutting.html
“Oxygen is used as the cutting gas for laser burn cutting. The laser penetrates into the metal and heats the material up. The oxygen is blown into the cutting joint at pressures of up to 6 bar. Then the heated metal reacts with the oxygen, thereby releasing more energy. The energy input is significantly increased by the exothermic reaction. This way, laser burn cutting allows high cutting speeds and the processing of thick metal sheets.”

What would you call an exothermic oxidative reaction involving oxygen, Nick, other than ‘burning’? I’m sure you’ve seen metal burn before, Nick… think along the lines of lighting a steel-wool pot scrubber. It *burns*.

Now as to your “CO2 lasers are hot, so CO2 can heat the atmosphere”… do you not realize that in the ‘atmosphere’ of the lasing chamber, it is CO2 which is acting as a ‘coolant’ by emitting radiation? The same thing happens in the free atmosphere, regardless of the method by which N2 originally becomes vibrationally excited.

Do you not realize that N2’s vibrational quantum states are closely resonant to CO2’s vibrational quantum states such that N2 tends to transfer its vibrational kinetic energy to CO2 (which then undergoes emission relaxation by emitting a photon), just as the Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition states?

“The laser penetrates into the metal and heats the material up.”
“Now you’ll have to explain how a 15 micron photon (corresponding to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C) is warming an atmosphere at 288 K”
Now we have 10 μm photons (corresponding on your Wien formula to 17°C) heating steel to ignition temperature. Or melting in the case of welding.

And you still haven’t backed up your claim that “A 15 um photon isn’t going to be emitted by any matter on this planet “ in the face of measured spectra that show that it certainly is.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Nick Stokes demonstrates his inability to grok energy density. LOL

[Snip…although you do get a couple points for using “grok”, your tone and insulting approach to this conversation are not acceptable for this site. -mod]

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

And yet the warmist trolls can come onto the site daily and trash the science which proves that CO2 does not and cannot cause atmospheric warming, simply because they’ve bought a simplistic scientific viewpoint (and scads of manipulated data) pushed by ‘scientist’ activists with an agenda?

I say it’s time to take the kid gloves off and start treating them like the science-denying enemies of reality that they are.

Reality has so mauled the warmists that CAGW is already mortally wounded and writhing as it bleeds out. Let’s put CAGW out of its misery once and for all. It’s the humane thing to do.

Phil.

The same thing happens in the free atmosphere, regardless of the method by which N2 originally becomes vibrationally excited.

Do you not realize that N2’s vibrational quantum states are closely resonant to CO2’s vibrational quantum states such that N2 tends to transfer its vibrational kinetic energy to CO2 (which then undergoes emission relaxation by emitting a photon), just as the Principles of Lasers, 5th Edition states?
So if you pass an electric discharge through the air to pump up the N2 to its excited state you could get some 10.6 micron emissions. However, that’s the only way you could excite the nitrogen since it’s not accessible by absorbing radiation. So no the same thing does not happen in the free atmosphere.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

I’ve already proven you wrong on this point, Phil. N2 can indeed be vibrationally excited by photon absorption.

———-
Ooopsie, Phil. Seems you’re doing what you do best again… pulling “facts” straight from your sun-don’t-shine. LOL

Phil wrote:
“It’s not a fantasy world, it’s called quantum mechanics, you appear to be unfamiliar with it. Homonuclear diatomics such as N2 don’t have a dipole and can’t be vibrationally excited by radiation.”

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.043422
“Combining with theoretical calculation, our results demonstrate that both vibrational and electronic excitation occurs for ionized nitrogen molecules in 800-nm femtosecond laser fields.”

That’s 0.8 um photons, Phil, just on the infrared side of the visible spectrum. It is also the strongest output range of the Sun’s total irradiance spectrum. That reaches all the way down through the entire atmosphere, Phil.

But… but… but Phil, you said N2 cannot be vibrationally excited by photons under any circumstances! How, oh how, Phil, are you going to recovery from this, your greatest loss of credibility to date? LOL

It’s quite apparent that you haven’t the faintest clue about quantum mechanics, Phil. LOL
———-

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/homonuclear-diatomic-molecules/
“Diatomic molecules have quantized energy levels for rotation and vibration.”

If a molecule’s got a quantized energy leve