Today's Antarctic region once as hot as California, Florida

Apr 21, 2014
Credit: Newcastle University

Parts of ancient Antarctica were as warm as today's California coast, and polar regions of the southern Pacific Ocean registered 21st-century Florida heat, according to scientists using a new way to measure past temperatures.

The findings, published the week of April 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, underscore the potential for increased warmth at Earth's poles and the associated risk of melting polar ice and rising sea levels, the researchers said.

Led by scientists at Yale, the study focused on Antarctica during the Eocene epoch, 40-50 million years ago, a period with high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and consequently a greenhouse . Today, Antarctica is year-round one of the coldest places on Earth, and the continent's interior is the coldest place, with annual average land temperatures far below zero degrees Fahrenheit.

But it wasn't always that way, and the new measurements can help improve used for predicting future climate, according to co-author Hagit Affek of Yale, associate professor of geology & geophysics.

"Quantifying past temperatures helps us understand the sensitivity of the climate system to greenhouse gases, and especially the amplification of global warming in ," Affek said.

The paper's lead author, Peter M.J. Douglas, performed the research as a graduate student in Affek's Yale laboratory. He is now a postdoctoral scholar at the California Institute of Technology. The research team included paleontologists, geochemists, and a climate physicist.

By measuring concentrations of rare isotopes in ancient fossil shells, the scientists found that temperatures in parts of Antarctica reached as high as 17 degrees Celsius (63F) during the Eocene, with an average of 14 degrees Celsius (57F)—similar to the average annual off the coast of California today.

Eocene temperatures in parts of the southern Pacific Ocean measured 22 degrees Centigrade (or about 72F), researchers said—similar to seawater temperatures near Florida today.

Today the average annual South Pacific sea temperature near Antarctica is about 0 degrees Celsius.

These ancient ocean temperatures were not uniformly distributed throughout the Antarctic ocean regions—they were higher on the South Pacific side of Antarctica—and researchers say this finding suggests that ocean currents led to a temperature difference.

"By measuring past temperatures in different parts of Antarctica, this study gives us a clearer perspective of just how warm Antarctica was when the Earth's atmosphere contained much more CO2 than it does today," said Douglas. "We now know that it was warm across the continent, but also that some parts were considerably warmer than others. This provides strong evidence that global warming is especially pronounced close to the Earth's poles. Warming in these regions has significant consequences for climate well beyond the high latitudes due to ocean circulation and melting of that leads to sea level rise."

To determine the ancient temperatures, the scientists measured the abundance of two rare isotopes bound to each other in fossil bivalve shells collected by co-author Linda Ivany of Syracuse University at Seymour Island, a small island off the northeast side of the Antarctic Peninsula. The concentration of bonds between carbon-13 and oxygen-18 reflect the temperature in which the shells grew, the researchers said. They combined these results with other geo-thermometers and model simulations.

The new measurement technique is called carbonate clumped isotope thermometry.

"We managed to combine data from a variety of geochemical techniques on past environmental conditions with climate model simulations to learn something new about how the Earth's climate system works under conditions different from its current state," Affek said. "This combined result provides a fuller picture than either approach could on its own."

Explore further: No 'permanent El Nino,' scientists say—and the tropics may get even hotter

More information: "Pronounced zonal heterogeneity in Eocene southern high-latitude sea surface temperatures" PNAS, 2014. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321441111

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Researchers decipher climate paradox from the Miocene

Apr 11, 2014

Scientists of the German Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have deciphered a supposed climate paradox from the Miocene era by means of complex model simulations. ...

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

Oct 09, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Ancient ice melt unearthed in Antarctic mud

Jul 21, 2013

Global warming five million years ago may have caused parts of Antarctica's large ice sheets to melt and sea levels to rise by approximately 20 metres, scientists report today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Recommended for you

Erosion may trigger earthquakes

Nov 21, 2014

Researchers from laboratories at Géosciences Rennes (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), Géosciences Montpellier (CNRS/Université de Montpellier 2) and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (CNRS/IPGP/Université Paris Diderot), ...

Strong undersea earthquake hits eastern Indonesia

Nov 21, 2014

A strong undersea earthquake hit off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Friday, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or serious damage and officials said it was unlikely to trigger a tsunami.

User comments : 767

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (22) Apr 21, 2014
Isn't it funny how they fail to mention that temperature trends generally lead carbon dioxide trends, and not vice versa?
Returners
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 21, 2014
It's also funny they fail to mention antarctica has moved by about a thousand miles or so in that time period, greatly modifying temperatures for other reasons not at all related to greenhouse gases.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (27) Apr 21, 2014
Uba said:
Isn't it funny how they fail to mention that temperature trends generally lead carbon dioxide trends, and not vice versa?


It is not so funny when you look at all of the reports that show that temperature, mostly, led CO2 in the past. It is assumed everyone knows that. It is exactly that which makes things so worrisome today due to the fact we are now leading temperature with CO2. There were not humans to produce the CO2 in the past (although there were a few rare events that might have been linked to immense volcanoes or other sources). So, when the earth changed its position with respect to the sun and warmed then CO2 was produced as a feedback mechanism (as was water vapor). I am glad you pointed this out and it shows you do know that CO2 was feedback in the past and is now a driver instead. Good job Uba. I didn't think you had it in you.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (21) Apr 21, 2014
Returners said:
It's also funny they fail to mention antarctica has moved by about a thousand miles or so in that time period, greatly modifying temperatures for other reasons not at all related to greenhouse gases.


Will you please give us a link to the sites that verify that the antarctic has moved by a thousand miles since 40 - 50 mya?

My reference says: "From about 100 myr ago (later Cretaceous) the crust of Australia and New Zealand begin separating from Antarctica. By this time Antarctica is already positioned over the South Pole."

http://www.discov...1_2.html

Please give us a link to your reference. Or were you just making this up as you went along?
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (22) Apr 21, 2014
Isn't it funny how they fail to mention that temperature trends generally lead carbon dioxide trends, and not vice versa?
No, not at all funny, considering that has nothing to do with what they were talking about. Arguing about phantom research again uba.

Isn't it funny how denialists always find something to denigrate? Isn't that moronic?

raywood
2 / 5 (25) Apr 21, 2014
Please show me irrefutable proof that CO2 causes warming.
Why_
1.9 / 5 (23) Apr 21, 2014
"the study focused on Antarctica during the Eocene epoch, 40-50 million years ago, a period with high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and consequently a greenhouse climate."

So, I guess my question is: if all this "global warming" is "man-made" who made it 40-50 million years ago?

What? Were the friggin' dinosaurs driving Detroit boats and gas guzzlers back then?

So, even if "global warming" was REAL, which we all know it is NOT, and is in fact a total and complete scam - follow the money - how can THESE IDIOTS possibly blame it on mankind and not a natural earth cycle since, humans did not industrialize the planet that long ago...

Morons.

The REALITY is: 95% of all "greenhouse gases" are made by: 1) volcanic activity and 2) solar activity. BUT YOU CAN'T TAX THE SUN OR VOLCANOES, now can you?

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
raywood
1.9 / 5 (23) Apr 21, 2014
@Why, Amen Brother! There is no proof that CO2 drives the temperature. In fact there is data that shows it doesn't.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (20) Apr 21, 2014
"the study focused on Antarctica during the Eocene epoch, 40-50 million years ago, a period with high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and consequently a greenhouse climate."

So, I guess my question is: if all this "global warming" is "man-made" who made it 40-50 million years ago?
[...]

Morons.

The REALITY is: 95% of all "greenhouse gases" are made by: 1) volcanic activity and 2) solar activity. BUT YOU CAN'T TAX THE SUN OR VOLCANOES, now can you?

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


Moron is exactly correct.

Only a moron cites the very article whose premise he/she/it seeks to refute, when said article offers several specific causes for former warming that arose from natural climate change as opposed to anthropogenic causes, as the article highlights.

Hopelessly confused much?

Or just another practitoner of willful disunderstanding --ie, TROLL?

My money is on the latter possibility.

Ain't that right, raywood?
raywood
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 21, 2014
crickets!
Maggnus
4 / 5 (20) Apr 21, 2014
Please show me irrefutable proof that CO2 causes warming.
Please show me irrefutable proof that you are alive.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 21, 2014
Plate Absolute Velocity (cm/yr)*
Antarctic ~2.05

Okay, so that comes to 492 to 615 miles.

That's a rather big difference in latitude.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (20) Apr 21, 2014
"the study focused on Antarctica during the Eocene epoch, 40-50 million years ago, a period with high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and consequently a greenhouse climate."

So, I guess my question is: if all this "global warming" is "man-made" who made it 40-50 million years ago?
Who? How about "what"?

What? Were the friggin' dinosaurs driving Detroit boats and gas guzzlers back then?
How long ago did they die off? Let me give you a hint - more than 50 million years ago!

The rest of your rant is just drivel. You should wipe the spittle off your cheek.
raywood
2 / 5 (21) Apr 21, 2014
@Caliban, I do not Cite the article. I assume you can read There is no proof that CO2 drives temperatures. For the last decade the mean average temperature has stabilized but CO2 has risen sharply, Please explain!

"During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today". Dr Vincent Gray. Please Explain!

thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (20) Apr 21, 2014
raywook wrote: "During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today". Dr Vincent Gray. Please Explain!"

Try reading this...

During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today". Dr Vincent Gray. Please Explain!

http://en.wikiped...h_cycles

This is one of many ways the Earth can change the balance with incoming sunlight. However, I would like to see your references to the "fact" that the 70 million years you are citing had a CO3 level of half the present level. That seems like a long time to have a single stable CO2 reading. Oh, wait. Maybe you have an error bar on those CO2 "estimates."
howhot2
4 / 5 (20) Apr 21, 2014
One of the dim bulbs said
even if "global warming" was REAL, which we all know it is NOT
I think you need to go back and think about what audience your addressing. That would be cool with the barrel of monkeys, (ohh sorry, tea partiers) you hang out with, and everyone knows your tea party is just a bunch of blow-hards that don't know anything about anything including government just like you. Your mother would be deeply disappointed with your science grades.
dvdrushton
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2014
@raywood
During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today". Dr Vincent Gray. Please Explain!


Raywood - do you know anything about Milankovich cycles? Are you aware that science has been probing the past climate cycles using multiple techniques for a long time now? If you are - your question seems really strange. Take a read of this site - and look especially at the first graphic. It is pretty amazing how science is able to reconstruct temps from millions of years ago. http://climate.na...evidence

Lex Talonis
2.9 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2014
Starting at the Plasticine Error, and moving through the Carniverous, Permascan and the Tricycle periods, Gondwana land has rotated 17 times on it's axis.

The USA used to be where the UK is, Australia was in Siberia and California was in Trinidad, and the south pole was on the equator.

You lot ought to learn your planetary sciences proper.

Returners
1.7 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2014
Milankovich Cycles aren't a good explanation for several reasons:

1, The time scale of the cycles are too short to effect an entire era.

2, The time scales of the cycles in ice core record do not match the theoretical cyclical cause. The peaks occur at random intervals from 80k to 120k years, which shouldn't really happen if a 100k astronomical cycle is the forcing agent. It should happen at 100k years plus or minus half of the 21k cycle, which would be 90k to 110k. Obviously 80k and 120k lie well outside this range...

3, A competent geologist would not characterize a multi-million year ear based on maxima and minima, but rather the average. Thus Milankovich Cycles have, or at least should have, absolutely no bearing on the temperature characterization of an entire geologic era...

4, Oh yeah, the temperature changes appear to occur 10K before their theoretical causes, which means the theory is wrong anyway...
Returners
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2014
You can't really explain a (global) 10C temperature change in the pressence of less "greenhouse gases" unless one of the following is true:

1, One or more "greenhouse gases" is not actually a GHG, and is actually an anti-GHG.

2, The Sun was hotter.

3, The Earth's orbit was 1% smaller in radius...

If anyone else can think of another reason, I'm all ears. Whatever it is would have absolutely nothing to do with a 100k year Milankovich Cycle, because the time scales of an entire era are too long for that cycle to matter...
dvdrushton
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2014
Milankovich Cycles aren't a good explanation for several reasons:


I was not trying to suggest that Milankovich cycles provided the explanation for the specific phenomena discussed in this article. I was pointing out that climate scientists have been studying the past climate in great detail - and have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the drivers of the warms, and cools of the past. Especially when you consider we are looking back literally billions of years. This subject is highly complex - yes? So to come on the comments section - and say (paraphrased) - 'there was a time in the past - when C02 levels were lower, but temperatures were higher - therefore C02 cannot cause temperature increase' - is showing a very simplistic - and false understanding of the complexity of earth's climate. That is my point.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2014
Isn't it funny how they fail to mention that temperature trends generally lead carbon dioxide trends, and not vice versa?


Very true, until, that is, mankind came along and induced the industrial revolution.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2014
Returners….

View fig 2
And remember this is for one location on earth. An extreme one.
No correlation at all?
And displaced by 10k yrs?

http://www.climat...les.html
OdinsAcolyte
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2014
The Plates move and solar radiation is variable as we have all recently witnessed. Y'all like that cooling? Biologically; adapt or die. Or...adapt and die is more accurate. All things must pass.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2014
@Caliban, I do not Cite the article. I assume you can read There is no proof that CO2 drives temperatures.[...] Please explain!

"During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago,[...] 10ºC higher than today". Dr Vincent Gray. Please Explain!


So, raywood, my fine furry friend, don't despair.

I understand that you have many questions that you feel lack answers. If it is answers you seek, then I would suggest that you tha broaden your search to include sources besides the pseudoscience teatard BigCarbon blogos from which your questions are quoted.

I won't indulge you by doing the work for you. That process has been repeated endlessly here at physorg.

Try this excellent site, which clearly summarizes the reams upon reams of peer-reviewed research investigating AGW:

http://skepticalscience.com/

All of your questions will be addressed, and you will thus be apprised of the facts as they stand.

The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2014
This was an interesting and inspiring article:
It led me to look at trends in CO2 and temperature throughout history. Amazingly enough, to you, not to me, there is no correlation between the two over thousand times thousands of of years.
They do change, but are not related. Check out graphs site:.govs
WOW!
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2014
This was an interesting and inspiring article:
It led me to look at trends in CO2 and temperature throughout history. Amazingly enough, to you, not to me, there is no correlation between the two over thousand times thousands of of years.
They do change, but are not related. Check out graphs site:.govs
WOW!


If you are going to post a link, post one that works, alchy. The fact that you posted what you did will lead those skeptical of your intentions to suspect that your "link" is to a site of, shall we say, dubious provenance and scientific quality.

dvdrushton
4.3 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2014
@alchemist
They do change, but are not related.


That kind of conflicts with a mountain of information I have seen. Here is one link - http://www.planet...e-change

Look at the first graph on the site - showing the last 450,000 years.

Maybe you could support your assertion.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2014
Plate Absolute Velocity (cm/yr)*
Antarctic ~2.05

Okay, so that comes to 492 to 615 miles.

That's a rather big difference in latitude.


@ Lurkering-Skippy, that is not the big difference you think it is Cher. Ol Ira just checked in on the google, you should take Otto-Skippy's advice sometime and try it so you don't say the stupid things so much. 600 or 500 miles is not the big distance when you look how big the continent of Antarctica is. According to the Google-Skippys, it's still inside the thing what they call the Antarctical Circle.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2014
@ The Lurkering-Skippy, P.S. to you Cher. I just checked on the Little-Ira-Skippy's map ball. The 600 or 500 miles you think is so much would be like moving the Northern Pole down into Northern Alaska, not all the way down to California or Florida.
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2014
Yes, it does conflict with the majority of biased sites. Check the .gov s and .edu s. You can find bias sites on both sides stating what they want, but it you find one that demos CO2 change, and is uninterested in temp., and another interested in temp but not CO2, you've got a pretty good foundation.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2014
Yes, it does conflict with the majority of biased sites. Check the .gov s and .edu s. You can find bias sites on both sides stating what they want, but it you find one that demos CO2 change, and is uninterested in temp., and another interested in temp but not CO2, you've got a pretty good foundation.
Of course, any site is "biased" if it doesn't say what you want, right Alchem? Maybe you should try setting aside YOUR bias, and actually look at what the science says.

You know, for someone who claims to be a chemist, you sure have a funny idea of how to read science papers. Guess you've never published?
The Alchemist
2.3 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2014
Trying to hit me in the ego Maggie? I've published. More importantly I've produced, industrially. Where to publish means to perish-your competition gets your stuff.

However, I proposed an approach whereby anyone could do some quick googles and bring the question to an end without my bias. I guess I should have mentioned the short-cut of looking at images.
Anyone can see, CO2 varies profoundly, yet the Earth's temperature remains "kind of" constant.
But I think readers should examine for themselves.

One thing I'd like to know is who are the goof-ball who vote down simple facts and approaches that have nothing to do with bias. Like state formulae.
dvdrushton
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 23, 2014
Alchemist - did you look at the plate that I asked you to look at? How can you look at that plate - and say there is no correlation between C02 and temperature. Now the fact that there are other drivers of temperature - that make the overall picture far more complex - does not alter the fact that there is an indesputable correlation demonstrated by this record.
dvdrushton
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
I agree with Alchemist - it is good to do a little googling independently - to make up your own mind. The question on the table is - is there a correlation between C02 and temperature. Here is an interesting article - with a very interesting chart - showing 800,000 years of temp and C02 data. Like Fox - we report - you decide.

http://blog.ucsus...-loa-126
Osiris1
3.6 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Love all this guardhouse 'humor' that I somehow do not find 'funny' at all. What DOES concern, and is not even commented on............IS if the poles were that warm, then just how HOT did the REST of the planet get, like how hot was it at the equator? Hate to think mankind, or his survivors, that is, would have to live on a kind of 'Waterworld' like the movie at the poles on rafts. Suppose we could survive as an undersea dweller in some future Atlantis scenario, harvesting kelp and farmed fish. With fusion power available in abundance by then, supplemented by environmental energy extraction tech coming on line now and in the future we will do fine. But how about all our other planetmates, eh! Maybe they all cannot grow gills and live in subs.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
I agree with Alchemist - it is good to do a little googling independently - to make up your own mind. The question on the table is - is there a correlation between C02 and temperature. Here is an interesting article - with a very interesting chart - showing 800,000 years of temp and C02 data. Like Fox - we report - you decide.


http://blog.ucsus...-loa-126

Come on alky - we're all dying to hear you explain that away.
And if you do - I'll provide more of the same for you.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
Love all this guardhouse 'humor' that I somehow do not find 'funny' at all. What DOES concern, and is not even commented on............IS if the poles were that warm, then just how HOT did the REST of the planet get, like how hot was it at the equator?.......

Osi, the poles would be much warmer than now but the equator just a little. There is a certain thing call the DALR which means when heated from the bottom ( the atmosphere essentially does receive most Watts that way) then the stuff rises and the temp rise is spread vertically through the depth of the atmosphere. Poles are different as there is a cold boundary layer that is heated first before the heat is then convected higher.
The Meteorology lessen is hereby ended.
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
No explanation is required:
You can tell the conclusions of the sites by their URLs.
You can tell the conclusions of the sites by their URLs.

For example they use the Mona Loa CO2 increase. Macadamia nut island in on an increasingly active volcano, with and increasing fuel-consuming population. Every scientist should be immediately skeptical of that... you could after all get the results from the Faroe Islands. A better spot would be the nonman's land in Pennsylvania or Canada.

But if you are interested: www.google.dk and enter Faroe Islands CO2 -emissions, see what it says. You'll be surprised you can read Danish.
dvdrushton
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
Would the National Academy of Sciences web site convince you more Alchemist? - or is your mind closed to the data? - so you resort to protecting your falsehoods with attacks on the url of the site - vs the actual quality of the data.

https://nas-sites...gure-14/
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
That sure is some pretty data. For having occurred so long ago, it is cleaner than anything I've seen in the lab. (Sarcasm.)

So what do you say to the lines of research who are not trying to show a correlation OR LACK of correlation between the two? Who aren't trying to prove anything other than to describe what the Earth was like before?

Mind isn't closed... this is the first time I reviewed this particular line of research, that of looking at CO2 throughout the ages, and temperature throughout the ages, separately.

I've got a long line of proofs why you need 10x the CO2 to begin to see results. The most trivial of proofs is CO2 is an insulator, that would cause warmth, but stability. We are seeing marginal warmth and dynamics. A result more like we are operating a furnace on and off, like the daily business cycle perhaps.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
@ dvrushton - you have to understand that Alchemist cannot agree with you, as that would upset his dearly held belief that global warming is the result of the heat island effect in combination with the heat given off by car engines and the like. It is absolutely imperative to his belief that CO2 not be able to drive warming, so there is nothing you can show him otherwise.

@ Alchemist - no shot to the ego, I just continue to point out that you are not really a chemist as you claim, and you do not have a good grasp on the scientific method. If you have published (please, do show) I would bet that it had nothing at all to do with atmospheric chemistry nor radiative forcing which, after all, is what we are really talking about.

Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
I've published. More importantly I've produced, industrially. Where to publish means to perish-your competition gets your stuff.
@The Alchemist
might I also add that being published does not mean you are correct in this case.

I am also published (but not in climate science). My wife is also published (but not in climate science), but she cannot (and will not) even consider these comments as they do not interest her.

Therefore your appeal to authority is useless unless you can produce a publication in your name which shows a relevant and applicable study topic published to support the evidence and argument in which you are presenting.

runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
No explanation is required:
....
For example they use the Mona Loa CO2 increase. Macadamia nut island in on an increasingly active volcano, with and increasing fuel-consuming population. Every scientist should be immediately skeptical of that... you could after all get the results from the Faroe Islands. A better spot would be the nonman's land in Pennsylvania or Canada..

SO you're trying to say that it's contaminated by the volcano?
read this then...
http://earthobser...-record/

Oh, and the observatory is at altitude on an island that lies in the Sub-tropical HP belt. As such it is well above any subsidence inversion and will receive air that has descended in the HP, air from, like, aloft. Air that has been mixed/spread across the planet.
"4 miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet above sea level."
Also, S Pole monitoring..

http://www.youtub...embedded
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
Maggie-you know I don't use the heat island effect, and if you don't, shame on you.
Cap'n: Your own statement applies to yourself, so why are you posting?

I post to shed light on this politically charged stuff. For example, multiplying the surface area of the ocean by the ocean level rise to get a good estimate of the change in STATE of the planet. You multiply that volume by heat required to melt the ice and you demonstrate the amount of heat added to the system.
You then look at changes of input from the major driver, the Sun, and you have parameterized our impact on the world.
CO2 effects should be most pronounced in the day/nighttime cycle. But you don't and will not see any studies on how CO2 affects/affected the Earth's nighttime cooling, because you won't find anything.

Exactly like studies of independent CO2 from temp., and studies of temp., independent of CO2...

IT PUTS THE ISSUE TO BED.
'Night guys.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 23, 2014
CO2 effects should be most pronounced in the day/nighttime cycle. But you don't and will not see any studies on how CO2 affects/affected the Earth's nighttime cooling, because you won't find anything.
They ARE pronounced and DO affect night time cooling, and there is a lot of data about those very items.

Another example of your bias Alchemist. You don't see it because you don't want to.

http://www.climat...ser-look
http://www.pnas.o...971.full
http://www.creaf....ture.pdf
http://www.skepti...hp?n=455

Without the heat island affect, your cherished "its the engines" argument is even less likely than the near zero affect it has now. Seriously Alchem, take off your heat-tainted glasses!
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
Apparently you just assumed I wouldn't read these, however, the facts you claim have been a specific interest for a long time. Imagine my joy when you say, "Here they are..."

And my disappointment when they do not do what you claim:

http://www.climat...ser-look: Doesn't say anything about the RATE change, or CO2 for that matter. He does cite water, which you know I am a big fan of...

http://www.pnas.o...971.full: Uses CO2 as an assumption. Using CO2 as a given if fine, for common understanding, but is not a study, nor does it again demo the RATE.

http://www.creaf....ture.pdf: Interesting study, great for its purpose, but studying max/mins is again not rate, and their conclusions are not germane to our topic.

http://www.skepti...hp?n=455: Skepti: this sites sub-highschool level authority brazenly misrepresents Alexander's findings. But Alexander does say extremes are increasing, which lends itself against insulation CO2 and for heat sources (including our Sun).
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
Mona Loa is BS. Research those Faroes if you want a result unbiased by volcanoes at all. No bogus "compensation algorithms," or other arm-waving.

No colossal CO2 increase either... hmmm. Where is the missing piece of the puzzle?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Apparently you just assumed I wouldn't read these
Funny that, when I cited them so you would.
And my disappointment when they do not do what you claim:
So imagine my lack of surprise that you would make this claim. Perhaps I grossly overestimated your ability to read and comprehend English. Let's see shall we?

ALchem:
Doesn't say anything about the RATE change, or CO2 for that matter. He does cite water, which you know I am a big fan of..
The article:
But looking at these four types of records, it appears that nights have warmed even more: the average month recorded 10 percent more record high minimum temperatures than record high maximums.
Perhaps you have a different understanding of "rate" then the rest of the English speaking world? The article:
At night, they only warm temperatures, acting like an insulating blanket. Thus, nights warm more than the days, and this is exactly what climate models predict.
Nights right?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Alchem says:
Uses CO2 as an assumption. Using CO2 as a given if fine, for common understanding, but is not a study, nor does it again demo the RATE.
Not a study? An abstract from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is not a study? Perhaps you have a different understanding of "study" than the rest of the English speaking world? the article
We analyzed weather data at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1979 to 2003 to examine temperature trends and the relationship between rice yield and temperature by using data from irrigated field experiments conducted at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1992 to 2003. Here we report that annual mean maximum and minimum temperatures have increased by 0.35°C and 1.13°C, respectively, for the period 1979–2003
"temperature trends", "from 1979 to 2003", "from 1992 to 2003" "report that annual mean". Hmm, sure looks like rates to me. What do you think they are saying?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
I could go on, but it's really pointless given your ability to overlook that which you do not wish to see and prevaricate on that which contradicts you. After all, was it not you who said in this very thread that "But you don't and will not see any studies on how CO2 affects/affected the Earth's nighttime cooling, because you won't find anything." yet in less than 2 minutes of searching I found several articles pointing to numerous studies that are discussing that very thing.

DO you find that dodging and weaving like you do gives you back problems? Or do you just think that simply results from where you have placed your head?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Cap'n: Your own statement applies to yourself, so why are you posting?
@alkie
I haven't posted bull-shite though, whereas you have. in fact, usually I post links to studies etc supporting my argument, and above this comment you've posted, erm, lets see: a link to google.dk, and ... erm... NOTHING. wow.
meanwhile, Runrig, Maggnus, Thermodynamics, Tim Thompson et al will run circles around your argument
I post to shed light on this politically charged stuff
yeah, well, most of the above mentioned POST SCIENCE. You're in the wrong place to be a politician...
ya want politics, go here: politicalforum.com
THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE
stick to that and you might just learn something (I am hopeful, anyway)

ya want to learn about CO2 etc? read Tim Thompson and Thermodynamics on these threads (in comments section)
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://phys.org/n...bal.html
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Mona Loa is BS. Research those Faroes if you want a result unbiased by volcanoes at all. No bogus "compensation algorithms," or other arm-waving
@alkie
this is personal conjecture, unless you have empirical data proving it. therefore you are arguing from personal conjecture or ignorance

IOW - this is as worthless as saying "Leprechaun farts cause jet stream instability" and every bit as valid given the lack of proof

do you have empirical data refuting Maggnus or Runrig's claims? no? wow, imagine that...
try following (former JPL physicist and climate scientist) Thompson here : http://phys.org/n...firstCmt and learning. you might be surprised (or you'll ignore it, given what I've seen above with Runrig)
see also: http://static.ber...pped.pdf

http://onlinelibr...abstract

http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

http://data.giss....mations/
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
CO2 effects should be most pronounced in the day/nighttime cycle. But you don't and will not see any studies on how CO2 affects/affected the Earth's nighttime cooling, because you won't find anything.

Exactly like studies of independent CO2 from temp., and studies of temp., independent of CO2...


What on earth are you blathering about ... look at these....
Empirical evidence:
"Increases in GH forcing inferred from outgoing LW radiation spectra of the Earth 1970-1997," Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 ( '01).
http://www.nature...5a0.html
"Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing LW data between 1970 & now," Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 ('04). http://spiedigita.../1/164_1
"Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's IR spectrum between 1970 & '06," Chen et al, ('07) http://www.eumets...es_v.pdf
"Radiative forcing – measured at Earth's surface – corroborate the increasing GHE" Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibr...abstract
SteveS
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Mona Loa is BS. Research those Faroes if you want a result unbiased by volcanoes at all. No bogus "compensation algorithms," or other arm-waving.

No colossal CO2 increase either... hmmm. Where is the missing piece of the puzzle?


What are you talking about?

There's no atmospheric sampling station on the Faroes, and all nearby stations show the same general rate of increase as Mona Loa. For example Svalbard

ftp://aftp.cmdl.n...onth.txt
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
Anybody interested in surface CO2 measurements from 140 sites in 45 countries?

http://www.esrl.n..._surface
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Alky:
FFS man look at the bloody graph on this NASA site showing the CO2 tracings of monitors from Barrow, Samoa, the S Pole and Mauna Loa overlaid.

Do you notice anything?
Yes, of course the Mauna Loa trace is vastly different. It's obviously tainted by the volcano.

"We only detect volcanic CO2 from the Mauna Loa summit late at night at times when the regional winds are light and southerly. Under these conditions, a temperature inversion forms above the ground, and the volcanic emissions are trapped near the surface and travel down our side of the mountain slope. When the volcanic emissions arrive at the observatory, the CO2 analyzer readings increase by several parts per million, and the measured amounts become highly variable for periods of several minutes to a few hours. In the last decade, this has occurred on about 15% of nights between midnight and 6 a.m.
http://earthobser...-record/
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Alky:
FFS man look at the bloody graph on this NASA site showing the CO2 tracings of monitors from Barrow, Samoa, the S Pole and Mauna Loa overlaid.

Do you notice anything?
Yes, of course the Mauna Loa trace is vastly different. It's obviously tainted by the volcano.

This has been pointed out to him before. Once again, it does not jibe with the vision he has of his dearly held belief, and in his own infallibility, and therefore he can not allow it to be true. It is easier to just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist than to reconsider a flawed premise.
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
Wow, look at the nerves I've struck.

My point was never the increase of CO2-it can increase 10x before thermodynamics says it'll have an impact. Cap'n Stumpy-use your science powers and a "canonical distribution" to determine how much CO2 affects radiation. You'll need a few assumptions. go ahead and put CO2 effects in the most extreme.
That is not including water. Water is a broad spectrum GH gas. CO2 is a narrow spectrum GH gas. Water is ~6 to ~60% more prevalent than CO2. With the 6 over deserts, and the 60 over the frekin oceans. Fluctuations in water CO2.

I'm sorry about your deep held beliefs, but it is only a gas. Get over it.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Alchemist stated that there is no correlation between C02 and temperature. Data was presented to demonstrate that this claim was false. Alchemist now continues to argue in direct conflict with the presented data.

At this point - for me - it is only appropriate to put Alchemist in the box with the other irrational denialists - and move on. Lesson learned - it is pointless to expend energy - perhaps it is just a game - who knows?
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2014
dv-Dude I am a pro AGW-er. I just don't buy the mainstream BS.

Data and physical properties were presented to you to as well, you haven't changed a mite either. As far as I can tell there are no refutations to physical properties.

Nor did you examine for yourself unbiased sources. Or do any calculations that make the truth obvious.

You you cite papers, I cite properties. Someday we'll meet. After all, after years of arguing about the glaciers, now everyone says, "that's obvious." I was ridiculed for that for years.

Someday the deniers will need to pull out the CO2 properties trump card, and all you proponents of the right, for the wrong reasons will have to scuttle into dark corners and wonder where you went wrong. You're not wrong, you've just been pointed in directions that are contentious.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Apr 23, 2014
Wow, look at the nerves I've struck.

My point was never the increase of CO2-it can increase 10x before thermodynamics says it'll have an impact. Cap'n Stumpy-use your science powers and a "canonical distribution" to determine how much CO2 affects radiation. You'll need a few assumptions. go ahead and put CO2 effects in the most extreme.
That is not including water. Water is a broad spectrum GH gas. CO2 is a narrow spectrum GH gas. Water is ~6 to ~60% more prevalent than CO2. With the 6 over deserts, and the 60 over the frekin oceans. Fluctuations in water CO2.

I'm sorry about your deep held beliefs, but it is only a gas. Get over it.


Please give us your reference URLs that say that thermodynamics shows that you could increase CO2 by 10 X without any change. I think you are just pulling that number out of a dark orifice.
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Alchemist - it is not complicated. You stated that there is no correlation between C02 and temperatures. That is not true. Data has been provided to demonstrate that is not true. There is a correlation between C02 and temperatures - that is a fact.

I am not a pro-AGWer - I am pro reality. What ever it is, it is.

Is the game to just start fights on the internet?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 24, 2014
Wow, look at the nerves I've struck.

My point was never the increase of CO2-it can increase 10x before thermodynamics says it'll have an impact. Cap'n Stumpy-use your science powers and a "canonical distribution" to determine how much CO2 affects radiation. You'll need a few assumptions. go ahead and put CO2 effects in the most extreme.
That is not including water. Water is a broad spectrum GH gas. CO2 is a narrow spectrum GH gas. Water is ~6 to ~60% more prevalent than CO2. With the 6 over deserts, and the 60 over the frekin oceans. Fluctuations in water CO2.

I'm sorry about your deep held beliefs, but it is only a gas. Get over it.


LOOK AT THIS BLOODY GRAPH WILL YOU....

http://earthobser...-record/

What are ALL those monitoring sites showing please?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 24, 2014
Alchemist - it is not complicated. You stated that there is no correlation between C02 and temperatures. That is not true. Data has been provided to demonstrate that is not true. There is a correlation between C02 and temperatures - that is a fact.

I am not a pro-AGWer - I am pro reality. What ever it is, it is.

Is the game to just start fights on the internet?


dvd:
Whatever the motive - I don't know which is the sadder.
That they actually believe the opposite when they see real world data (such as the CO2 monitoring graphs I've posted). That's called willful denial - and is a psychopathy.

Or that they don't and are merely spamming to keep their ideological preference alive, and that's called dishonesty and selfishness.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2014
"Leprechaun farts cause jet stream instability"


Wow, Cap'n... An all this time I was under the impression it worked the other way around...:-)
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 24, 2014
As far as I can tell there are no refutations to physical properties.
@Alkie
then apparently you have not been reading or comprehending what has been posted
Nor did you examine for yourself unbiased sources. Or do any calculations that make the truth obvious
ok, so you've been ignoring the data AND not comprehending what was posted
You you cite papers, I cite properties
those "papers" are based upon known laws of physics with physical properties... they dont make sh*t up as they go, thats not how empirical data works
Dude I am a pro AGW-er. I just don't buy the mainstream BS
doubtful. most people here are not "mainstream", they are just scientifically literate, or in the field.
some, like myself, came here skeptics, and learned BY READING THE POSTS AND LINKS of people like runrig, Thermodynamics and Maggnus et al (big hint there)

suggestion: put your righteous indignation back in your box and re-read with an open mind. LEARN. then think
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 24, 2014
Cap'n Stumpy-use your science powers and a "canonical distribution" to determine how much CO2 affects radiation.
@alkie
you didnt bother to read those links did you?
I've already had one of those posts pulled by the mods for cross-posting because it was too similar to another post in another thread... I'll not post it AGAIN in this one... nor will I spoon-feed you.

If ya cant learn it broke down and simple like in the links, ya aint gonna learn it slower and more drawn out from me...

you really should listen to dvdrushton when he says
I am pro reality. What ever it is, it is
thats all we are here
An all this time I was under the impression it worked the other way around...:-)
@Whydening Gyre
crap. musta been a TYPO! Dyslexia sucks! LMFAO
dvdrushton
5 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2014
@runrig
Whatever the motive - I don't know which is the sadder.


The really interesting thing is the team of folks who seem always poised to attack the science. Foe me - it is important to differentiate who is here to participate constructively, and who is here to just be a disruptor. It is pointless to engage the disruptors - and as you say - hard to know their motives. I think it is worth the effort to test the waters - and see who is in the R2, Uba, antigoracle category. Then we can avoid totally pointless time wasting.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2014
...dark orifice.... @Thermodynamics: Do the thermodynamics. If your credentials are in your name you should be able to create a simple "canonical distribution," demonstrating the properties and incapability of CO2. I did this with @deepsand before, don't worry about statistical over-counting, don't worry about making CO2 absorption properties too strong. You no matter how you manipulate CO2 absorption properties, you wind up magnitudes too small. I'll recreate that conversation, but the result was @deepsand playing pigeon chess.

Yes, I have read and re-read those links, and the Samoan sources and Italian sources are all on volcanoes. Really.

@somebody, your Faroe Island link, linked to NOAA.

Will your lives fall apart if CO2 isn't the culprit? Really, you can make climate and macro-weather PREDICTIONS if you abandon CO2 as the motivator, and accept its heat and changes in ice/current/and Equator-Pole heat-transfer.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2014
Captain Stumpy, do the thermodynamics yourself, you do know what a canonical distribution is, right? It forms things like Boltzmann distributions, Einstein's emission mechanics, etc.? Its junior level chemistry/physics. It will make a fun project for you and your wife to do.

The trouble is I have read all these papers you site-do I have to review each to prove it? Look what @maggie said when I did: Denial and onfuscation. They are as wrong as the glaciers NOT retreating (I half remember an article or two in the early 90's proving the glaciers aren't retreating, even a few years ago the the poles were experiencing normal seasonal variation! Those articles are in the same file I keep reality denying articles.) I've been following this for 26 years now. I've laughed at the 4 degrees by 2012 predictions and the "it is not happening" proclamations alike.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2014
Here thermo and stumpy I'll begin:
The Green House properties of CO2 arise because it absorbs and emits in a random direction IR radiation. Relaxation time is 4.2 microsec.s. Is this a good place to start with y'all? If so we can continue, if not, state where these are incorrect.

HOLD THE PHONE! It looks like someone already did this from a less fundamental approach long before I did:

http://lofi.forum...157.html

She used 10 microseconds instead of 4.2, which also over-insulates.
Her initial assumption was much more elegant than mine, which was to start with the "random walk," but the conclusions are the same.

If you don't believe the above link, and want to go over a bottom up approach, I'm game. But I think all of you will come up with some reason you don't want to face this. She uses a saturation approach, I use a change in concentration approach, but her's really is fascinating.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2014
Alky said: "If you don't believe the above link, and want to go over a bottom up approach, I'm game."

I do not believe the link because it only took me a few minutes to find errors. As an example the number of photons in the band from the 1 m^2 area is wrong. Another is that a single cross section was used. Another was that thermal relaxation is not considered. Another was neglecting broadening. That was after only looking over the paper. I prefer to see how you approach it. If you are doing it from a molecular modeling approach, that would be interesting. If you are doing it statistically, that would also be interesting.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2014
...dark orifice.... @Thermodynamics: **snip** - but the result was @deepsand playing pigeon chess.
You forget that I was there for that whole conversation Alchem. I disagree with your conclusion; as I saw it, the one who kept playing pigeon chess was you. You are trying to do the same here with now thermo
Will your lives fall apart if CO2 isn't the culprit? Really, you can make climate and macro-weather PREDICTIONS if you abandon CO2 as the motivator, and accept its heat and changes in ice/current/and Equator-Pole heat-transfer.
Of course not, and that is not the point. The science speaks here Alchem, not your belief or desire that something be so. The physics are actually pretty straight forward and if you would just take off the blinders of your belief and look at the actual science, you would accept two things as facts that you seem to want to ignore now: 1) CO2 traps heat & 2) your idea DOES NOT have enough energy to explain the heat we see now.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2014
Look what @maggie said when I did: Denial and onfuscation.
Why you lying snake. YOU said there were no studies of night-time warming and I SHOWED YOU THERE WERE!
The Alchemist
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
OK @thermo, this will be fun.
I think the previous link used approximations, not errors, and if you go over them again, her approxs are grossly in CO2's favor.
Do you know a way to search really old conversations on this site? that would help.

So let's start:
1. Agree that we should use the "random walk away from a wall" approach?
2. Agree we can use a linear "peanut butter" spread for photon energies and temperatures as cold as the Earth is?
3. Agree we can use a constant "background" temperature from the Earth, rather than try to compensate for day/nighttime variations/ Earth locals? We'd use a worst-case, not best case.
4. Agree we are NOT going to consider radiation interplay of other gases?
4a. This is worth considering; water's absorption spectrum grossly overlaps and is more prevalent than CO2. It may be simpler, to start here, and prove by default water's impact is much greater.
5. When questions arise, we always use an approximation that obviously favors CO2.
OK?
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2014
OK @Deepsand- I mean @Maggie, I'll read them again, maybe I missed the plots with temperature rates.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2014
OK @Deepsand- I mean @Maggie, I'll read them again, maybe I missed the plots with temperature rates.
Don't play games Alchem, you know I am not deepsand.

Your play on words is amusing. Childish, but amusing.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2014
Alky: You suggested the following.

So let's start:

1. Agree that we should use the "random walk away from a wall" approach?

Why away from a wall? Let me explain. One of the errors the author of the page you sent me to made was to assume the photons that left a molecule heading only upward. In fact the photons heading back down will be intercepted by other CO2 or H2O molecules and then they have a 50% chance of being emitted upward again. In general, that can be integrated over the path length and then we don't have to use monte carlo methods.

2. Agree we can use a linear "peanut butter" spread for photon energies and temperatures as cold as the Earth is?

No, we can use the thermal distribution function. It is well described and we can consider the earth to be a gray body at 15 C or any other temperature you would like.

Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2014
Alky:

3. Agree we can use a constant "background" temperature from the Earth, rather than try to compensate for day/nighttime variations/ Earth locals? We'd use a worst-case, not best case.

Yes. Complete agreement.

4. Agree we are NOT going to consider radiation interplay of other gases?

I am not sure about this. For instance, if there are collisions in an excited state the molecule can relax without emission. In like manner, I want to be able to look at absorption of photons broadcast back toward the earth since they will hit a CO2 molecule and be reradiated in all directions.

4a. This is worth considering; water's absorption spectrum grossly overlaps and is more prevalent than CO2. It may be simpler, to start here, and prove by default water's impact is much greater.

I have no problem doing this. However, if we do, we should use lines instead of bands or use the Radiant heat transfer coupling relationships.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2014
Alky:

5. When questions arise, we always use an approximation that obviously favors CO2.
OK?

I suggest that we go to private messages so that we don't clutter up the blog. We can agree to post what we come up with and we should publicly agree that we will try to hash this out without resorting to verbal violence (although that might be tough for both of us).

I will PM you.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2014
Alky: For some reason my PM is not working. I have a message into the admin folks and if you want to send me a PM I will reply if it gets to me. I haven't forgotten you.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2014
Alky: For some reason my PM is not working. I have a message into the admin folks and if you want to send me a PM I will reply if it gets to me. I haven't forgotten you.
@Thermodynamics and Alkie too
PM's dont work anymore
Do it here in the comments. There will be plenty of people watching

Given that alkie didn't bother to read the other comment links where some of this is spelled out very clearly then perhaps it would be in everyone's best interest (especially newbies and mid-line skeptics) to see the maths/physics spelled out just like this. OPEN.

not everyone will be willing to read it, sure, BUT it leaves behind a lasting thread that can be references over and over for others who do not understand.

I vote leave it in the comments.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
@Capt'n-I did miss some of your links, I am going to go out on a limb and apologize, it was not deliberate. @Others-if a link doesn't work I made a decision long ago it was probably skeptigarbage, sorry, with all the skeptigarbage, I am not going to hunt down your treasures for you.
The Alchemist
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
4. The interplay. Since water is so all encompassing, the mechanism is this: water absorbs a CO2 overlapping wavelength, it re-radiates it combining that energy with other energy into a more water-friendly wavelength, it is basically a one way trip. If we include this I don't think they'll be any photons left for CO2 to absorb after about 30 iterations, and the point is to kick CO2 butt, not show how great water is.
4a. Maybe it is a good idea to show how great water is.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
1. Of course 50 up, 50 down. The wall is a reflector. (I don't think she made that error but... peace.)

2. This will be a nightmare, at 273 K over the IR it will be a close to a constant, I'd like to appeal. (?)
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
CS: I am game. Alch and I can try to work through the derivation in the clear here. However, it means that we will not be able to show some of the math in the blogs here. Let me start by pointing out that I use Mathematica for most of my work.

Alch, what math software do you use. We can, possibly, work out some way to share math.

Also, do you have any references that you want to use. I, typically, fall back on my radiant heat transfer books or my optics books. Even a good EM book can help.

One other thing is that if you want to look at this from a quantum mechanical perspective we can use JavaHawks which is one of the better spectral line packages.

Let me know which way you want to start on this. We can work out the details here on-line.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
"Increases in GH forcing inferred from outgoing LW radiation spectra of the Earth 1970-1997," Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 ( '01).
http://www.nature...5a0.html
"Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing LW data between 1970 & now," Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 ('04). http://spiedigita.../1/164_1
"Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's IR spectrum between 1970 & '06," Chen et al, ('07) http://www.eumets...es_v.pdf
"Radiative forcing – measured at Earth's surface – corroborate the increasing GHE" Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibr...abstract


These are articles I'd love to read, except, what do you know, the links don't work. Thanks.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: I am basing the comment about 50/50 on the comment at the web site of:

"Radiation from the greenhouse gases goes in all directions, and so, effectively, half is radiated out into space, and half is returned to the Earth�s surface and so helps to increase the surface temperature up to a value for which the radiated emission is twice that from the ToA to outer space. ie. the Earth�s surface radiates at 470 W.m^ -2. " where ToA is Top of the Atmosphere.

Let me know if you see anything that negates this observation.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
@thermo-I am old school, I use Linux Calc.. For @deepsand I simply wrote the math out w/ exp(-x) and a x b =

You must've gone deeper than I did, I don't have references that have these kinds of problems prepackaged, I have to re-derive from scratch.

I don't want to put the onus on you, after all it's my challenge, but how much can you do, how fast?
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: I am basing the comment about 50/50 on the comment at the web site of:

"Radiation from the greenhouse gases goes in all directions, and so, effectively, half is radiated out into space, and half is returned to the Earth���s surface and so helps to increase the surface temperature up to a value for which the radiated emission is twice that from the ToA to outer space. ie. the Earth���s surface radiates at 470 W.m^ -2. " where ToA is Top of the Atmosphere.

Let me know if you see anything that negates this observation.


You have a point, I would assume she meant each iteration, which makes sense. She also states it is eventually all radiated into space, which leads me to believe she understands and just spoke vaguely.
Her model is broad strokes after all. It takes some deep physics to know that these kinds of approximations can be done at all, and deeper still to know if they're right. :)
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: I can, probably, take most of the brunt of this but you are going to have to be patient as I go through this and also act as my check and balance as I lay out my approach. I am one of those people who likes to have someone look over my shoulder to make sure I have not missed anything. Since there is a combination of math and physics involved, it will take me a while to both work out my approach and to translate it into something you can look over. So, I expect that I will put this together over the next few days with some of the work over Sunday.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: I can, probably, take most of the brunt of this but you are going to have to be patient as I go through this and also act as my check and balance as I lay out my approach. I am one of those people who likes to have someone look over my shoulder to make sure I have not missed anything. Since there is a combination of math and physics involved, it will take me a while to both work out my approach and to translate it into something you can look over. So, I expect that I will put this together over the next few days with some of the work over Sunday.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
Interesting this seemed to double post just now. I'm surprised that flood control lets it do this.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: Lets start by defining the emission by the earth across the various wavelengths. To do that we need to agree on certain points.

1) How do we assign the temperature for the earth? Do we take an annual mean temperature from the various sources that are available? Or, do we need to take a time series of temperatures. I am in favor of just defining a single temperature and I would let you pick one out.

2) Once we have a temperature we need to decide if we consider the earth to be a black body for the emissions over the entire spectrum. I have no problem with that. I can build a program to generate a black body emission curve for any temperature.

Once we decide on how to define the IR emission from the earth we are on our way.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
BTW, if anyone else wants to chime on about the way we are going to approach this or about boundary conditions (how we define the temperatures) your input will be welcome. If you want to contribute links or anything else, they will be welcome. I would like this to be reviewed by anyone who wants to chime in.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
One more point. Alch, you can get a copy of JavaHawks (to be able to look at lines for CO2, Water vapor, and many other constituents) from:

http://www.cfa.ha.../hitran/

They have the forms and e-mail address of Larry Rothman who is the guy who will OK you for a copy of the code. The standard HITRAN database that comes with it will be fine for our exercise and we can probably go to bands and corrections if you agree after looking at the lines and broadening. I have been trying to suck the HITEMP database into Mathematica but I am not there yet. The HITEMP (instead of HITRAN) gives temperatures up to 3000K. We won't need those. Again we will probably need the lines, but it is good to have them to be sure we don't need them.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Alchy: As a first step here we need to come up with a definition of the output we want to be able to determine the impact of our calculations. This is not as simple as it looks. The process is called analysis.

I will put a strawman problem statement out that anyone can give us feedback on.

I see the problem statement as: Given the average temperature of the earth at 57F:

From https://www2.ucar...ture-now

Which is about 287 K.

1) Calculate the amount of energy leaving the surface of the earth that makes it out of the atmosphere to cool the earth.

2) Change the CO2 content by 20% and see what that does to the escaping IR.

From those two points I think we can start forward.

This is a great time for everyone to start pointing out the strengths or weaknesses of this approach.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
So far I think you have the start. The topics are very very broad, and liable to misinterpretation; I suggest a more focussed approach or you'll end up in the same type of stalemate as occurred with deepsand. It is also important to keep Alchem's premise firmly in mind:

1) CO2 does not contribute to the excess heat the planet is currently experiencing.
2) CO2 does not act as an absorbing "blanket" that prevents re-radiated energy from escaping into space
3) The current heating of the planet is due entirely (or almost entirely) as a result of mechanical heat generation from the burning of fuels in engines and other, similar, industrial processes.

It seems to me you are currently trying to quantify premise 1. Beware of broadening the subject too much in one go, keep it specific to the single issue and move forward only when that issue has been acceptably resolved.

Pardon my bias, but I have already seen Alchem get frustrated and resort to broad generalizations.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2014
Here you go Alky - the papers you'd love to read. My compliments...

http://www.nature...5a0.html

http://spiedigita.../1/164_1

http://www.eumets...roceedin

http://onlinelibr...abstract

https://ams.confe...0737.htm

BTW: you'd hav found them in Google scholar.
Or best go to AGW Observer
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
Mag: Many thanks for your input. I will wait for Alch, but I am thinking that looking at 1 above is going to be a large project. As you said, there are a lot of things to take into consideration. However, I think we can make estimates of some and simplify (or not as the math tells us) and keep it tractable.

I see 1 and 2 as being directly linked and working through 1 we will run into 2.

As for 3, I will let Alchy elaborate on that. It is a simple order of magnitude estimation but I don't want to conflate it with 1 and 2. Let's see what my partner on this exercise chimes in on.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Run: Most of those are pay-walled, but the last one is great for showing lines and sub-bands in the spectra in figure 5. It is a great example.

Any comments on the approach that Alchy and I are going to be embarking on?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
Remembering my "stalemate" from @deepsand, where he kept bringing linear factors that actually grew exponentially, and saying we had not covered things we had. I had actually proved it had no impacts from several impacts before we got into the meat.

Like so:
By the power vested in me by the equipartition theorem, I declare that kinetic energies are equally distributed among the linear molecules, and therefore the only significant contributions are from excitation states.

(Sound good? Well, I know it sounds good, but are there any objections?)

BTW: I want another ground rule: We are using properties alone, any only those gleaned from boring well established sources. Like the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, etc.. No Al Gorithms.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: It does not sound very good to me. For instance, the distribution of kinetic energy is according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann theorem. It is a well defined distribution and the only distribution that will give us the range of KE we see in a real gas. And that is only good for a specific temperature. The temperature changes as we move up in the atmosphere. How it changes is site specific but we should be able to come to an example curve for that which satisfies us both.

However, it is how we use any distribution that is just as important as which we use.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2014
Another rule: Maggnus does not tell us what we are trying to prove. He's already built weasels into the constraints.

We are determining the effects of CO2 and increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Not proving CO2 is not a GH gas, Mars would disagree.

My heat premise is NOT entering into this work AT ALL.

We are modeling CO2 in the atmosphere and seeing what falls out of basic well-accepted science.
Raising it 20% seems reasonable-to clarify, raining a factor of 1.2 not to 20% of the atmosphere.

And when all this is over Maggie, I'll explain again what I believe. Like heating is a SECONDARY effect of what we are doing, NOT the primary effect, since you clearly haven't understood.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: Do you want to start with per-industrial levels and bring it up to the present, or start at the present and raise it 20%?

I have asked everyone to put in their suggestions. For instance, I would expect Rygg2 and Uba to have their say. By that invitation I made we might get anyone weighing in. You and I will decide what we will do, but I would like to leave it open to anyone to comment (not that they won't anyway).

Yes, a factor of 1.2 for CO2 or per-industrial to now, just depending on what you prefer.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
Alch: Will it be good enough to determine how much of the IR leaves the earth or do you want to know where it is deposited as it moves through the layers? The first is an easier problem than the second because we have to look more at back-scatter when looking at the second whereas we should be able to use Beer's law for the first.
The Alchemist
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
@thermo
Well, that's not how I approached it before. Not that I'm objecting, the one thing I've learned is no matter how you approach it, you'll get the same answer. I think we should go pre-industiral levels to now. It does mean however, either I'll have to circle the wagons, or you take the lead. I think we should go through and make reference sheets of our "givens"-scrolling I'm finding, is error prone.
If you'd accepted the equipartition assumption, the next step would be to compare water to carbon dioxide...
A reason I didn't use the ambient Earth temperature, but 0 C, was lowing the temperature favored CO2s impacts... but why that was... well I am sure we'll find out.

We are going to have to agree on what humidity to use for moles of water. I am adamant we do not ignore the humidity levels over the oceans, and so in turn consider only effects over land. It is 70% of the world, and cycles.
FYI, I am having sporadic publishing issues to, at first I thought I'd been banned
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Or maybe we're being watched... OOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOO

:D

@runrig-ditto on the thanks.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2014
FYI, I am having sporadic publishing issues to, at first I thought I'd been banned
this could be a combination of updating servers and the recent solar flare
http://www.space....deo.html

I don't know... I was interrupted last night... booted me right out of phys.org in the middle of a comment

I am thinking it may be server issues though because all is well now
Or maybe we're being watched
you are

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
Alchy" what I have so far is: Assume the earth at about 287 K.

1) Calculate the amount of energy leaving the surface of the earth that makes it out of the atmosphere to cool the earth. Start with per-industrial levels.

2) Change the CO2 content to today's levels see what that does to the escaping IR.

However, I have not agreed to the equipartition of energy. I am leaning toward the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution as I mentioned above. That is incorporated into Beer's law if we use the "temperature" to be that which would be measured by a temperature measuring device such as a thermocouple or thermistor. We won't need the distribution but if we hit a snag where we want to get more detailed I would like to be able to use the right distribution.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
Alchy: I just reread your post and I am not sure I am understanding your comment on equipartition. Are you referring to the partitioning of energy between types of molecules or within all molecules? For instance, are you saying that there is no temperature difference between CO2 and N2 (which is correct) or are you saying that within the molecules their temperature velocities are all the same (which would not be true). I was objecting to the latter, not the former. If we look at individual molecules they will all have different velocities in different directions. However, they will have the same effective temperature in bulk.

If we look at individual velocities that will take us into statistical mechanics and if we look at effective temperatures that will take us into Beer's law and calculus. The later is the approach I would advocate. I will gladly take the lead once we decide where we are going.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
Alchy: With a background it chemistry, how do you feel about the ACS?

They have a great web site at:

http://www.acs.or...ing.html

I am going through their "tool kit" to see what we might be able to use.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
Thermo;
Run: Most of those are pay-walled, but the last one is great for showing lines and sub-bands in the spectra in figure 5. It is a great example.

I just pasted into google (not even Scholar ) and got the full papers for 3....

http://www.slf.ch..._GRL.pdf
http://research-i...aper.pdf

https://workspace...1997.pdf

thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014
Run: Thanks, those are great...
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
Run: Thanks, those are great...


My pleasure ...
The source for my links was here......
As I said though, you may have to do further Googling to uncover the full text of a paper.

http://agwobserve...ess.com/

MR166
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2014
For what it's worth, I vote to increase today's levels by 20%. If the effects of CO2 have reached saturation then it would be most apparent starting at this level.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
@thermo
Negative on Beer's law, for quite a few reasons: Radiation is not being irreversibly absorbed, it is a short-order law and we would have to prove it is useful as dilute as our "solution" is.

By equipartition I meant using the equipartition theorem. It would have given us a boundary condition.

ASC-hmm, it depends, I know it is like "The Bible," but look at our environment, there are authorities on both sides with different perspectives, there are authorities on both sides who've flat out lied.

That is why I always like to use physical data, and find sources that are not trying to prove the political point, but say someone interested in CO2's correlation to insect size.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
If we don't go to Beer's law it will take a lot more time. I don't mind that but I am afraid that this will put readers to sleep. When you do spectroscopy you use Beer's law. It is actually better suited to dilute solutions. If we can show it is applicable to dilute solutions would you be up for using it or a derivative of it? It would take a long time to build a statistical mechanical package to look at the system.

Have you taken a look at the ACS web site? Please do. I think they do a good job.

Equipartition in the sense of the equipartition theorem is what I referred to as type 1 above. However, distributing the kinetic energy over bending, stretching, and linear motion is going to be a big task. That is why I lean toward Beer-Lambert.

Take a look back at Beer-Lambert. It is what you, as a chemist, used every time you did IR spectroscopy. Let's discuss it and see if we can come up with something that works and doesn't take forever.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
@Thermo
Not as dilute as we're doing.
Yes, it's the stat mech we need to use. Otherwise the answer is, well I don't want to say wrong, but I'd stake nothing on it.
Don't forget the assumptions that go into beers law-we have a medium that is thinning as we go up. It does not work at all if the medium is non-linear, right?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
Let me do some of the boring work-density distros etc..
If nothing else we'll need it later.
We'll need to see the delta in time it takes radiation to escape...
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2014
Great. I have no problem approaching this from statistical mechanics. I am just saying that it will take a lot more time. I like stat mech so it is not a problem.

As for the change in density of the medium, we would just handle that as shells. It is similar to a finite element or finite difference approach.

The major issue that I am going to have problems with is the partitioning of energy between modes and the approach to transfer of energy. If you want to approach this as equipartition among modes it is simple for molecules like N2 which does not interact with IR in the range we care about. It becomes more of an issue for CO2 in our range.

Along those lines are you comfortable with 95% of the IR power range or do you want to include the last 5% of the tails?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
Reality check-we may not be on the same page!

You state using Beer-Lambert, but our primary mechanism is IR radiation being absorbed, held 4.2 msecs and re-emitted at the same wavelengths, right?

Are we good?

You "like stat mech..."? me to, I've learned it MANY times. LOL.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
I'd like to use 400ppm and 280ppm, we said use most favorable for CO2, 135%. Sorry for the revision, but let's leave no doubt.

As for the change in density of the medium, we would just handle that as shells.
Whichever is easier, not a continuous density function w/CO2 etc.?

The major issue that I am going to have problems with is the partitioning of energy between modes and the approach to transfer of... It becomes more of an issue for CO2 in our range.

I may not understand, CO2 will be "pumped" from background radiation. You can use transition statistics with the energy difference between states. (?) e(-K(Boltzman)E/E (?)

Along those lines are you comfortable with 95% of the IR power range or do you want to include the last 5% of the tails?

Are you referring to transition of kinetic energy into electro-magnetic? Or statistical likelihood of near-by energies being absorbed. If the latter, I think 95% is fine, remember favor CO2.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
Sorry, 400ppm and 295ppm, 1.35%
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2014
Alche: You said: "Are you referring to transition of kinetic energy into electro-magnetic? Or statistical likelihood of near-by energies being absorbed. If the latter, I think 95% is fine, remember favor CO2."

I am talking about the frequencies for EM radiation at a temperature of 287K. The peak is at about 10,097 nm and the total emitted radiation is about 385 W/m^2. However, if you look at the radiated frequencies it goes from a wavelength of very small going down to the UV and up to radio without dropping to zero (very small but not zero). So, if we pick out 95% of the total energy we will chop off some of the radiation down in the visible and up to the long IR. We can't actually include all of the wings of the frequencies although they have finite values. So, we can include as much of the spread as we want. I was suggesting 95%. Let me know if that is clear. If not I can expand on it.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
Ah, I was comfortable using a "peanut butter" spread, I think energy distribution is flat enough at 287K not to worry about it too much. What advantage are you getting from the distribution-an accurate number of photons at that wavelength, that's awesome, but I think you maybe doing too much work, or I am mis-understanding your approach. So 95%, since we are only concerned with the frequencies CO2 can absorb, should be fine.

Clarifying equipartition: Yes they have the same KE, not velocities. Is it old news then that you are using only bond energies to distinguish atmospheric molecules?

Incidentally, don't worry about peak absorption spectra either, you can put a box around the peak, being very generous about it, making energy absorbed trivial.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Alche: It is not actually that flat. It is actually relatively easy to use the distribution in a math package like Mathematica. The issue is that the real absorption and emission takes place at lines, not bands. To get around that we are going to have to decide on a process to correct bands for lines. There are radiant heat transfer procedures for doing that but we are going to have to come to some agreement on what process we will use. You mention the the frequencies that CO2 can absorb but that is a really complicated issue. We have to talk about that.

The problem with KE is that the KE included translation, bending, and vibration. How we partition that is the open question we are going to have to talk about.

I am not sure what you mean by putting a box around the peak. Are you talking about a rectangular shape instead of a curve? I would have to discuss that because it is not very realistic. The curve is pretty easy.

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2014
Alche: Here is an interesting site that lets you look at the black body curve for the earth as well as the bands for various GHGs.

http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

This shows the slope of the curve where CO2 is active.

I also need to be clear for those who will pick up on my use of the term "bands" to be sure to point out that the bands are actually closely spaced lines and not solid bands at all.

Instead, if anyone is interested in looking at lines, please go to this site and talk to Dr. Rothman to get a copy of JavaHawks.

http://www.cfa.ha.../hitran/

Here is another site that lets anyone look at the Wein displacement theory that lets you calculate the maximum point for a given black body temperature. It also lets you look at output power per m^2 for any black body.

http://www.instes...sion.htm

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2014
Alche: Here is an example of what the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution looks like.

http://en.wikiped...ribution

This is what Boltzmann came up with through the application of statistical mechanics. If you start off with a flat distribution of molecules using a dynamic simulation it will look like this after a few thousand iterations.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2014
@thermo,
lines, bands... OK. Don't worry about the absorption LINES, just draw a box around them, absolutely overcompensate for what they will (not can) absorb. No, it is not accurate, but it leaves no doubt about CO2 inadequacy.
No, BB radiation curves are never flat, and if it is easy for you to do, then go to it.
I am familiar w Black Body Radiation.

@thermo-If you are like me at this point in the game you are looking for a mechanism by which CO2 can make the grade.

You've probably examined a "saturation" route, and found that pre-industrial levels easily do the job.
You've probably examined it from the Beers approach (without me :), I'm guessing that frustrated you. (Incidentally & thank you, with my travels I'd never used the exponential formula explicitly.)
You probably tried to cut the Gordian Knot by doing an analysis of say, a pure CO2 atmosphere, and simply using Newtons Cooling to give you an idea.
My advice is just to settle down with a route and accept the results.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2014
Alche: Let's not play the game of where I have gone in the past and where the calculations will take us. If we are going to be analytical about this we need to put aside our past efforts.

Let me explain what is going to happen. If we make the approximation that the form of the absorption curve is a rectangle and we come up with issues that either show there is no saturation or there is saturation someone is going to come back and say: "you did not represent CO2 accurately so, naturally, you came up with what you wanted." Even if we didn't come up with what we expected. I have been down this road before where you can put out analytical results and you are criticized for not being exact (although no one can be exact).

A rectangular approach is typical for estimating radiant heat transfer in flames and there are averaging approximation that are generally used to compensate for the lines. We can talk that over.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2014
On the other hand, you can say the same for integrating over the curve, what method did you use, why did/didn't you use that curve, instead of a Gaussian/experimentally determined one, etc., etc.. So I completely agree.

The bottom line is, I have complete confidence in whatever approach you take, so long as it is based on physical properties, errs on the side of caution, and of course doesn't mis-apply formula.

To that end, I know there are things that all the math-magic in the world won't help you with, please feel free to task me with them. This is not a cop-out of my previous offer, it is just being unsure of your path, I found out I could spend very long amounts of time on information you won't even want.

I think we should correspond privately anyway-lets keep all decisions on the board, but the board interplay is causing me to loose my mind.

My facebook is: https://www.
facebook.com/groups/454689344557455/

And by the way-my compliments to you for accepting the challenge.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
OK, Alche: I suggest we proceed with a simple set of rectangles as I think we are both in agreement with that approach. In that case we need to set the boundary conditions.

1) 287K

2) Clouds are not involved. Consider it a clear day (because clouds are too complex to deal with here).

3) We will deal with CO2 only.

4) We will use rectangles for both CO2 absorption and black body emissions. We will decide on what the values will be based on linear approximation of means over the wavelengths we are dealing with.

5) We can deal with a single "band" near the center of the earths radiation peak not the wing bands.

Let me know if those 5 boundary conditions are good with you. The advantage of using these simplifications is that we can probably use continuous variables instead of discrete line values. I'll look at that and get back to you before we go that direction but take a look at these being step functions and deal with it using calculus instead of Monte Carlo methods
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2014
1. OK
2. OK
3. I am having trouble with this, we can proceed, but consider humidity (not clouds).
Under average conditions there is more than 12 000 ppm of water in the air vs 400 ppm for CO2 (30x!). It grossly overlaps CO2's spectrum. (The link you sent, does not, I think, include water's additional rotational degrees of freedom/absorption-or there is something else not quite right with it-I am not sure what.) Even if you prove sufficient CO2 in vacuo, we haven't reached the finish line. Honestly, we should start here first, it is by far the most significant factor.
We are going to have to agree on what humidity to use...

4. OK, recommend simplifying the rectangle using energy absorbed, multiplied by a generous scalar 1.5x in CO2's favor.(?)
5. I am not sure why you'd specify, please explain the trade-off.

I am not sure what you are driving at in the last paragraph, but it sounds sexy! I can't wait to see.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Alche:

Let's discuss point 3 a bit. I have no problem adding water vapor. I just want to be sure we are not going to try to tackle clouds because anything I would be able to come up with would be inadequate. However, in the spirit of cooperation between the two of us I would like you to come up with a water vapor concentration and I will incorporate it into the calculations. The reason I was asking about using a single species is that there is not a lot of overlap near 15,000 nm.

This is a good site for me to look at to see how H2O and CO2 overlap in the emission spectrum from the earth.

http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

At the site, you can see that there is a strong CO2 band at 667 cm^-1 that does not overlap with a strong H2O band. There is another at 2410 cm^-1. Those are the two bands that I would pick. Let me know if you agree. There is no significant water vapor overlap for either of those bands. However, there is some if you want to use them.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2014
From point 5 above, in the same graphs:

http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

I would have picked a single band centered at 667 cm^-1 because it is in the "meat" of the emission from the earth, has little water interference, and is strong for CO2. Using a single band makes things simple and still demonstrates the concepts we are looking at. Whatever happens in this band will illustrate what happens as CO2 increases.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2014
No clouds, despite major importance.
/www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Yeah, that link is the one that is not quite right, for H2O anyway. CO2 looks good. I'm not sure what's not jibing, but I'll find out. I suspect it is the rotational contribution of water's degrees of freedom, it doesn't describe them.
In one of these pro-CO2 articles (from this blog), it states that we can ignore one of the bands ~2400cm-1? I'm willing to agree, for three reasons; 1. the proponent was from your camp. 2. I have done similar calcs., and finally, 3. intuitive inspection of /www.chem.a.../sim/gh/, seems to make a good point for this. Provided we can site an agreed mechanism for 295 ppm CO2 absorbing and eliminating all the the radiation there, which the article didn't.
But, then if we use /www.chem.a.../sim/gh/, we can see the overlap of water in this region is about 4%. If we multiply this by the concentration, we get 30x4, which is clearly wrong, but obviously overwhelming.

Is this not therefore a QED?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Alche: I am not disputing that clouds are important. I am just admitting that I cannot handle them in a reliable way.

Since there are large spaces of cloudless area every day on the earth it, at least, shows what happens in those areas.

As for elimination of the 2400 cm^-1 band, if we ignore it I don't see that causing a problem. If we agree that an increase in CO2 won't decrease absorption of CO2 (it might not increase it either but we will investigate that) then eliminating a band should not falsify the work in another band. It either increases or does not. It should be independent of the other bands (which is not exactly true because of thermalization). We should assume local thermal equilibrium (LTE) because any thermal relaxation is fast in gases and we have small gradients. I have no problem including both water vapor and the bands including 2400. It will just take longer.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2014
I don't think you need to, change in cloud cover probably hasn't changed significantly. If it has, it will pretty much be a small scalar.

You don't see a problem, I don't see a problem, but when we're smoking cigars and congratulating ourselves, the deep ankle-biters will. Are you prepared to ignore them... and as to cigars...

My last note regarding the overlap was an overture to completion: If we use /www.chem.a.../sim/gh/ 's account of water, we see a similar but smaller peak for water as CO2 at 667cm-1. If we eyeball it, it looks like water absorbs a little over 5%:

Therefore 1- (0.95)^30 = ~80%, or water, absorbs 80% of the 667cm-1 with or without CO2. In this region I think it is more than the 5%, but I haven't done my homework yet.

Are we done, or did I make a bad assumption? and what is it?

However, I could swear there is a very narrow region, where there is no overlap between CO2 and H20. It is small. But there. Even so the energy from the gap is trivial.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Alche: I will look at it with and without water vapor. I will not get to the calculations until Wednesday night. I am backed up right now with some calculations I need to produce for work and those take up both days and nights. I'm one of those who loves to work on technical problems and I will be going into the night for the next couple of days. It is a calculation of cyclotron radiation (Larmor radiation) from thermal electrons in a low temperature (3000k) plasma drifting through a crossed magnetic field. A simple problem until you have to plug in the distribution for a two-temperature plasma. Then it gets messy. I will have that done by Wednesday (because I have a presentation on it). Then, I can get back to this fun stuff Wednesday night.

I think we have agreed on enough to get started and I will keep you posted on any assumptions I have to make for starting conditions so I can get your input.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2014
Simple problem in plasma physics, LOL. There are no simple problems in MHD.
Fair enough.

I am going to find a dusty handbook with H2O in it. 42 books on stat mech, chemistry, physics, etc., and not one has H2O or CO2 spectrum.

In the meantime, the others can check our work.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
and not one has H2O or CO2 spectrum.
@Alche
does this help?

http://adsabs.har...07...48P

10.1126/science.107.2767.48

Clicking on the DOI link gives you a PDF

or are you looking for something more comprehensive?
The Alchemist
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
Thanks Capt'n. It did. The Arizona link does not include concentration effects, and so is very deceptive. If you look at it with a practiced eye and raise it to powers-you can just about make it out.
Using the exponential Beer-Lambert, which is just another ensemble, I came out with the same results as above.

Which are about the same as this, which I don't see as perfect, but certainly worth the read:
http://www.geocra...ata.html
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2014
Just a suggestion, but perhaps try searching Wolfram-Alpha for various material properties and computational guidance?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (6) May 02, 2014
Caliban: Very good suggestion. I use Wolfram Alpha "pro" all of the time for exactly those things. I also use Wolfram Mathematica for my calculations. Both are well curated data sources. Unfortunately, Alpha has problems with the specifics of spectroscopy that I have not been able to get around, but that doesn't mean the data are not readily available. I have a couple of radiative transport texts that I use a lot. They are good for the basic data. However, I second your suggestion as Alpha for a first spot to look for anything technical and for ad hoc calculations.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 02, 2014
Which are about the same as this, which I don't see as perfect, but certainly worth the read:
http://www.geocra...ata.html
That is a very deceptive link in relation to this discussion.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 02, 2014
Which are about the same as this, which I don't see as perfect, but certainly worth the read:
http://www.geocra...ata.html
That is a very deceptive link in relation to this discussion.


Maggy: That is why we are having the discussion. I hope an approach that everyone can agree on comes out of this step-by-step development of a methodology. This might be like watching sausage being made, and will probably be as slow as a glacier, but I hope it works out and produces a useful thread.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2014
Which are about the same as this, which I don't see as perfect, but certainly worth the read:
http://www.geocra...ata.html
That is a very deceptive link in relation to this discussion.


Maggy: That is why we are having the discussion. I hope an approach that everyone can agree on comes out of this step-by-step development of a methodology. This might be like watching sausage being made, and will probably be as slow as a glacier, but I hope it works out and produces a useful thread.
I understand that, and I have been reading along with every post. I also hope it results in a fruitful thread. I just have trouble with an attempt at "poisoning the well" by posting material that is clearly biased and, perhaps more importantly, is the subject of this discussion.

If one side or the other already has their answer, it will be a rather fruitless discussion.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2014
I think we already have a path to confirm/dissuade: That of water's influence.

This was one path I went down, we've added two more paths-Beer-Lambert, statistical iteration and "the deceptive" link.

When I concluded that before, I went on to the CO2 deltas alone, and used radiation density/saturation of CO2.

Just a suggestion.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
I'll be on this again this weekend. I will see how far I can get. It has been a busy week at work so I have had to push this back. As I mentioned, making sausage at a glacial pace...
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (1) May 02, 2014
@Maggie-I hear what you're saying. We must've posted at the same time-isn't that romantic?

Anyway, I don't see it as particularly biased, if it is arriving to similar conclusions through a back door, so be it. It is not particularly quantitative, but it does parameterized change phenomenon we will have to use in the future.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
Alchem: Let's start the second phase of this endeavor by going over the way that electromagnetic (EM) emissions take place. Solids and liquids emit in a different manner than gases. However, every emission of a photon takes place as a result of the change in motion of a charge. That is a result of Maxwell's equations. It is similar in both classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics. Black body radiation (as in the IR radiation from the earth) is based on the vibration of molecules and the acceleration the charges in the molecules.

However, in gases, there are three specific ways in which the molecules can emit EM radiation. It is by: 1) a change in electron position in the orbitals of the molecules (including leaving the molecule), 2) A change in vibration, and 3) a change in rotation or combinations of those. In an atom or molecule that is excited or relaxed, the absorption and emissions are quantized (they can only take place in specific increments). Cont.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
Continued: The result is that the emission by the earth is a well defined curve called a black body curve that is continuous and not quantized. However, the interaction of gas molecules with photons is quantized and the result is that those interactions take place at specific lines in the spectrum.

Now for some of the complexity of the emission and absorption due to "broadening." The lines have an inherent width due to the uncertainty principle. The molecules that are involved are always moving so there is also Doppler broadening, Stark broadening, and a number of other assorted broadening mechanisms. The result is that the lines are not just lines. They are broad and smear into each other to produce bands. Don't get the idea that these are broad, even square waves. They are not, however, in this analysis we will assume that they are and we will use some assumptions that Alchey and I agree on. The assumptions I suggest are those from texts on radiant heat transfer. cont
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
Cont. Specifically, the book I would like to rely on the most is "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th edition, by Siegel, and Howell. This book has some assumptions that can be made about the specific bands for H2O, and CO2 (again, these are concatenations of lines, and not real bands - however, they can be weighted for approximations).
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
In this case we will be assuming that the emission from the earth is not a black body curve. Instead, we will consider it to be a step function.

Likewise, I will assume that the absorption and emission by gases will be similar to a solid over the band for emission and absorption. It will be scaled to show the fact that the gas is not opaque, and instead has a penetration depth of the radiation. This is known as extinction and shows that radiation passing through the gas is absorbed and heats the gas as it is absorbed. We will have to develop a mechanism to express the absorption and heating. We will also have to recognize that the gas will emit when it is excited by photons of the right wavelength. Those are the same wavelengths that the molecule emits as the wavelengths it can absorb.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
Alchem: For this exercise I would like to consider the earth flat (yes, I know that sounds like the usual from me, but I really do know it is not flat). The reason is that dealing in spherical coordinates complicates things without adding much value. The Earth is large enough that the column we are dealing with is nearly a cylinder instead of a truncated cone. There would be a bit more fidelity if I took the spherical nature into effect, but there should be very little difference. Let me know if that is OK or if you want me to stay in spherical coordinates.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) May 03, 2014
The Earths air density must decrease exponentially, despite "flatness."

I believe the absorption/emission of CO2 is non-degenerate: It absorbs, resonates and releases energy at the same spectrum.
Water, has plenty of degeneracy, I believe its absorptions easily fills more available states, for consideration among your steps. Great idea BTW.

The lesson in E&M emission was also a great idea.

Finally, does this mean your are conceding an overwhelming dependence on humidity? Have you run your own numbers, or should I post?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
The Earths air density must decrease exponentially, despite "flatness."

I believe the absorption/emission of CO2 is non-degenerate: It absorbs, resonates and releases energy at the same spectrum.
Water, has plenty of degeneracy, I believe its absorptions easily fills more available states, for consideration among your steps. Great idea BTW.

The lesson in E&M emission was also a great idea.

Finally, does this mean your are conceding an overwhelming dependence on humidity? Have you run your own numbers, or should I post?


Alchey: Of course water vapor is the major GHG and there is an overwhelming dependence on humidity. I don't know of anyone who disputes that. We will plug water vapor in and watch what comes out.

I have not run any numbers yet. I'm still waiting to make sure we are on the same page.

As for the air density, would you please give me the density you want to use? We can go with that. I would use a standard atmosphere density otherwise.
The Alchemist
4 / 5 (1) May 04, 2014
1 Atm at sea level, getting thinner exponentially. Something like: 1 Atm * exp-(g*h*k) g=gravity, height, k from gas constants or empirical.
You get the idea.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
Let me expand a little on my view of the atmosphere. I would use the International Standard Atmosphere:

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

I would stop the calculations at the mid stratosphere at about 30,000 m. Let me know what you want to do if you want to vary from that or if it is OK.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
Something just occurred to me which may or may not add to the water/CO2 argument. The one place that has the same amount of CO2 as the rest if the earth but little water is the deserts. The delta between day and night time temperatures should be some sort of proxy for CO2 levels due to changes in heat radiation.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) May 04, 2014
I can run the distribution of CO2, H2O, N2, etc., if you like... remember H20 is only 18, while, O2 is 32 and CO2 is 44. This makes distribution more amazing, as H2O's concentrations are more at ground level, yet [H2O] * exp-(g h) (think escape velocity), makes it denser above.

No need to worry about desert, the Earth is 70% water, and the majority of over-land exceeds 40% humidity. Deserts are about 25%. Still massively overwhelming CO2 BTW.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
I can run the distribution of CO2, H2O, N2, etc., if you like... remember H20 is only 18, while, O2 is 32 and CO2 is 44. This makes distribution more amazing, as H2O's concentrations are more at ground level, yet [H2O] * exp-(g h) (think escape velocity), makes it denser above.

No need to worry about desert, the Earth is 70% water, and the majority of over-land exceeds 40% humidity. Deserts are about 25%. Still massively overwhelming CO2 BTW.


Yes, please give me a distribution of the composition with altitude. I assume this has been measured with sounding rockets and balloons. If you can research the composition and give us a table or function with altitude, that would make calculations more reliable. Please give references and links.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
Alche: Here is an example of a typical composition:

http://www.physic.../7a.html

You can see that there are 5 gases that they note as "variable." Among them is water vapor. This is supposed to be a typical composition up to 25 km. I will start by using this constant composition and then I will plug in the variation in the variable gases as you come up with them.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2014
I have those distro's. Using physical constants, not sounding rockets, and balloons, I'm afraid.

How would you like me to get the spreadsheet to you? Or you can make your own from:

[CO2] = ppm CO2

[Gas] = [Gas at 0 meters] * exp-(gravity*mol/kg*height/(8.314*T))

ease of reading...

[G] = [G0] * e^ -(gmh/kT)

with T = temp a function of height

with [gas1] + [gas2]+ [gas3]... proportional to atmospheric pressure.

This comes to within 3% of agreement of physical reality. Which, given whose idea of reality is measured from, is good agreement.

Highlights:
CO2 is reduced by half to 200 ppm at ~3700m
H2O reduced by half at 9300m

Concentrations of [H2O] / [CO2], due to higher mass goes from 30 (sea level) to 180 at the top of the troposphere.

So the contribution of CO2 is further reduced by the dimension of height.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 05, 2014
Alche: You said:

"Highlights:
CO2 is reduced by half to 200 ppm at ~3700m
H2O reduced by half at 9300m"

I expect questions from you and I hope you are expecting questions from me. You seem to be using gravitation as a method for separating atoms by mass. I think that is not going to work. If it did, we would expect to see salt separating out of the ocean with height. Instead, the salt is dissolved and in the case of gasses, they are miscible. For miscible gases they will not separate unless they condense out (as water vapor does). The reason I was interested in actual measurements is that I had seen a quote from you before that talked about the rapid reduction in the mole fraction of CO2 with height and I want to see where it comes from. Don't get me wrong, I am always ready to learn something new, but I want to learn it from a source I can trace. Thanks, I will be looking for some links. My recent search does not see this decrease in CO2.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 05, 2014
Alche:

Here is a site with a lot of CO2 samples from various altitudes.

http://cdiac.ornl...ents.htm

The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2014
Well, interesting reasoning, however if you space CO2 out because it is "miscible" how does that help? conservation of matter kicks in, and I doubt you've improved the situation. Density would "fall-off" faster in the height trade-off.

Sources? Links? again, basic science, physical properties, this is as elementary and well accepted as F=ma. Concentrations of CO2 do not remain constant with height, obviously they "fall-off" like the rest of the atmosphere.

Oh, all right, if I must: Dalton's Law of Multiple Proportions, and the Barometric Formula. I should have known someone else had formalized and named the latter.
http://en.wikiped..._formula
http://en.wikiped...%27s_law

The atmospheric models you link to also confirm. Two variables, height and temperature. Temperature is responsible for the weirdness of the otherwise exponentially character-ed curve from your links.

I don't think salt violates this at all-I don't see how anyway.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2014
The Barometric formula is confirmed below 86km. So someone has confirmed it with sounding rockets and weather balloons.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
The Barometric formula is confirmed below 86km. So someone has confirmed it with sounding rockets and weather balloons.


Alche:

The Barometric formula and Dalton's law have nothing to do with the proportions of CO2. The link to CO2 concentrations is to measurements not models. It also shows almost no change from sea level to 3000 m if you look at Samoa and Hawaii.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2014
The Barometric formula and Dalton's law have nothing to do with the proportions of CO2. The link to CO2 concentrations is to measurements not models.


Now you will have to cite your sources. The formula are precisely germane. I can not even conceive how it would be otherwise. What physical principal do you have to say that this does not work, what study can you site saying Dalton and Barometric do not apply, when they are the basis used in the process described in Mona Loa's analysis? How else would you re-extropolate after their process? What other basis could you/would you use?

Even so, we agreed Mona Loa does not count: CO2 is constant from 0 meters sea level to Mona Loa's observatory station at 3370 meters? Ridiculous.

We may need to appeal to the Capt'n.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Alche: The question is not one of temperature or pressure. Instead, it is of miscibility. A well mixed gas does not separate unless a component is a vapor and it condenses out. Any variation in composition will be mixing based. For instance, in the case of NOx, you would expect the composition of air near a congested highway to have more than the air in the middle of the desert. However, over time, they would mix (but NOx is constantly changing due to chemical reactivity). So, you would expect to see spatial variations of NOx even though it is mixing (because it is reacting). CO2 is not reacting much so the mixing is good. There are variations since it takes CO2 a while to go from North to South and mix vertically. However, the overall atmosphere is well mixed due to winds and the variation in CO2 composition is small. On the order of a few ppm for the heights that are important (first 40 km of the air column). Continued.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
The temperature and pressure are both sensitive to altitude, but composition is not. You stated that the component of CO2 would be cut in half within 3000 m. I showed you measurements from Mona Loa and Samoa that disputes that statement. I went directly to measurements and stayed away from models. What would it take to show you that you are wrong?

Please show me how you think that a mixed gas will separate with altitude (below the point where the mean free path is long and collisions are not important - above 80 km)?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Alche:

Let's do a simple thought experiment. Consider two containers connected by a tube and a valve. In the left container we have nitrogen and in the right container we have CO2. We open the valve and let them sit for 10 days. At the end of 10 days we should have them mixed. Why do they mix? The reason is that the kinetic energy of the gases translates into velocity. The individual molecules are moving at the speed of a pistol bullet (about 300 m/sec). In that case the kinetic energy is much greater than the differential potential energy due to gravitation. Because of that the mixture will not spontaneously separate. There is a change in entropy when the substances mix and you would have to do work to separate them. That will not spontaneously separate. This is found in a look at the second law of thermodynamics. I did a quick search of "why don't gases separate" and most of the results come up as PDFs that I can't easily link to or blogs. cont.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
cont... If you dig into it the answers go back to the second law. If we look at the two containers above we can say that only the left one is full. Then opening the valve will give it more room and the gas will expand to fill both containers with a change in entropy due to the expansion. The probability of the spontaneously compressing into one of the containers is near zero (but not zero). That is the reason that the compression does not occur in nature. Going back to statistical mechanics the expansion of each gas into the other container and mixing with the other gas is the same as expansion of each gas into the other empty container. If you thought about the expansion and then separation you would see the expansion is probable and the separation is not. From an energy standpoint you can see that the gases will be mixed due to kinetic energy down to the temperature at which CO2 starts condensing.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
I do agree with Alche that this would be a great time for CS or Run to jump in with their view of the issue of separation of CO2 from air due to altitude. I don't seem to be convincing Alche. Let me state the view I have. 1) Water vapor does separate because it can condense. 2) CO2 does not separate because it does not condense in the atmosphere.

This, in my calculations, leaves CO2 in the atmosphere and mixed in the air column. There are spatial differences in CO2 concentration but they are due to, both, natural and anthropogenic sources that do not completely mix over the span of measurements. The idea that CO2 is cut in half (mole fraction) within 3000 m is not supported by any measurements I have seen anywhere I have looked.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) May 05, 2014
Ah, now I see, I thought you'd gone off the deep end there for a while.

No, you calculate partial pressures separately, for convenience.

What I am talking about, Dalton's Law, Barometric formula are both right out of the kinetic theory. In fact, before I looked it up, that's how I derived it.

There is no separation of gases, all the gases are well mixed. That is simply how you count how many ppm of a gas you can expect to find at a given height/temp. When you added all the equations/partial pressures for the separate gases (N2, O2, H2O, CO2, trace) together at sea level, you get 1 atmosphere, for example.

This is measuring concentration, ppm, etc., by column of well mixed gases. Do a quick review of Dalton's Law.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Alche: Let me reiterate. You stated:

"Highlights:
CO2 is reduced by half to 200 ppm at ~3700m
H2O reduced by half at 9300m"

The term ppm relates to concentration and is figured as a molar relationship. It does not change in any meaningful way as altitude increases.

It can change spatially with respect to sources and sinks but that is not significant with respect to global concentrations (except with respect to seasons).

The absolute pressure of the gas goes down with altitude. The partial pressure of each gas goes down in relation to its mole fraction and the total pressure. However, the ppm cannot change unless the mole fraction changes. Are we on the same page? I want to be very careful about terminology so lets either agree that your statement about CO2 changing to 200 ppm at 3700 m is incorrect or we can continue the discussion.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2014
Ah, you're right, I forgot to include the volume, a downside of knowing things to quickly...

The information is still useful. I don't even need to recalculate as the volume was unity, hence my oversight. You will find that indeed the concentration of gas decreases with height, according to the formula I gave you.

This is just describing why the atmosphere gets thinner as you increase in height. Not rocket science or anything unconventional. We are on the same page.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Alche: Time to move on now that we are back on the same page. I am pulling a drawing out of Wikipedia to use as a reference if you are in agreement. This just shows the absorption of various wavelengths due to various gases.

http://en.wikiped...sion.png

One of the things to point out here is that we are starting with a planet at 287 K. However, as we go up in the atmosphere the temperature changes. Also, as we go up, the excited molecules bounce into each other less (the mean free path increases) and that means there is less broadening of lines and less overlap. That will be important as we go up to the point where the atmosphere is nearly transparent to all wavelengths due to the fact that it is too tenuous to have many photons hitting molecules (high in the stratosphere). At that point, there are few collisions and less velocity due to lower temperatures. The result is less line broadening. Continued.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Continued: This is also why I wanted to be sure we were on the same page. As we go higher the total pressure is decreasing (as you correctly pointed out). The partial pressure of each gas is also decreasing. However, the relative partial pressure of the gases stays the same due to their "dry" mole fraction staying the same with height.

It is the partial pressure of water vapor that decreases with altitude due the condensation of water vapor with height. If you would not mind, can you give me your interpretation of how water vapor changes with altitude so we can be sure we are on the same page for this next step in the process of making these calculations.
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2014
Negative, partial pressures do not stay the same, that is only an an approximation. That was the point of me generating the distibutions: Heavier gases fall off faster than light ones. If you want to use %, for example, as I perhaps should have, it would have avoided confusion, it does not change the rate of decline, which is unit-less, as a plasma guy well knows.
I like the wiki., I've used it to make a point, but it is not accurate. It is good for Earth's spectra, but not for constituents. I thought we agreed to use the University of Arizona spectra, iterated for concentrations. I did some research on that and it looks very like they simply didn't consider concentration effects. Which can be done with the exponential form of Beer-Lambert or pure statistics.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Alche: You said:
I thought we agreed to use the University of Arizona spectra, iterated for concentrations. I did some research on that and it looks very like they simply didn't consider concentration effects. Which can be done with the exponential form of Beer-Lambert or pure statistics.


But earlier you said:

Thanks Capt'n. It did. The Arizona link does not include concentration effects, and so is very deceptive. If you look at it with a practiced eye and raise it to powers-you can just about make it out.


Does that mean we are using the Arizona link or not? I thought when you called it "deceptive" you were ruling it out.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Now lets talk about "concentration effects." Since you said:
" Heavier gases fall off faster than light ones.


I am going to have to disagree. It seems we are not on the same page yet. There is no "fall off" due to molecular weight. I thought I had shown you that concept was wrong. For a well mixed gas there is no separation unless there is condensation or the mean free path becomes long and collisions infrequent (as very high in the atmosphere). I provided links that showed there was no falloff with altitude. Were those links not clear enough?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2014
Dude, get off the separation thing. There is no separation.

There is no separation in Dalton's Law or The Barometric equation, check them out. You have not shown that we should not be using them, you will require a physical law, or citation to show we do not. In fact the atmospheric models you sent are derived from them. The kinetic theory example was not germane to their use, in fact is the basis of their use. I really think I should sent you the spreadsheet.

Sorry, go ahead and use Arizona, but compensate.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
Dude, get off the separation thing. There is no separation.

There is no separation in Dalton's Law or The Barometric equation, check them out. You have not shown that we should not be using them, you will require a physical law, or citation to show we do not. In fact the atmospheric models you sent are derived from them. The kinetic theory example was not germane to their use, in fact is the basis of their use. I really think I should sent you the spreadsheet.

Sorry, go ahead and use Arizona, but compensate.


You have me really confused now. You are the one who said:

"Heavier gases fall off faster than light ones."


What does that mean if you are not talking about gravitational separation? I'm the one who said there is no separation. What do you mean about the heavier gases falling off faster?

thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
One more try on spectra. It turns out that NIST has some typical spectra that we can look at from both wavelength and cm^-1.

http://webbook.ni...#IR-SPEC

We can get both water vapor and CO2 there. We are going to have to address details of the spectra later and I can use JavaHawks for that.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2014
If you do plasma physics, there is no way you can't understand the Barometric equation...

1. Gravity is what holds the atmosphere in place. -g.
2. We know two masses fall at the same rate, so what is the difference between two masses in the atmosphere? Their velocities, because their kinetic energies are the same. We've agreed.
3. If two objects of are thrown with different velocities they reach different heights. This principal does not change if they are bouncing off one another, as kinetic energy remains shared.

This applies to Nitrogen, Oxygen, expressed by the Barometric formula, how does CO2 not follow thermodynamics and Newtons Laws?

I wasn't able to find water on the NIST link, can you send that link as well?
Otherwise, Arizona is fine with me, just don't ignore concentration effects.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2014
If you do plasma physics, there is no way you can't understand the Barometric equation...

1. Gravity is what holds the atmosphere in place. -g.
2. We know two masses fall at the same rate, so what is the difference between two masses in the atmosphere? Their velocities, because their kinetic energies are the same. We've agreed.
3. If two objects of are thrown with different velocities they reach different heights. This principal does not change if they are bouncing off one another, as kinetic energy remains shared.

This applies to Nitrogen, Oxygen, expressed by the Barometric formula, how does CO2 not follow thermodynamics and Newtons Laws?

I wasn't able to find water on the NIST link, can you send that link as well?
Otherwise, Arizona is fine with me, just don't ignore concentration effects.


Are you saying that because of different masses gas concentration changes with height?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2014
Alche: Here is the NIST link for water.

http://webbook.ni...#IR-SPEC

Let me know if this is good.

Again, I will need to look at lines later as we get to the upper-stratosphere and I will use JavaHawks for that. It uses the HITRAN database and gives individual lines. Let me know if you need a link to that again.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2014
Are you saying that because of different masses gas concentration changes with height?

Me? I am just an innocent bystander, I wasn't even born when they discovered these principals.
We need a distribution for how the gases become less dense as we go up, in plasma, you should be able to whip one up in no time, B fields become g fields, much easier. If you want to create you own, I am sure it will be correct, just let me see it. I made a rookie error after all...
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2014
Alche: I learned a new term as a result of your question. The term is "homosphere" and I suggest you look it up. I mentioned way up above that in the lower atmosphere the gases are completely mixed unless they can condense out (such as water vapor). However, the other gases including CO2, N2, O2, Ar, etc are completely mixed as long as the mean free path is relatively short and the time between collisions is short. The homosphere is the name for this region and it continues from the ground up to the middle of the stratosphere. It then becomes the heterosphere. You said:

"If you do plasma physics, there is no way you can't understand the Barometric equation..."

You are right I do understand it. I also understand kinetics. You need to brush up.

The dividing line between the homosphere and heterosphere is at about 100 km. From there up you are approximately correct. Kinetic energy propels gases long distances without collisions above the "turbopause." cont
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2014
Continued: The reason this is an important issue is that the collisions exchange energy between the molecules in the air. It helps to produce local thermal equilibrium (LTE) within the atmosphere. As you know, the kinetic energy is distributed according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. That means that there is a curve with tails that extend well away from the mean. To stay within the distribution it is necessary to have constant collisions. Boltzmann designed statistical mechanics to produce the distribution in the 1800s. Maxwell improved in the derivation.

Those collisions are the reason that the gas stays mixed. This is a basic principle of statistical thermodynamics and I am surprised you didn't know it. I just found out the atmospheric physicists have a name for it, but (as I mentioned above) I learned the principle in my first statistical mechanics class. It was in the physics curriculum so you might not have taken that course.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
Well, consider me learned. This make the distribution statics very boring though.

OK, water vs. CO2 absorption from NIST, I assume these are the same concentration?
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
I must admit, I couldn't believe the bit about mixing from the thermodynamics perspective.

It is BULK air motions that mix the homosphere, not Maxwell distribution tails... Gibbs/virial after all, are a fundamental of thermo... Bulk air motions such as thermal cells, weather fronts, probably right up to Hadley Cells, etc.. It is beautiful and almost ironic that poor mixing is responsible for good mixing...

Regardless, point goes to you. Let's keep the snubs down.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
Now to the elephant in the room.
Water vs. CO2.

One effect we haven't considered is evaporation, condensation. I am not speaking about clouds as optical medium, but the phase transformations. I propose simply getting an order-of-magnitude for heat dissipation, and using it for comparison, not an all out calvary charge.

An aside on clouds, I am willing to bet, despite a "warmer" temperature, et. & al., the effect of clouds has not changed significantly between then and now, higher temperatures mean more water, yes, hence clouds, but they also mean increased capacity of air to hold water, and thus not form clouds? Thoughts?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 07, 2014
Alche: You said: "Regardless, point goes to you. Let's keep the snubs down."

I have no problem keeping this civil. I was just responding to your comment of:

"If you do plasma physics, there is no way you can't understand the Barometric equation..."

It turns out that I understood the barometric equation better then you thought. I couldn't resist the retort.

As for water vapor, it is not a simple issue. Clouds, particularly, are very difficult so that is why I figured we would just stick with a cloudless sky. There are sources that tell us about water vapor distribution. I suggest we just find one we can agree on and go with it. Water vapor does condense in the sky, but not on a cloudless day. So, we should be able to handle it as a changing variable. The fact that the upper stratosphere is nearly dry is important from the standpoint of radiant transport.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
That wasn't a snub... that was a compliment, it boggled me to see how you could be missing it, as emphasized by my faith in you developing your own statistic.

No clouds, agreed. But we still must figure water's "heat of evaporation" into this somehow. It it obviously an important heat transport mechanism.
Or is it...? If we become interested in change, I think not, if we become interested in magnitude, then yes.
Hmmm.

Again. Concentrations for the NIST site are normalized.(?) They seem to be. They've got that strange disclaimer on the bottom. I have a book at the library that should answer the question. But considering for this !@#$ basic information wasn't at my local University's libraries, and I had to order out is astounding.

With this, I think we're ready to go...
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 07, 2014
That wasn't a snub... that was a compliment, it boggled me to see how you could be missing it, as emphasized by my faith in you developing your own statistic.

No clouds, agreed. But we still must figure water's "heat of evaporation" into this somehow. It it obviously an important heat transport mechanism.
Or is it...? If we become interested in change, I think not, if we become interested in magnitude, then yes.
Hmmm.
...

With this, I think we're ready to go...


Sorry that I took that as a slight. I was too sensitive. I apologize for that.

Now, what do we need to do to examine the heat of vaporization of water. I am not sure how it is involved if we are considering a cloudless day. Since water is not condensing and evaporating in the air column on a cloudless day I think that avoids the issue. If you don't agree with that let me know how it is impacting the column.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
Alche: You said: "Again. Concentrations for the NIST site are normalized.(?) They seem to be. They've got that strange disclaimer on the bottom. I have a book at the library that should answer the question. But considering for this !@#$ basic information wasn't at my local University's libraries, and I had to order out is astounding."

It depends on how you are looking at the NIST site. The transmittance mode is not normalized, it is absolute based on a 10 cm path length and the pressure is listed in the supplementary information. They also have the original image of the log/log (wavelength across the top and transmittance along the Y axis) strip chart recording used when digitizing.

Their disclaimer is just that using a different system will give you different absolute numbers. That should be fine with us because I am only using that for central wavelengths and I will run my assumptions about the absolute transmittance by you.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
Heat of vaporization will cool the land, but add and transport heat to the atmosphere. It doesn't require the condensation/cloud formation. But for those reasons it is important to our endeavor, we are looking at Global "Warming," after all.

Let's table it, until it becomes germane.

I am using a "Practical Guide and Spectral Atlas for Interpretive Near Infra-Red Spectroscopy,' 2nd. Workman & Weyer.

What do you want to do next?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
I am reviewing the book you proposed to see if it has what we will need. It sounds like it will, but I do want to look it over. I might also want to add it to my library so I want to take a little time to make sure it does what we need. It is not cheap.

As another point to make, I will be using Planck's law for the approximations of a black body at 287K and any other black body emission approximations we will be making.

http://en.wikiped...%27s_law

I assume you are comfortable with that.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
Alche: As a starting point, I am using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation to determine the hemispherical black body emission power of the earth at 287K as 384.7 W/m^2 with the Wien peak at 10097 nm (I use nm a lot, but if you want I can convert to reciprocal centimeters). This puts the peak in the mid-IR range. From my understanding of the physics, at those wavelengths the earth is pretty close to a black body.

Let me know if this is copacetic.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
Alche: The way I would like to approach this is that you can reply either positively or negatively to each statement I make. I will try to put each statement in a comment so we can keep them straight. This is another statement that I will use to delve into the issues we want to look at.

N2, O2, Ar do not absorb or emit in the IR. Please check them in your book. If you disagree, just let me know.

I am also going to add that we will not look at methane or other GHGs, just H2O and CO2.

We both agree that H2O and CO2 are active IR molecules in that they have absorption and emission modes in the IR. The modes are, actually, lines with broadening due to a number of modes such as collisional broadening, Doppler broadening, Stark Broadening, etc...

Due to quantum effects the lines are the only values available for absorption and emission for molecules. Those lines can only take on specific values (before broadening) due to QM considerations.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
When I talk about absorption and emissions I am talking about the interaction of molecules with photons. Either the absorption or emission of a photon by a molecule. I would also like to have the leeway to refer to molecules when I might mean atoms. For instance, if a water molecule collides with an Ar atom I would like to simplify it by referring to molecular collisions.

Also, when I am conversing with Alche I would like anyone else who has a comment to feel free to chime in. This is the first time I have gone through this specific calculation by hand and so having someone look over my shoulder is not going to bother me at all. In fact it will be welcomed. Also, if something is not clear, please ask so it is clear to everyone.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
Heat of vaporization will cool the land, but add and transport heat to the atmosphere. It doesn't require the condensation/cloud formation. But for those reasons it is important to our endeavor, we are looking at Global "Warming," after all.

Let's table it, until it becomes germane.


Alche: I had to think about this for a bit. Here are my thoughts. We are considering the earth to be at 287K. That means we are considering that to be a constant (to simplify the calculations). That means we have already factored in the cooling effect of H2O. What we are saying is that the earth is in steady-state for the instant we are making our calculation. It is not equilibrium, but it is steady state for our instant. We have agreed not to worry about clouds (because I can't) and that means no condensation in the column. So, we are balanced with respect to evaporation and condensation for this instant of calculation.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
I wouldn't recommend my book, I am using it to get apples to apples, and make sure every is consistent. 1. It does not seem to have CO2, bu t relies on the CO stretch.

I am concerned about the sharp peak in the middle of the CO2 region we're interested in. Do you want to handle that as a delta function, or some variant of an impulse function, draw three boxes (which is OK with me) or ignore it altogether (which I doubt :)?

If you want to use broadening effects, be my guest. In the end, it shouldn't matter.

My review of water is increasingly concerning, it seems it absorbs some amount everywhere, I am having trouble rectifying that with our ability to see at all right now, so I don't quite capice. But I'll get there. Even so, well, we'll see.

Wiki-Plank and other photon conveniences are what I used before, (lord-a-mercy is was nice to have those, rather than re-derive!).
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
Alche: Re: "I wouldn't recommend my book, I am using it to get apples to apples, and make sure every is consistent. 1. It does not seem to have CO2, bu t relies on the CO stretch."

That is about where I went with it. I have fallen back to my heat transfer books that have a lot of information on H2O and CO2. I will run them by you as I move forward.

"I am concerned about the sharp peak in the middle of the CO2 region we're interested in. Do you want to handle that as a delta function, or some variant of an impulse function, draw three boxes (which is OK with me) or ignore it altogether (which I doubt :)?"

I will come up with an option. I agree about the issue, but I think I can integrate over intervals and get reasonable approximations. That is what the heat transfer books do to accurately portray these regions. I'm just starting to get into this issue. I won't get to it until tomorrow because I am backed up at work again, but I should get to it by tomorrow night.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
Alche: You said: "My review of water is increasingly concerning, it seems it absorbs some amount everywhere, I am having trouble rectifying that with our ability to see at all right now, so I don't quite capice. But I'll get there. Even so, well, we'll see."

You are right about water having lines everywhere because of its many modes. CH4 is the same, but we won't get into CH4 because we don't have oceans of it on earth.

What I will do is try to look at this the same way I look at CO2 to see where the energy goes. From my standpoint, that is one of the keys. For instance, if a molecule has a forest of lines, but they have a low cross section, then the absorption might be three orders of magnitude less than another molecule with a greater cross section. I think it is the energy balance that is important.

Another aspect is that if there is strong absorption in an area with very little energy available is it important? I suspect not. We need to prove or disprove that.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
I suggest that those following this analysis have a reference to look at the spectrum that results from the interaction of the IR from the earth with the GHGs in the atmosphere. To avoid any objections I am going to suggest the following reference.

http://wattsupwit...spectra/

Note, I am using Anthony Watts as the reference just so we don't have to go through any thoughts of bias for AGW. It is not the article that is important from my perspective because we will develop our own results. Instead, it is the graphics that come from actual measurements that I want to call attention to. The spectra we see help to illustrate the wavelengths (or wavenumbers) where photons and GHGs interact. If you have any questions about the graphics, let me know. If you have questions about the article, let the author of the article know, not me.
The Alchemist
4 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
No, we should not take data from anti-GW sites. With the mind of not poisoning the well, true or not. We are fighting the "the best place to hide lie is between two truths."

I had a disconcerting thought, with water of course, what if the Earth's spectrum is simply a result of surface gases and we are encountering a little calculitic transcendentalism? I haven't delved deep, but I am examining the possibility. Fortunately, the solution is simple, use the simple blackbody.
Unfortunately, the implications are not strong for CO2. Could it be that simple?

More to our problem: May I suggest an iterative approach to start, such as localize emissive bands, find out impact of CO2 bandwidth and its delta, and hone in on the magnitude before we find the nitty gritty? If the order of magnitude is not there, then there is no point in going further, except the fun part of seeing the "R" value of GHGs.

I agree with and like all the assumptions you've made thus far.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
Alche: You said: "No, we should not take data from anti-GW sites. With the mind of not poisoning the well, true or not. We are fighting the "the best place to hide lie is between two truths."

I have no problem taking any references. Please indulge me and accept this one because it has real data from satellites. It gives me something to point everyone to just to see the curves and lines. The graphics are detailed enough for us to be able to discuss the features and use the same location to link to.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
Alche: You said: "More to our problem: May I suggest an iterative approach to start, such as localize emissive bands, find out impact of CO2 bandwidth and its delta, and hone in on the magnitude before we find the nitty gritty? If the order of magnitude is not there, then there is no point in going further, except the fun part of seeing the "R" value of GHGs."

I like that approach and will go at it from that direction. I won't get to the numbers until tomorrow evening because I have some other work stacked up. But, this is really a lot of fun and I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
Alche: Just a comment that I appreciate the work you are putting in. I was on another of the comment sections:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

And one of the folks there (JD Swallow) brought up the same thought about CO2 settling out quickly in the atmosphere. However, when I brought up the fact that CO2 is mixed in the homosphere (my favorite term now) he didn't even bother to look it up. Instead, he just accused me of being too stupid to understand the concept. I am very glad to work with someone who evaluates things based on what they can dig out for themselves. I look forward to learning more, together, as we explore the details.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
#3
Title: An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
[…]Ikaite is thought to rapidly decompose into calcite and water at temperatures above 4°C. The hydration water in ikaite grow suitable for reconstructing a low resolution ikaite record of the last 2000 years. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the AP, a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments and derive a climatic signal, related to local changes in fjord δ18O, versus time encoded in this late Holocene ikaite record. Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://adsabs.har...51A1819L

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014

#2
"To determine the ancient temperatures, the scientists measured the abundance of two rare isotopes bound to each other in fossil bivalve shells collected by co-author Linda Ivany of Syracuse University at Seymour Island, a small island off the northeast side of the Antarctic Peninsula. The concentration of bonds between carbon-13 and oxygen-18 reflect the temperature in which the shells grew, the researchers said. They combined these results with other geo-thermometers and model simulations."
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
#1
Thermodynamics: Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site and I asked this question of him and I now ask you to tell me where all of this CO2 that Douglas is talking about went? Why are new records for cold now being set in Antarctica if CO2 levels are up?

"By measuring past temperatures in different parts of Antarctica, this study gives us a clearer perspective of just how warm Antarctica was when the Earth's atmosphere contained much more CO2 than it does today," said Douglas.

Then we are presented with this totally uninformative bit of disinformation below and other than knowing why they did not want to present what I will inform you of because the alarmist have been saying ever since they understood that there was a MWP & a LIA that they did not want to try to explain, in spite of overwhelming historical evidence, that they accrued, & that is because they had no anthropogenic cause. When the charlatans could no longer dodge the facts, they tried to say that theses climatic events were only isolated to Northern Europe, if you can imagine that.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
JDSwallow said:
#1
Thermodynamics: Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site and I asked this question of him and I now ask you to tell me where all of this CO2 that Douglas is talking about went? Why are new records for cold now being set in Antarctica if CO2 levels are up?


What does this even mean in this context? What are you ranting about?

Where did the CO2 go? It is called geological weathering. CO2 content in the atmosphere goes up and down over geological times through geological processes. We are putting it into the atmosphere faster than most geological processes. This thread is addressing the interaction of IR radiation with the air. Read and learn. Don't expect to derail us to chase your misguided idea that CO2 falls to the ground and disappears. Look up the word homosphere and learn something.
The Alchemist
4 / 5 (3) May 09, 2014
@JD-I am afraid I do not understand your comments at all, could you continue the conversation, elsewhere?

@thermo-It is fun and frustrating. By now you've seen why I am as crazy as I am: simple, elementary data is hard to find? True phenomenon twisted and presented by institutions you'd have no reason to suspect. It is fun negotiating the maze.

What I get from the other link I wanted to bring up-we both agree that from whatever approach, the impact of CO2 is in the exponential phase. So, CONCEPTUALLY, we are looking at K exp (current [CO2]) - K exp (preindustrial [CO2]).

[WRY]You shouldn't be so hard on JD, after all [/wry], you and I were both using arguments about equilibrium mechanics, fooled by the steady-state result, no doubt. If you of us had mentioned we needed non-linear mechanics to describe the homosphere, well, that would have got my attention. If mixing were local for example, not well, ATMOSPHERIC! lol. Now that I look at it that way, I feel pretty dumb.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
I forgot to answer your question-
If it's true you can get it from where "Watts-Up" got it.

&thermo, please remember, I am a proponent of GW, so "Watts" does not appeal to me. Bloggers here think I am in their opposite camp, but my position is that warming is only a secondary effect. I am actually more alarmist than your average AGW-er, because I think the primary effects are underemphasized.

Then we have people like Maggie, who answer my cooling rates with delta studies, not even realizing, those effects support heat drivers, not insulation, but thinking they've won anyway because it is a day/night study involving teperature. It could have been studying how fast underwear dries for all he cared.
Or studies that include clouds but ignore the easier humidity... I mean, why even publish? deliberate deception?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2014
Then we have people like Maggie, who answer my cooling rates with delta studies, not even realizing, those effects support heat drivers, not insulation, but thinking they've won anyway because it is a day/night study involving teperature. It could have been studying how fast underwear dries for all he cared.
Nice red herring there Alchem, and way to muddle the conversation. If you can't show your "theory" works, then you need to go back and figure out why, not ignore evidence that contradicts your "idea" and scoff at those who question the evidence you rely on.

You've just admitted you have no proof. Chastising me because I question your logic and evidence doesn't change that simple fact.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site
@jd idiot
1. you cant read or comprehend English well, can you?
2. you were already on the SITE moron. this is PHYS.org still... this is just another article. and I told you to come read the conversation between Alchemist and Thermodynamics, because they were working out the CO2 issue that you were asking about. the rest of your post is irrelevant and stupid under the circumstances. try reading for comprehension.

you should stop now, because both (if not most) these fellows above have intelligence that is orders of magnitude above yours, and if you cannot comprehend how this interaction between them is relevant to CO2, perhaps you should troll another site? something like conspiracyplanet.com or abovetopsecret.com

@Alchemist/Thermodynamics
apologies for the interruption. JD cannot comprehend what is going on, apparently. Sorry. I thought he might learn something.
PLEASE CONTINUE
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
CS: No need for any apology. Alche and I are enjoying the journey. JDS is just one of the many sights along the way. An annoying one, but one of the sights. Alche has turned out to be a good partner in this. He has his opinions but he is willing to follow the data. I hope to do as well. You are a great person to have watching over our shoulder. It is always great to have someone checking our work. Thanks for keeping us on our toes and don't sweat the cranks.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
@JD-I am afraid I do not understand your comments at all, could you continue the conversation, elsewhere?

I feel pretty dumb.[/q

The Alchemist: It is very easy to see why you do not understand my comments. So you are an alchemist who I'm sure practices "al•che•my: a science that was used in the Middle Ages with the goal of changing ordinary metals into gold" Nice name to choose & I have been to the Prague Castle area where there were many of these people in their little rooms with the prospects of making gold & and they all obviously failed as you also are failing with such nonsense that you just posted.

Why didn't you discuss the ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula or provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing or even tell me you opinion about just where all of this CO2 went that this bit of fiction is about "By measuring past temperatures in different parts of Antarctica, this study gives us a clearer perspective of just how warm Antarctica was when the Earth's atmosphere contained much more CO2 than it does today," said Douglas.
Do you have a valid reason why, instead of answering these questions, you feel obliged to enter in to an ad hominem attack against me? Could it be that you do not even know what the questions are; therefore, you have NO answers.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014


What does this even mean in this context? What are you ranting about?

Where did the CO2 go? . Read and learn. Don't expect to derail us to chase your misguided idea that CO2 falls to the ground and disappears. Look up the word homosphere and learn something.

thermodynamics: Why don't you fill a balloon with CO2 and tell me how high it flies. You were unable to understand this FACT when I gave you the example of when "Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages." I have been to Everest Base Camp, crossed Thorong La pass that is 17,769 feet above sea level on the Annapurna Circuit& made it to the last camp on Kilimanjaro but not to the top because I had a cold and RAN OUT OF O2 because there is only less that 50% of the atmosphere at that altitude that there is at sea level so why don't you tell me exactly how much CO2 there is at the height. I will tell you one thing that you will never learn until you get out of your basement & look at something is that there were always clouds over head and snow on the ground which proves that H2O contributes over 98% of the green house affect.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
So you are an alchemist who I'm sure practices "al•che•my
@jd-troll
really? Swallow is in your name, but that doesn't mean you are a hooker or a Ornithologist, does it? quit being an idiot
I have been to the Prague Castle area
So? so have I. I've been to the great pyramids and the great wall of china too, but that is not relevant
or provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing or even tell me you opinion about just where all of this CO2 went
now you are being TOTALLY stupid! have you NOT READ ABOVE? now i KNOW you are nothing but a TROLL! (or a hooker) wow.

@Thermodynamics
given the level of his trolling, I still feel responsible for showing him here... i mean, look at his comments! he obviously cannot read well... otherwise he would be jumping at you, not Alche.... SORRY Alche! I pointed Troll idiot here
PLEASE CONTINUE
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014


CO2 content in the atmosphere goes up and down over geological times through geological processes.


If you have a problem with this statement, take it up with them.

"It is thought that the carbon dioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of exposed rock and bottom sediment containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for that matter). In other words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium with CO3. But the concentration of Ca (411ppm) is 10.4 mmol/l and that of all CO2 species (90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3 is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l. Thus the sea has a vast oversupply of calcium. It is difficult therefore to accept that decalcification could be a problem as CO3 increases. To the contrary, it should be of benefit to calcifying organisms. Thus the more CO2, the more limestone is deposited. This has also been borne out by measurements (Budyko 1977)." [Maybe, thermodynamics, just maybe, as with so many things in nature, this is a self-regulating factor that has been taking care of the ocean's pH without humans having one thing to do with it]
http://www.seafri...acid.htm

jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
So you are an alchemist who I'm sure practices "al•che•my
@jd-troll
really? Swallow is in your name, but that doesn't mean you are a hooker or a Ornithologist, does it? quit being an idiot
I have been to the Prague Castle area
So? so have I. I've been to the great pyramids and the great wall of china too, but that is not relevant
or provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing or even tell me you opinion about just where all of this CO2 went
now you are being TOTALLY stupid! have you NOT READ ABOVE? now i KNOW you are nothing but a TROLL! (or a hooker) wow.

@Thermodynamics
given the level of his trolling, I still feel responsible for showing him here... i mean, look at his comments! he obviously cannot read well... otherwise he would be jumping at you, not Alche.... SORRY Alche! I pointed Troll idiot here
PLEASE CONTINUE


Thanks, Mr. Stumpy for all of the great, valuable and pertinent information that you just submitted. I will have to book mark it for future reference material in case I need information of this quality in future discussions. You really should not go to all of the effort that you do to come up with this valuable info and the links you provide are invaluable.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014

PLEASE CONTINUE


Mr. Stumpy, just what do you consider to be relevant? I have been to China four separate times and to the Great Wall in several different places as well at the top of Hua Shan Mountain and seen the Terracotta Army, been down the through the Three Gorges to the dam that your buddy, Al Gore screwed the US out of supplying equipment for, and also down the Li River  from Guilin to Yangshuo, twice & also twice to the Guilin Longji Terraces; plus places you, from the tone of your post, have never even heard of. Do you consider incoherent babbling about nothing to be relevant? I assume that you do.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014

PLEASE CONTINUE


So, Mr. Stumpy, just what do you consider to be relevant? I have been to China four separate times and to the Great Wall in several different places as well at the top of Hua Shan Mountain and seen the Terracotta Army, been down through the Three Gorges to the dam that your buddy, Al Gore screwed the US out of supplying equipment for, and also down the Li River  from Guilin to Yangshuo, twice & also twice to the Guilin Longji Terraces; plus places you, from the tone of your post, have never even heard of. Do you consider incoherent babbling about nothing to be relevant? I assume that you do.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2014
Thanks, Mr. Stumpy for all of the great, valuable and pertinent information
@jd
you are welcome
keep reading and waiting for the data to roll in
Mr. Stumpy, just what do you consider to be relevant? I have been to China four blah blah blah plus places you, from the tone of your post, have never even heard of
I've been all over the world. I grew up all over the world with the exception of the Australian outback...I've only now had a home longer than 2 years, so it is likely that I've been places you have not heard of as well. how is this relevant? how does your "travels with Charlie" make it relevant? you will have to elucidate
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2014
OK, I think I have had enough amusement from JDS for me. Time for me to try to move on with our analysis. We know that CO2 is not going to settle out of the air and, if you want to waste your time, you can continue to argue that point with JDS, I think it is pointless.

The first thing I want to do now is to make it more clear as to what we are looking at when we talk about black body radiation from the earth when the earth temperature is at 287K, This relates back to Alche suggesting we break thins up into increments. I am doing that, not only with respect to the spectral bands for CO2 and H2O, but also for the black body radiation.

I want to be able to be sure that everyone watching understands how the radiation emission from the earth is distributed with respect to energy. So, in the next post I will try to put the radiant energy into a binned form so we can have an idea of where the energy resides in the wavelength or wavenumber range. Next.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
Now I will try to provide information in a form that can be understood. If there are better ways to show the information just go ahead and rearrange it.

I an going to try to provide a series of triplets of numbers. In the triplets, the first number will be the lower bounds of the wavelength of the emissions. The second number will be the upper bounds of the wavelength in the bin. The third number will be the fraction of the total power emitted by the surface. The reason I am doing this is to make it clear where emissions and bands interact and how much power they are responsible for.

For the first triplet I will go from 3000 nm to 100000 nm (NIR - Far-IR)
{3000nm, 100000 nm, .99462} Which tells us that is most of the power.

Now I wanted to know how that was distributed. The shape is identical to the black body shape in the reference from Watts Up. I then started looking at "bins," Bins are a numerical concept that is used to break up a signal or data into blocks
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 10, 2014
My first bin is from 100 nm to 3000 nm. That tells us how much is in the tail before 3000 nm.

{100, 3000, 0.000048}

In other words, the amount of energy in the output from the earth at 287K is almost all above 3000 nm, Even if we did something will all of the energy from the earth below 3000 nm it would not matter.

Next bin is at the top end. I wanted to see what fraction was between 40,000 nm and 100,000 nm. I was trying to see where I might be able to make approximations.

{40,000 nm, 100,000 nm, 0.056}

Unlike the short wave range, this one is a half of a percent. It is not clear to me at this time if we can ignore it or not.

Now looking at the bin between 3000 nm and 10,097 nm and knowing that the peak is at 10,097 this looks at the low half.

{3000 nm, 10097 nm, 0.25}

This shows that only 25% of the area under the curve is in the lower wavelength range. This interprets to 25% of the power being in the lower wavelength region.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
For anyone who would like to check my work, this is from equation 1-33 in Siegel and Howell "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer."

The very interesting thing to me is that the peak falls in an area with a skewed energy distribution with more energy tapering off to the longer wavelengths.

One interesting part of that is that the photons carry less energy as the wavelength goes up. That means that there are substantially more photons in the longer wavelength range. You should be able to do the 10097 nm to 40000 nm by difference. (0.689)
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
So, what we have now is the total radiation from the earth and the wavelength bins it falls in.

Now we should bin the wavelengths for the bands for the CO2 and H2O.

I am going to put these in using um (micrometers) to prevent my having to type in so many zeros.

CO2
2.0, 2.7, 4.3, 9.4, 10.4, 15.0 um

H2O
1.38, 1.87, 2.6, 6.3 um

Considering we can eliminate anything under 3 um we should be able to pick our wavelengths for the calculations. Alche, time for you to chime in and let me know how you like this approach. If you have any other suggestions, please make them.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.


Magnus: Thank you for checking. It always helps to have someone to keep tabs. Are you talking about Siegel and Howell for the second ed? I'm using the 4th but they should be similar.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.


Magnus: Thank you for checking. It always helps to have someone to keep tabs. Are you talking about Siegel and Howell for the second ed? I'm using the 4th but they should be similar.
Yes. Its been a very long time since I looked at this book, and I have notes I wrote in it that I don;t remember doing. As I recall, I got an 80 in that course.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.


Magnus: Thank you for checking. It always helps to have someone to keep tabs. Are you talking about Siegel and Howell for the second ed? I'm using the 4th but they should be similar.
Yes. Its been a very long time since I looked at this book, and I have notes I wrote in it that I don;t remember doing. As I recall, I got an 80 in that course.


You get a 5 on here for an 80 back then. It is good to have someone who even has the same book I do in case I get a bit spacey (not that I would).
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
You get a 5 on here for an 80 back then. It is good to have someone who even has the same book I do in case I get a bit spacey (not that I would).

thermodynamics: Would you & Magnus & I'm sure that Alchemist & Mr. Stumpy will be happy to get involved in this also, provide me with the empirical, repeatable experiment that demonstrates that CO2 is the driver of the earth's climate at its present makeup of the atmosphere.

"In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere.
Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' – the greenhouse effect."
http://understand...dall.htm

No experiment since proves what you are maintaining.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014


Magnus: Thank you for checking. It always helps to have someone to keep tabs. Are you talking about Siegel and Howell for the second ed? I'm using the 4th but they should be similar.

thermodynamics: It certainly appears that 155 years ago Tyndall understood the science much better than you do now in that he, unlike you and your minions on here knew about the importance of H2O. "Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature."

"In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere.
Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' – the greenhouse effect."
http://understand...dall.htm

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.


Thermodynamics: If you were going to bring up Svante Arrhenius , then you need to look into what this Swede said, and note that he did no experiments regarding CO2 and how it can change the earth's climate.
"Linking the calculations of his abstract model to natural processes, Arrhenius estimated the effect of the burning of fossil fuels as a source of atmospheric CO2. He predicted that a doubling of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning alone would take 500 years and lead to temperature increases of 3 to 4 °C (about 5 to 7 °F). This is probably what has earned Arrhenius his present reputation as the first to have provided a model for the effect of industrial activity on global warming."
http://www.britan...rrhenius

While people like Tyndall & Arrhenius did analytical thinking and experiments regarding CO2, you people can't even figure out if you have right addition of a book.
 

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
Makes one wonder at what one can believe about the "science" regarding the earth's climate, unless you are Thermodynamics kind of person, then you believe everything, no question.
"Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin." Huxley

"International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere"
By WALTER SULLIVAN ();
January 05, 1978,

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]
"An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere."
"The polar vortex was increasing due to global cooling"
"Scientists (such as Drs.Angell & Korshover) observed no correlation with CO2"
http://query.nyti...888BF1D3

MR166
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
It might be a mistake to neglect the effect of clouds.

http://hockeyscht...net.html
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
I assume that you people really think that you are on to some earth shatter revelations, afraid not.

"Antarctica today is a cold, inhospitable desert; however, in the more distant past, the climate was much warmer. Abundant finds of fossil leaves and wood point to the existence of extensive forestation in earlier geological periods, even to within a few degrees of latitude of the South Pole itself. Dinosaurs, and later, marsupial mammals once roamed across its surface."
http://www.antarc...sils.php

Ancient Antarctica's Forests Featured Weird Trees, Wood Fossils Show
"To confirm this, Ryberg and her colleagues gathered samples of fossil wood and examined the tree rings.Wood cells in the rings reveal how the trees grew: Early wood is produced when the tree is growing upward and outward. Late wood is produced when the tree is preparing to go dormant. At that point, the tree stops growing and starts storing carbon in its cells. Late wood is denser than early wood, and has thicker cell walls."
http://www.huffin...803.html

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
"To determine the ancient temperatures, the scientists measured the abundance of two rare isotopes bound to each other in fossil bivalve shells collected by co-author Linda Ivany of Syracuse University at Seymour Island, a small island off the northeast side of the Antarctic Peninsula. The concentration of bonds between carbon-13 and oxygen-18 reflect the temperature in which the shells grew, the researchers said. They combined these results with other geo-thermometers and model simulations.
The new measurement technique is called carbonate clumped isotope thermometry."
http://phys.org/n...ia.html#

I assume that the ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula did not fit these people's narrative and that is not how science is conducted, unless one is dishonest.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
"To determine the ancient temperatures, the scientists measured the abundance of two rare isotopes bound to each other in fossil bivalve shells collected by co-author Linda Ivany of Syracuse University at Seymour Island, a small island off the northeast side of the Antarctic Peninsula. The concentration of bonds between carbon-13 and oxygen-18 reflect the temperature in which the shells grew, the researchers said. They combined these results with other geo-thermometers and model simulations.
The new measurement technique is called carbonate clumped isotope thermometry."
http://phys.org/n...ia.html#

I assume that the ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula did not fit these people's narrative and that is not how science is conducted, unless one is dishonest.
If I knew about this, then why didn't the paper's lead author, Peter M.J. Douglas, mention it? Total dishonesty is the only thing that comes to mind and the Buddhist say that a half truth is a whole lie and that applies to many on this thread.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
"Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula."
http://adsabs.har...51A1819L
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (5) May 10, 2014
It really does make you wonder if people are paid to divert these conversations, doesn't it? Probability low, impact/insanity/inanity high.

@thermo, the elephant in the room is not water's bands, but that it has a low level absorbency almost everywhere in IR. This low level over CO2 bands is significant. I don't want to say the how, but Beer-Lambert should be OK, and exact treatment easy...
the only thing we'd need to do was agree on the approximate magnitude of the water noise level.

Eyeball-minus a delta is fine with me as a concept for water.
Eyeball-plus a sigma for CO2 is fine as well.

Thoughts?

I need to take a Mother's Day intermission I'm afraid.

Best to you...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.


Magnus: Thank you for checking. It always helps to have someone to keep tabs. Are you talking about Siegel and Howell for the second ed? I'm using the 4th but they should be similar.
@Thermo @Maggnus
this is specifically
"Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th edition, by Siegel, and Howell
correct? making sure. I don't have the book but I am ordering it ASAP.

@Alche
are you using the same book as well?

thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
@thermo, the elephant in the room is not water's bands, but that it has a low level absorbency almost everywhere in IR. This low level over CO2 bands is significant. I don't want to say the how, but Beer-Lambert should be OK, and exact treatment easy...
the only thing we'd need to do was agree on the approximate magnitude of the water noise level.
Eyeball-minus a delta is fine with me as a concept for water.
Eyeball-plus a sigma for CO2 is fine as well.

Thoughts?

I need to take a Mother's Day intermission I'm afraid.

Best to you...


Have a great mother's day. We all have to take some personal time. I am going target shooting this afternoon to try out a new SIG .308. I love the mechanics of a good rifle.

As for water, I am not convinced that it is going to be that much of a problem. I will try to look at the lines to see how much absorption they actually contribute in the regions where they are present but not strong. I should have an answer when you get back,
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
[

this is specifically
"Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th edition, by Siegel, and Howell
correct? making sure. I don't have the book but I am ordering it ASAP.



That is the book. It is not cheap, but it is among the best. Alche has another reference that does not go into heat transfer as deeply, and Maggy and I probably took similar courses. If you want to save money, I am also trying to find examples on-line for the issues I am addressing but the reality is that much of the literature does not get deep enough into the equations to be very helpful. If you get the book and need any help along the way, just let Maggy or me know.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
SIG .308
@Thermo
I love this round. good flat trajectory in its ballistics. makes a very good long range round for hunting... the .50 military round makes too much of a mess of the meat. :-) Usually my go to when I NEED meat. Otherwise I bowhunt.Ii prefer to stalk & track. more fun

ENJOY yalls Mothers day. I am headed out in 3 hours for same (M-day AND target practice). Have to celebrate early: daughters and grandkids tomorrow!
If you get the book and need any help along the way, just let Maggy or me know
I will. if you are ever on http://www.sciforums.com look me up and we can swap e-mails. truck captain stumpy.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
SIG .308
@Thermo
I love this round. good flat trajectory in its ballistics. makes a very good long range round for hunting... the .50 military round makes too much of a mess of the meat. :-) Usually my go to when I NEED meat. Otherwise I bowhunt.Ii prefer to stalk & track. more fun

ENJOY yalls Mothers day. I am headed out in 3 hours for same (M-day AND target practice). Have to celebrate early: daughters and grandkids tomorrow!
If you get the book and need any help along the way, just let Maggy or me know
I will. if you are ever on http://www.sciforums.com look me up and we can swap e-mails. truck captain stumpy.


CS: How are you listed on sciforums?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
I see that you "scientific" people cannot answer my challenge regarding CO2 & the climate, & isn't this what the focus is? Here is some more for you to dance around.

Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.

It works like this. Stomata control a tradeoff for the plant: they allow carbon dioxide in, but they also let precious water escape its water… Levels of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere change over time — so at times when the atmosphere is carbon-dioxide-rich, plants can get away with having fewer stomata since each individual stoma will be able to bring in more carbon dioxide. During those high-carbon-dioxide times, plants with fewer stomata will have an advantage and will be common. On the other hand, when carbon dioxide levels are low, plants need many stomata in order to scrape together enough carbon dioxide to survive…
http://evolution....lwain_03

thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Alche:

Here is an interesting site for you to look at with respect to lines and interference. In particular you can look at both CO2 and H2O in detail.

http://www.cfa.ha...hitran//

Click on HITRAN facts on the left.
Then click on vibrational modes.
Then click on water vapor of carbon dioxide for details.
You can then look at the sub-menus I am looking at PNNL or HITRAN 2004
And I am using um for the alternate scale.

If you look at the Y axis you will find some large differences in cross sections that are listed there. This is about as detailed as you can get on the web (I think).
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
Alche:

Can you find some references on the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere? It is the only vapor that can condense on its way up and it does tend to drop off as a mole fraction of the atmosphere as the altitude increases (or I think it does). I have not found a typical representation for the change in water vapor with altitude.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
Alche: One more proposed condition for the calculations. I propose that we not include aerosols. Mostly because I have no confidence in a simple model being able to handle them. I know they are there, but I really think it would be a monumental task to include them.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 11, 2014
CS: How are you listed on sciforums?
@Thermodynamics
Truck Captain Stumpy
pretty much how I list everywhere... either that or Captain Stumpy. It's what I have been called for decades.
@Thermo
@Alche
again, sorry for the idiot interruptions above. jd apparently cannot comprehend what yall are up to. wish he knew a bit more. just ignore his stupidity and keep plugging at it.

I don't have the book but I am patiently awaiting your results.

Thanks for staying with it.
http://www.cfa.ha...hitran//
I saved this last time you posted it... thanks
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
Alche: One more proposed condition for the calculations. I propose that we not include aerosols. Mostly because I have no confidence in a simple model being able to handle them. I know they are there, but I really think it would be a monumental task to include them.


thermodynamics said : "… I propose that we not include aerosols. … but I really think it would be a monumental task to include them." No kidding; but, there are people who want to find out what is true, even if you have no ability or desire to do so.

"In a CERN press release, Jasper Kirkby qualified that "our measurements leave open the possibility that the formation of aerosols in the atmosphere may also proceed with other vapors, for which the effect of cosmic rays may be different." However, since sulfuric acid is the dominant player for cloud formation, this significantly limits the potential influence of cosmic rays on Earth's climate."
http://arstechnic...roplets/

You people are a lot of fun. to read your findings taken from a book you can't even agree on which addition is pertaining to your "research".
First publication in 1913, CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on Chemistry and Physics
and discover that at 10 meters there were 387 ppm of CO2 & at 2,410 meters there is zero Co2
http://www.hbcpne...come.asp

The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg

jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014

again, sorry for the idiot interruptions above. jd apparently cannot comprehend what yall are up to. wish he knew a bit more. just ignore his stupidity and keep plugging at it.

I don't have the book but I am patiently awaiting your results.

At least Kirkby and Henrik Svensmark are doing something that people like you never seem to do and that is carry out experiments to either prove or disprove their hypothesis.

"Early results confirmed that the experimental "cosmic rays" could increase the formation of particles, although the ones that formed must subsequently grow much, much larger before they can act as condensation nuclei
[…]
In a new paper in Nature, the CLOUD team explores those puzzles. They intentionally added the simple nitrogen-containing organic compounds (called amines) to the chamber to see what would happen when more than just a few uninvited molecules were present.
It was thought that amines might have a role in the formation of these particles, but their importance wasn't well understood.
[…]Adding just a few parts per trillion of an amine (roughly the concentration you can find in the atmosphere) raised the rate of particle formation in the CLOUD chamber to 1,000 times that seen in earlier experiments. That brought the rate up to what we observe in the atmosphere. This implies that amines are much more important than previously recognized."


jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
One does not need elaborate scientific experiments to assess the influence of atmospheric H2O on the earth's climate. First off, one can not only see it but one can also feel it in the atmosphere. If someone has ever spent any time in the upper latitudes, or lower, where there are distinct seasons that are caused by the sun's 22.4⁰ tilt on its axes, the coldest nights of the winter always occur when there is no cloud cover and it is also the reason why the deserts can be 120⁰ F. during the day and freezing at night.

This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
"One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
http://www.nytime...uds.html

This is the absorption spectrum for liquid water in the atmosphere:
http://i42.tinypi...aes8.jpg
Note the location of the strongest absorption peak of liquid water and it's unfortunate coincidence with the absorption peak for CO2, where liquid water absorbs 300+ times more intensely than CO2 …
http://i44.tinypi...ayi1.jpg



jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014
Alche:

Can you find some references on the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere? It is the only vapor that can condense on its way up and it does tend to drop off as a mole fraction of the atmosphere as the altitude increases (or I think it does). I have not found a typical representation for the change in water vapor with altitude.


thermodynamics: I do not know here you are trying to go with this but you are perhaps trying to discount what John Tyndall knew 155 years ago and he did not need "a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere." to know that H2O was the main greenhouse gas.

I would suggest that you use some logic for a change and understand that Mount Everest has SNOW on it. Logic would tell you that came from the clouds that generally are far higher than the summit of the mountain; therefore, the H2O is in these clouds and falls as snow while the atmosphere on Everest is so thin and lacking in O2 that fires will hardly burn; therefore, how much CO2 do you think is there?

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) May 11, 2014
JDSwallow said: "thermodynamics: I do not know here you are trying to go with this but you are perhaps trying to discount what John Tyndall knew 155 years ago and he did not need "a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere." to know that H2O was the main greenhouse gas."

You have, obviously, not read this thread. We all know that H2O is the major GHG. We are also in the middle of exploring the relationship of the increase of CO2 to any change in energy retention by the earth. That is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend so we will just watch with amusement as you rant and rave about nothing.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2014
thermodynamics: First off; where are all of your research findings about your "findings"? You are also in the middle of exploring the relationship of the increase of CO2 to any change in energy retention by the earth & you have NO results.

If I might interject an observation based on your lack of knowledge about basically any thing; you are basically a poor old 1960s hippy that has grown old and seen that none of your aims have been achieved; so now , as a last hope, you see this hoax of agw as being your last chance to get your flawed view expressed and that seems like a sad way to end your life, but end it will. This site, in general is so full of garbage that I'm sure you agree with. I well imagine that the site presented the World Wild Life saying that ALL of the glaciers in the Himalayans would be gone by 2035. It is sad that some one would be so stupid to not investigate some things and use logic to see what their point of view should be, but not people like you who lack the moral fiber to do so.

http://gbpihed.go...iers.pdf This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalayan Mountains.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
JDSwallow said:

Why, thermodynamics, do you not have the courage or intelligence to get away from the ad hominem attacks and just deal with the evidence that I present? To not do so makes you to appear to be very, very disingenuous and , if I might add, dishonest person, using the word loosely.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
That is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend so we will just watch with amusement as you rant and rave about nothing.

You, thermodynamics, pray that you can establish that it is a positive feed back and that has been established in nature that it IS NOT the case or the earth's oceans would have boiled away billions of years ago, Got that!!!! Also note that Venus' atmosphere is

Carbon dioxide: 96 percent
Nitrogen: 3.5 percent
Carbon monoxide, argon, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor: less than 1 percent
http://www.space....ere.html

Lead would boil here, thermodynamics

The atmosphere of Mars is over 95% carbon dioxide, 95.32% to be exact. The breakdown of gases goes like this:
Oxygen 0.13%
Carbon monoxide 0.07%
Water vapor 0.03%
Nitric oxide .0013%
http://www.univer...made-of/
It is very cold here, thermodynamics

Just what would the atmosphere be on your utopian planet,thermodynamics?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
JDSwallow said: "thermodynamics: That is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend so we will just watch with amusement as you rant and rave about nothing.


Arctic could face warmer and ice-free conditions
Dec 29, 2009
There is increased evidence that the Arctic could face seasonally ice-free conditions and much warmer temperatures in the future.
Scientists documented evidence that the ArcticOcean and Nordic Seas were too warm to support summer sea ice during the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.3 to 3 million years ago). This period is characterized by warm temperatures similar to those projected for the end of this century, and is used as an analog to understand future conditions.
This will help refine climate models, which currently underestimate the rate of sea ice loss in the Arctic. http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

 Can you understand this Therm?
Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at "The Bergen,  
"The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete article or see the link to the original PDF below:"

http://www.sott.n...gs-Melt-
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
Alche, as we move forward on this project there are some things I am finding that I want to toss out for discussion. I want to, first, restate the problem we are working on. Please look these over to make sure we are still on the same page. This is my interpretation and please feel free to correct me. The following statements are often made and we will attempt to evaluate them.

1 The amount of CO2 and H2O already in the atmosphere is sufficient to make the atmosphere opaque to IR radiation at the bands that CO2 absorbs in.

2 The absorption by H2O is much more important than CO2 and addition of CO2 does nothing to increase the retention of heat by the Earth.

3 The small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the small increases caused by burning fossil fuels cannot be responsible for the retention of additional heat by the Earth.

It is those three statement that we will attempt to determine the validity of.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
There are a number of things that I have been looking at that impact the analysis we are doing. The first issue was the identification of the homosphere and heterosphere. This is a demarcation between the two is the change from full mixing of the non-condensable components in the homosphere and stratification in the heterosphere (starting in the stratosphere - which some sources is named after stratification that takes place there. If Runrig or others can help with a better understanding of these zones it would be very helpful.

I am intending to use the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) as my baseline.

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

There are interesting things that take place in these zones and they will be important to the analysis that we are completing. One thing that is important is that the temperature in the atmosphere goes down as the altitude goes up until about 20 km where it starts going up again. I intend to use the ISA for temperature changes.

I am also using the Wikipedia example of the Atmosphere of the Earth as a basis for data on the Earth because it is readily addressable by anyone.

http://en.wikiped...of_Earth

Any comments are welcome.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014
There are some terms that are common in radiative heat transfer that also are pertinent to this discussion. The terms are "optical depth," "optically thin," "optically thick," and "absorbance."

http://en.wikiped...al_depth

http://en.wikiped...sorbance

http://burro.astr...mer.html

http://spiff.rit....ptd.html

And Beer-Lambert

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

I am used to working with optically thin gas layers in combustion systems. However, the atmosphere is a very long path. Because of that I have to better understand how the photons are absorbed in the layers and then reradiated. This leads back to the questions about what happens with photons that come down through the atmosphere from the sun as well as photons heading up from the ground. If I ignore any of them I run into the problem that layers of the air will be a different temperature than they actually are. For instance, the upper atmosphere is heated by absorption of short wave radiation by ozone. The temperature of the lower atmosphere touching the earth is heated by both convection and radiation. We have to make sure to represent all of the heat transfer taking place to assess our questions.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014
Two more concepts before I hang it up tonight. There is only one way that the earth can exchange energy (in any consistent way other than impacts) and that is by radiation. All evidence indicates that the amount of radiation coming from the sun is stable. If I look at the earth as a sphere that is radiating to space, then the only way that energy can accumulate on the sphere is if the amount of radiation leaving the earth decreases. From the perspective of heat transfer that means the effective temperature of the sphere has to decrease. If that does not happen, the amount of heat does not change (either up or down). Note, I am talking about heat, not temperature. The earth is huge and every part has enormous heat capacity. Heat can change without much of a change in temperature. However, for the total heat to change the radiation balance must change. We all know that but I wanted to make it clear that is what we will be looking for.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014
The second thing is that within the layers of the atmosphere we know that there is considerable mixing. That means that molecules that are excited by photons can relax without reemitting photons at the same frequency they absorbed. For that reason they can "smear" out the emissions as they redistribute the energy both up and down. Any approach to balancing the energy on the planet has to take mixing and transformation of energy in excited molecules into consideration. This will require either a continuous calculus approach or a discrete layer approach or a combination of the two. I will start by looking at a thin layer using Beer's law and discrete bands.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014



http://en.wikiped...mosphere

Any comments are welcome.


First off , thermodynamics, you need to note that neither Kirkby or Svensmark felt the need to lower themselves to use Wikipedia as a "source". Only lazy fools with no interest in science do so.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) May 12, 2014
First off , thermodynamics, you need to note that neither Kirkby or Svensmark felt the need to lower themselves to use Wikipedia as a "source". Only lazy fools with no interest in science do so.

Wikipedia is an accepted data reference by many, contributed to by thousands of scientific professionals in their respective fields.
Ignoring that fact makes your derisive commentary pretty f##k'ing lame and without merit...
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

Any comments are welcome.

First off , thermodynamics, you need to note that neither Kirkby or Svensmark felt the need to lower themselves to use Wikipedia as a "source". Only lazy fools with no interest in science do so.


Thank you for your comment. I am trying to make any references available to all. When I can't I will attribute those references I am using.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
Wikipedia is an accepted data reference by many, contributed to by thousands of scientific professionals in their respective fields.
Ignoring that fact makes your derisive commentary pretty f##k'ing lame and without merit...
@Whydening Gyre
ignore him, WG... he made comments about CO2 and I (stupidly) referred him here to learn about CO2, gas and distribution by watching the analysis above. It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS at this point that he has absolutely NO CLUE about what Thermo and Alche are doing and is here only to TROLL because he cannot comprehend the above.

just sit back, read on and enjoy the outcome... its getting good! No troll is going to be able to mess up math and science, only piss off the players.
I am trying to make any references available to all.
@Thermo
yall are doing a bang up job! please continue! there are SOME who appreciate it, even though there are idiots who cant understand what you are doing.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
While there are some photons in the water bands or CO2 bands that will make it all the way out of the atmosphere without interacting with a molecule, those are the rare photons. In general, an IR photon, in one of the molecular emission bands, will interact with an active molecule (GHG molecule) before it goes very far. That photon does not hang around in the molecule. It is changed to energy. The normal parlance is to say the photon is absorbed and then reemitted, but that is jargon. In reality the photon is changed to some energy mode of the molecule and then another photon can be emitted from the molecule. However, since photons of the same energy are not distinguishable the detail of what goes on is not important to the issue. Instead, it is important to know that the photon changes the energy of the molecule and then the excited molecule can relax through collisions or emitting a photon. The direction of a photon emitted by relaxation is random.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014
As I mentioned above, any photon in the bands of active GHGs tend to be absorbed and then others are emitted as they make their way through the atmosphere. However, not all molecules can absorb the same wavelengths. In fact, monatomic atoms such as Ar and diatomic molecules such as N2 or O2 do not absorb IR photons with any significant coupling. That means that if you had an atmosphere of pure N2, O2, and Ar, it would be transparent to IR. The Earth would be colder than it is. In fact, it would be a frozen planet. However, we have H2O (the major GHG) in our atmosphere and because of it, significant IR bands (lines) are absorbed. We also have CO2 in the atmosphere and it absorbs bands (lines) of IR photons. Without those two GHGs the earth would be cold enough to have problems supporting life.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
Now, let's look at one claim: "A gas that makes up only 400 ppm cannot be significant."

What is the composition of the standard dry atmosphere?

N2 = 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
O2 = 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Ar = 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)

None of those gases absorb the IR radiation emitted by the earth.

I am omitting the H2O content because it is variable in the atmosphere. However, in the dry atmosphere, a total of 99.9964 % of the atmosphere does not interact with IR photons that are emitted from the earth.

The concentration of CO2 in the dry atmosphere is approximately 400 ppm now. The main GHG, H2O, can be between 0.05% and 4% of the atmosphere at sea level depending on the location and the time. However, now CO2 must be compared with the concentration of H2O, not N2, O2, and Ar.

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

It will be the comparison with H2O that will be taking up my time here and let me know if, after this explanation, you think we need to address the absorption of the non-GHGs. We will take their heat capacity into consideration.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (2) May 13, 2014
E-gad, alot of catching up to do, sorry to take the extra day.

Yes water is variable, but it is 20000 ppm in the Sahara, and probably an average of 50x more common than CO2 (We agreed to 30x if I recall).

We are not trying to prove the significance of CO2 in a dry atmosphere. Though I doubt you'll have much luck there either, the majority of the Earth warming and temperature stability come from the... wait for it... mixing of the homosphere. So as it turns out our radiation model has some kinks in it. Looks like you've seen some.

Here is an intuitive-think about how sensitive we are to humidity; it feels colder or warmer based on changes. At our baseline sense, humidity is "keeping us warm" un-noticed.

Waxed a little long, will catch up tomorrow.

I wish I could block specific posters, how much of a donation do you think that would cost?
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) May 13, 2014
Alche: You said: "Yes water is variable, but it is 20000 ppm in the Sahara, and probably an average of 50x more common than CO2 (We agreed to 30x if I recall)."

We did agree to 30k but what is clear is that the water vapor is the only gas that does change mole fraction with altitude. This is an important factor that we have to take into consideration. That is the reason I requested that you look into the change in water vapor mole fraction with altitude. We can start at 1% (or wherever you want to start) and go down with altitude as you indicate with what you find.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) May 13, 2014
Alche: You said: "We are not trying to prove the significance of CO2 in a dry atmosphere. Though I doubt you'll have much luck there either, the majority of the Earth warming and temperature stability come from the... wait for it... mixing of the homosphere. So as it turns out our radiation model has some kinks in it. Looks like you've seen some."

I was not implying we would use a dry atmosphere. However, even though the homosphere is mixed, water vapor changes with altitude due to the change in temperature with altitude. As you know, water vapor condenses when the partial pressure reaches the dew point. Because of that the partial pressure decreases with altitude. That means the mole fraction decreases with altitude. Please find a typical relationship for that.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) May 13, 2014
One more observation. Alche, as you pointed out, the equipartion principle applies. There is also a relatively long time between excitation of a molecule with IR radiation and the emission of that molecule. During that time the molecules collide millions of times and redistribute the energy. This link has a section that talks about the relaxation and local thermal equilibrium (LTE).

http://geosci.uch...2011.pdf

Note that this only happens when the density is such that collisions occur faster than emission. That occurs in the homosphere.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (10) May 13, 2014
I wish I could block specific posters, how much of a donation do you think that would cost?
@Alche
if you are referring to jd, perhaps if we just ignore him he will go away. sorry I brought him here, I actually thought he would understand what yall are doing. Please continue.

if you are referring to me, I take copious amounts of small unmarked bills and I am not averse to good food, travel, farm animals and other types of bribery. I also love Bluewater Junks larger than 69foot (but no more than 4 masts) :-D

from personal experience, your donation will have to at least exceed $25, but I doubt you can selectively ignore certain posters no matter how much you donate (unless you buy the company)

YALL KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2014
Wikipedia is an accepted data reference by many, contributed to by thousands of scientific professionals in their respective fields.
Ignoring that fact makes your derisive commentary pretty f##k'ing lame and without merit...


This is what thermodynamics & others consider to be "scientific" sources of information? Obviously they do and it shows

"Good research and citing your sources
Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism. We welcome good short articles, called "stubs", that can serve as launching pads from which others can take off – stubs can be relatively short, a few sentences, but should provide some useful information. If you do not have enough material to write a good stub, you probably should not create an article. At the end of a stub, you should include a "stub template" like this: {{stub}}. (Other Wikipedians will appreciate it if you use a more specific stub template, like {{art-stub}}. See the list of stub types for a list of all specific stub templates.) Stubs help track articles that need expansion"
http://en.wikiped..._article
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2014


Note that this only happens when the density is such that collisions occur faster than emission. That occurs in the homosphere.


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at http://arxiv.org/...61v4.pdf

By showing that

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and
the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero,

the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
http://www.schman...uder.pdf
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 13, 2014
JDSwallow said the concept of The GHG effect can be falsified because
"
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and
the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero"

He then gave a link to a science fiction paper that goes on to use pseudoscience to convince the ignorant he is right. You really do have to read the paper to understand how ignorant JDS is. Reading the paper should give you some real entertainment, but don't look for physics. I suspect he put it here to divert attention from the analyses we are engaged in. It is not working. Alche and I will press on.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2014

He then gave a link to a science fiction paper that goes on to use pseudoscience to convince the ignorant he is right. You really do have to read the paper to understand how ignorant JDS is. Reading the paper should give you some real entertainment, but don't look for physics. I suspect he put it here to divert attention from the analyses we are engaged in. It is not working. Alche and I will press on.


First off, thermodynamics, do not imply that I have said something that I have not said. I offered this up as an example of other views of this subject and there are many that disagreed with what Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner are maintaining & that is only normal. This site below had many dissenters regarding this paper and there is much great information in the comments. It is interesting to read through them and find that, either due to the participants having a better understanding of science or just because they are well educated & therefore more civil, one does not encounter the name calling and ad hominem attacks that are so prevalent on this site.

All you never wanted to know about Gerlich and Tscheuschner
http://rabett.blo...out.html

"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite."
Karl Popper
"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again."
Karl Popper

Perhaps you could have learned the wisdom of Karl Popper's observation: "The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" — Karl Popper

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
@thermo
Seems to me you are left with the dilemma of facing condensation, or using the pressure distribution for H2O.

Both work in my favor, but since we agreed not to use clouds, just use the disto., because the alternative is much worse, and we want to root CO2 completely at the end of this, because if CO2 can't beat H2O uncondensed, it certainly can't beat it condensed. If you want to use another distro for water, propose it, but no Heavyside functions please, water goes into the outer atm after all.

Sorry, still catching up. @JD could you act as an arbiter please? and not interject unless you have an objection to the approach/assumptions/etc.? Those should be short.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 13, 2014
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at http://arxiv.org/...61v4.pdf


The only part of this splashy, false, poorly written paper that it provides the basis by which some denialists can be so easily duped by poor research.
You really do have to read the paper to understand how ignorant JDS is. Reading the paper should give you some real entertainment, but don't look for physics.
Exactly.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 13, 2014
Alche: You said:
"@thermo
Seems to me you are left with the dilemma of facing condensation, or using the pressure distribution for H2O.

Both work in my favor, but since we agreed not to use clouds, just use the disto., because the alternative is much worse, and we want to root CO2 completely at the end of this, because if CO2 can't beat H2O uncondensed, it certainly can't beat it condensed. If you want to use another distro for water, propose it, but no Heavyside functions please, water goes into the outer atm after all."

There is no dilemma from my perspective. This is an area we are going to have to discuss. From reading, it is my understanding that the proportion of water vapor decreases as altitude increases. We do have to consider the latent heat of vaporization as water condenses and evaporates. It is incorporated into the observed "lapse rate" difference from the predicted lapse rate. Continued
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 13, 2014
Cont: Let me give you my understanding of the phenomena and you can correct me. I was hoping you might get data on the mole fraction of water with altitude, but just let me know if you can't find it.

Water evaporates from the surface (land or water). As it evaporates it takes latent heat of vaporization from the surroundings and cools those surroundings. Winds and kinetic energy mix the water vapor with the air.

Thermals mix air vertically. As the air rises it expands and cools. As it cools to the dew point the water vapor starts to condense out. As it condenses it releases latent heat of vaporization it picked up to evaporate in the first place. That helps warm the air and adds energy to the thermal which causes the air to rise faster.

When droplets formed this way get large enough they fall against the thermals. This brings large quantities of water downward. Continued
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 13, 2014
Cont: In many cases the water evaporates on the way down and never touches the ground. In some cases it drops all the way to the ground as rain, snow, hail, or sleet. In any case, water vapor is the only gas I am aware of that has a composition gradient in the troposphere. As I understand it, water vapor is scarce in the stratosphere.

We do not need to add clouds to have the gradient. Clouds and precipitation are the mechanism by which the gradient occurs, but on a cloudless day the atmospheric column has the gradient because vertical mixing is not fast enough to change it.

Please either find what the gradient looks like or let me know and I will gladly dig it up.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
On one hand, intriguing. You think you can look something like that up? That would be neat, point me in the direction, I'll do it.

On the other hand, using physical principals to derive that would be neat, if you like I'll do that as well.

On the other hand; it is conceivable to have "no" condensation in our column, after all, this happens every clear day over the ocean, with much worse conditions... so why not go back to the Barometric equation?

Your wish is my command.

That Homospere is causing me problems now. At the bottom of http://en.wikiped..._formula it has a calculation for the Earth's temperature under the Baro's influence alone. Which means Homosphere dynamics and water's actions are responsible for raising the temperature from 255K (-18C) to 287K (14C), an inconceivable amount of energy, and I see even less how CO2 can stack up.

Still catching up.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 14, 2014
Alche: You note: "That Homospere is causing me problems now. At the bottom of http://en.wikiped...mula it has a calculation for the Earth's temperature under the Baro's influence alone. Which means Homosphere dynamics and water's actions are responsible for raising the temperature from 255K (-18C) to 287K (14C), an inconceivable amount of energy, and I see even less how CO2 can stack up."

That is a great observation that should be addressed as we go through this. I have been having a great time learning a lot from this effort. As I mentioned above, the systems I look at are on the order of tens of meters, not thousands of meters. It makes a real difference in the way radiation interacts with the gas molecules.

One way to look at the change in temperature is that it does not have to all happen at once. Instead, it happens over millions of years. Yes, that is a large temperature difference, but you can see that there are some interesting dynamics involved. I will be sure to address this.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2014
Alche you said: "On the other hand; it is conceivable to have "no" condensation in our column, after all, this happens every clear day over the ocean, with much worse conditions... so why not go back to the Barometric equation?"

We can go back to the Barometric equation if we can't find real data. The problem with using the equation is that we are looking at specific humidity, not relative humidity or absolute humidity. Those are harder to calculate.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2014
Alche: Here is a good summary of what we might have to do to get an idea of how an ideal version of water vapor would change with altitude.

http://cires.colo.../vp.html

I have coded a version of the IAPWS water and vapor calculations. However, they are not very reliable at lower temperatures (I do most of my calculations at high temperatures and IAPWS is great there). The issue of psychrometrics is complicated. It is the reason I would much rather have measurements.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2014
Is it coincidence that this article is posted?
http://phys.org/n...pse.html

What has my point always been? That the primary effect of Global (negligible) Warming will be it hydrodynamic effects.
Not CO2, not temperature rise. The above article states pretty clearly this is the primary effect. You've all been arguing about how many angels are on the heads of pins. You should have been looking to the energy in the system. I haven't run the numbers, but I doubt their is much we can do to curtail it now.

My simplistic and predictive model that has worked so well, has been for naught.

Sorry for the interlude, but I am looking at failure after 26 years, admittedly it was me fighting the tide.

So, sure lets keep talking about CO2, not what is driving the polar decline. See, even I get distracted by flare. I wish I had proved CO2 ridiculous years ago, but, it seemed so ridiculous.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2014
@thermo
I'm sorry, your link referring to
There is also a relatively long time between excitation of a molecule with IR radiation and the emission of that molecule.

I discount from its title, but...
It is 4.2 microseconds, not time for millions of interactions. If you had say, 3 collisions, you would have no effect from CO2 radiative properties. That's pretty easy to demo..

Calculating effects from collisions does your case no favors, and I am confident enough to ignore them.

Working on your last post.

@Capt'n, thanks for le beau mots.

More to come. Thanks all.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2014
To answer you question: I still think we should use ppm (for water & CO2) for thermodynamic simplicity. It is easier to count interactions by molecule, intuitive if not simple, and can be normalized readily.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
Is it coincidence that this article is posted?
http://phys.org/n...pse.html

What has my point always been? That the primary effect of Global (negligible) Warming will be it hydrodynamic effects.
Not CO2, not temperature rise. The above article states pretty clearly this is the primary effect. You've all been arguing about how many angels are on the heads of pins. You should have been looking to the energy in the system. I haven't run the numbers, but I doubt their is much we can do to curtail it now.

My simplistic and predictive model that has worked so well, has been for naught.

Sorry for the interlude, but I am looking at failure after 26 years, admittedly it was me fighting the tide.

So, sure lets keep talking about CO2, not what is driving the polar decline. See, even I get distracted by flare. I wish I had proved CO2 ridiculous years ago, but, it seemed so ridiculous.
Poisoning the well.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2014
Unitary analysis so far:

Using energy from frequency times planks constant; E x
% spectrum absorbed by CO2 <2%
% energy from 667cm-1 vs balance of spectra <25%
% competitively absorbed by H2O (Beer's law) >>50%
% from change in [CO2] (Beer's law) ~50%

0.02*.5*.5*0.25= 0.00125 instantaneous, surface-level impact on emitted energy.

This is dimunated, further by water's other properties (evaporation ~10%), the Homosperic effect (>>90%?!!!), and the long-term retention effects of CO2 not being infinite (90% being generous).

This becomes, WITHOUT the Homosperic effects, 0.000112, or 0.0112%.

Well below the sigma level.

Case proven?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
Unitary analysis so far:

Using energy from frequency times planks constant; E x
% spectrum absorbed by CO2 <2%
% energy from 667cm-1 vs balance of spectra <25%
% competitively absorbed by H2O (Beer's law) >>50%
% from change in [CO2] (Beer's law) ~50%

0.02*.5*.5*0.25= 0.00125 instantaneous, surface-level impact on emitted energy.

This is dimunated, further by water's other properties (evaporation ~10%), the Homosperic effect (>>90%?!!!), and the long-term retention effects of CO2 not being infinite (90% being generous).

This becomes, WITHOUT the Homosperic effects, 0.000112, or 0.0112%.

Well below the sigma level.

Case proven?

Absolutely not. You haven't shown anything with this word salad. We are talking about re-radience and you have not shown your calculations for your derived percentage values nor outlined the values you used for molar absorbtivity nor path length. You have shown nothing, try again.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
Actually, on second thought, it is up to thermo to decide, so I withdraw my comments and await his review.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 14, 2014
Actually, on second thought, it is up to thermo to decide, so I withdraw my comments and await his review.


Magnus: Thank you for deferring to me, but I have to agree with you. Alche and I have a lot more work to do than what was put in his input. I greatly appreciate his partnership on this and I continue to learn a lot as we slog through this messy exercise. Just about the time I think I have something working right, I find something I missed. In the case of the work Alche did, the old mantra of "show your work" comes to mind.

Alche: Please note that the atmosphere is a large mass that is heterogeneous. We have to deal with that all the way to space. Please show your work as to how you have shown we are on our way to space with what you have put together.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
@thermo
I'm sorry, your link referring to
There is also a relatively long time between excitation of a molecule with IR radiation and the emission of that molecule.

I discount from its title, but...
It is 4.2 microseconds, not time for millions of interactions. If you had say, 3 collisions, you would have no effect from CO2 radiative properties. That's pretty easy to demo..


Alche: Just erase the title of the paper if it offends you.

Also, please read it again. I just did. When I said millions, it was in reference to the number per second. I am sorry for not being clearer. From my reading, the relaxation times are in milliseconds (10^-3), not microseconds(10^-6). From the paper the collisions are on the order of 10^7 per second (tens of millions). That is not 3 collisions. More like 10^4. That is the reason that the atmosphere is thought to be in LTE. In a separate calculation I got billions of collisions per second so I have to reconcile.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
Magnus: Thank you for deferring to me, but I have to agree with you. Alche and I have a lot more work to do than what was put in his input.
Thermo, I must defer to you in this, as you are the one doing the "hard" calculations (not just complex, also actual) and it is therefore your decision as to whether or not Alchem (or anyone else for that matter) has met the thresh-hold of proof.

Furthermore, Alchem is convinced of my bias, and therefore will discount my critiques, just or not. I am enjoying the exchange between you two and I do not wish to "poison the well" by introducing any perceived bias to the discussion.

I am watching, and for now, I am satisfied with that.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 14, 2014
Alche: You said:
"Using energy from frequency times planks constant; E x
% spectrum absorbed by CO2 <2%
% energy from 667cm-1 vs balance of spectra <25%
% competitively absorbed by H2O (Beer's law) >>50%
% from change in [CO2] (Beer's law) ~50%

0.02*.5*.5*0.25= 0.00125 instantaneous, surface-level impact on emitted energy.

This is dimunated, further by water's other properties (evaporation ~10%), the Homosperic effect (>>90%?!!!), and the long-term retention effects of CO2 not being infinite (90% being generous).

This becomes, WITHOUT the Homosperic effects, 0.000112, or 0.0112%."


I'm going to need some clarification.

How do you get: "% spectrum absorbed by CO2 <2%" 2% of what and how is it figured?

How do you get: "% energy from 667cm-1 vs balance of spectra <25%"

How do you get: "% competitively absorbed by H2O (Beer's law) >>50%"

And how does this relate to the question of additional CO2 and its effects?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2014
Alche: I am going to continue on by looking at the layers of the atmosphere that I think we need to be concerned with. First is the troposphere. That is the layer closest to the earth. It is also a well mixed layer. From reading about it on Wikipedia it tends to have most of the water vapor from the earth. All gases except water vapor are evenly distributed (mole fractions remain the same with altitude) except water vapor. Since water vapor is condensable it is more prevalent near the ground (mole fraction wise) and less prevalent as the altitude goes up. I have requested a way to estimate the fraction of water vapor in the air from you or anyone else who might be watching this, but if not, I can make some estimates. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

• Exosphere: >700 km (>440 miles)
• Thermosphere: 80 to 700 km (50 to 440 miles)[6]
• Mesosphere: 50 to 80 km (31 to 50 miles)
• Stratosphere: 12 to 50 km (7 to 31 miles)
• Troposphere: 0 to 12 km (0 to 7 miles)[7]

Cont:
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2014
Cont: Of the various layers mentioned in the above list, I don't think we need to go higher than the top of the stratosphere because the pressure has dropped off to near zero by then. Please let me know if you think we need to go higher.

From reading about the stratosphere, it appears it is not mixed (it is stratified hence stratosphere) due to the fact that it is heated from the top by incoming short wave radiation from the sun. It is the location of the ozone layer and that stops nearly all of the short wave UV radiation coming in at the top of the atmosphere.

From what I can tell the stratosphere has, virtually, no water vapor (or a very small mole fraction).

Water vapor with height could be important in the analysis.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 14, 2014
I said unitary, I meant unitless.

Take the bandwidth of CO2 subtract it max from its min, this is delta cm-1.
Divide it by a generously anemic radiation released by the Earth. That gives you much less than 2%.

667cm-1 in terms of energy is very weak compared to the balance of frequencies. As you know energy is proportional to cm-1. That is another ratio. 25% gives 667cm-1 alot of credit.

Water is weakly absorptive ~4% at 667cm-1, but is 30x more concentrated. A ratio again of the Beers laws for the two gives us an estimate.

The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 (280ppm) and the current 400ppm provides us with a delta again using Beer's Law.

10% evap. self-expln.
Energy from Homosphere, calculable.
90% for CO2, we can construct a power series based on how much energy from the previous day is carried over to the next. This is easy to over-estimate.

A simple analysis, giving us order of magnitude easily.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2014
Alche: I still need some more details of how you approached it. You said:

"Take the bandwidth of CO2 subtract it max from its min, this is delta cm-1."


What were the max and min?

Then:
"Divide it by a generously anemic radiation released by the Earth. That gives you much less than 2%"


What did you use for this anemic amount?

A single wavelength doesn't convey much information to me.

667cm-1 in terms of energy is very weak compared to the balance of frequencies. As you know energy is proportional to cm-1. That is another ratio. 25% gives 667cm-1 alot of credit.


How do you come up with 25% from 667 cm-1?

Water is weakly absorptive ~4% at 667cm-1, but is 30x more concentrated. A ratio again of the Beers laws for the two gives us an estimate.


It is 30x more concentrated at the ground. What is it near the top of the troposphere? How about in the stratosphere?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2014
Alche: I have no idea where this came from.

90% for CO2, we can construct a power series based on how much energy from the previous day is carried over to the next. This is easy to over-estimate.


Why would we want to do a time analysis? It would only be a spatial analysis at "steady state."

As I said, it would be, just like watching sausage being made. This will take a while but it can be worth the wait.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 15, 2014
I am puzzled why you think much important happens farther away from the ground... rationale?
If I understand correctly, the first 17 km should more than cover the effects we're interested in.

For my semi-qualitative unitless, I'll get back more soon, but it is not complicated. Enrgy comes from wavelegnth... if we look at the fraction of energy from bands, fraction from frequency, etc., etc..
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2014
I am puzzled why you think much important happens farther away from the ground... rationale?
If I understand correctly, the first 17 km should more than cover the effects we're interested in.

For my semi-qualitative unitless, I'll get back more soon, but it is not complicated. Enrgy comes from wavelegnth... if we look at the fraction of energy from bands, fraction from frequency, etc., etc..


Alche: I am going to try to state what I think is going on to make sure you understand why I am interested in doing a good job of characterizing water vapor and looking up into the stratosphere. Imagine a thought experiment. We have an atmosphere in a layer. If we calculate correctly the layer is thick enough that it is "optically thick." If we look from below that layer the gas in the layer is emitting according to quantum mechanics at the wavelengths the gases are active in. Cont
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2014
cont. If we look down from above (and the layer is optically thick but physically thin with respect to the atmosphere) then we see the same (or approximately the same but I hope to get to the reason later - there is a thing called stimulated emission but it should not be important at our wavelengths and temperatures) radiation as we see going down. So, we can imagine an isothermal, thin (but optically thick at our wavelengths) layer that emits both up and down. The density of this layer will change with altitude. The water vapor content in the layer will also change with altitude. The mole fraction composition of other gases will be the same throughout the homosphere.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2014
cont. In the stratosphere things become stratified. However, at the lower stratosphere I have no convinced myself it is optically thin yet. If it is not, then an optically thick layer will still emit both upward and downward. That means that the radiation we can see from space will be, predominantly, from the highest optically thick layer emitting at its characteristic temperature.

About now you should be having issues with my reasoning. Please make them clear because it has taken me some thinking to get here. Again, I am used to working with optically think cross sections and it took me a while to get to the point where I can see that the atmosphere is optically thick at many wavelengths. This is what people recognize when they talk about saturation of the atmosphere to a gas at a certain band. Yes, it is optically thick, but the ramifications of LET are that the gas emits in all directions. Including up. Cont
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2014
Now for one little tidbit. I mentioned that there can also be stimulated radiation. If there is, then instead of random emissions, the emissions are in the same direction as the incoming photon (not for normal emissions) and at the same frequency as the incoming photon (just like in a laser). However, this only occurs when the product of the wavelength (in micrometers) and the temperature (in Kelvins) is less than about 4000. For normal temperatures and wavelengths where we are concerned, the product is not substantially over this produce and the stimulated emissions are not important.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2014
In the paragraph two comments of mine up from here the term should LTE, not LET. It is Local Thermal Equilibrium and has to do with the relaxation time of temperature differences in small segments of the surroundings. Either the system auto-corrected or I mistyped.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 15, 2014
@thermo, ya! That's some deep writing. Tickling my mind by way of objections is the optically thick vs. cross-sectional probabilities of photon-particle "collisions", there are differences, but I forget what they are specifically. I am guessing your background makes these intuitive. But I believe that is the only objection I see.

A hint about random emissions, it was an exercise to show that you can model emissions as half-up and half-down and get the same results as omni directional. "Random walk with a (generative/reflective wall).

Certainly the up/down perspective you have is interesting, but remember, CO2 will block incoming wavelengths just as well if not better (due to importance of its other bands) from the Earth in the outer atm., just as certainly as it holds them down on the surface. The reference is from a study of Venus, where they demonstrate just that, it is the passed wavelengths of CO2 that strike near the surface and become heat that Venus' CO2 retains.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014
cont. The water vapor content in the layer will also change with altitude. The mole fraction composition of other gases will be the same throughout the homosphere.


Just how meaning full is all o f your research when you have said this below?
thermodynamics, Who is researching CO2 and said, to me, on May 11, 2014: "We all know that H2O is the major GHG. We are also in the middle of exploring the relationship of the increase of CO2 to any change in energy retention by the earth. That is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend so we will just watch with amusement as you rant and rave about nothing." But I do comprehend that all of the fresh water in the earth's system was at one time or the other in the atmosphere and you want to "I am omitting the H2O content">
 
thermodynamics said on May 12, 2014: "I am omitting the H2O content because it is variable in the atmosphere. However, in the dry atmosphere, a total of 99.9964 % of the atmosphere does not interact with IR photons that are emitted from the earth."
 
thermodynamics: May 13,2014: "Both work in my favor, but since we agreed not to use clouds, just use the disto., because the alternative is much worse, and we want to root CO2 completely at the end of this, because if CO2 can't beat H2O uncondensed, it certainly can't beat it condensed."

I like, Mr. Stumpy, will not miss a single observation that thermodynamics derives from their favorite source, Wikipedia.

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014
From my May 12 comment

"What is the composition of the standard dry atmosphere?

N2 = 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
O2 = 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Ar = 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)

None of those gases absorb the IR radiation emitted by the earth.

I am omitting the H2O content because it is variable in the atmosphere. However, in the dry atmosphere, a total of 99.9964 % of the atmosphere does not interact with IR photons that are emitted from the earth.

The concentration of CO2 in the dry atmosphere is approximately 400 ppm now. The main GHG, H2O, can be between 0.05% and 4% of the atmosphere at sea level depending on the location and the time. However, now CO2 must be compared with the concentration of H2O, not N2, O2, and Ar.

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

It will be the comparison with H2O that will be taking up my time here and let me know if, after this explanation, you think we need to address the absorption of the non-GHGs. We will take their heat capacity into consideration."

Continued
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
Continued: JDSwallow said:
"thermodynamics said on May 12, 2014: "I am omitting the H2O content because it is variable in the atmosphere. However, in the dry atmosphere, a total of 99.9964 % of the atmosphere does not interact with IR photons that are emitted from the earth."


Implying that I am ignoring water vapor. I think the comment above shows I was only showing what the typical atmosphere looks like without the variability of water vapor. Since I go on to say:
It will be the comparison with H2O that will be taking up my time here and let me know if, after this explanation, you think we need to address the absorption of the non-GHGs. We will take their heat capacity into consideration."


It should be clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that I am including water vapor. I was just pointing out that we can ignore most of the air for IR absorption.

JDSwallow is intentionally attempting to divert our efforts.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
JDSwallow also pulled this one out and attributed it to me in my May 13 comment.

"Both work in my favor, but since we agreed not to use clouds, just use the disto., because the alternative is much worse, and we want to root CO2 completely at the end of this, because if CO2 can't beat H2O uncondensed, it certainly can't beat it condensed. If you want to use another distro for water, propose it, but no Heavyside functions please, water goes into the outer atm after all."


However, it was Alche's comment that I put in quotes. I have no problem taking credit for it, but JDS needs new reading glasses (or a new brain). I'll let Alche address this one since JDS seems to take umbrage to it. I didn't see anything wrong with it but who am I to quibble with a guy like JDS.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
JDSwallow is intentionally attempting to divert our efforts
@Thermodynamics
you are correct. he has NO IDEA what is really going on
Just how meaning full is....
@jd
just how meaningful are all your posts when you obviously don't understand physics?
You cannot fathom the complexities of fluid dynamics or the properties of gasses?

you are really starting to irritate people with your stupidity, you know.
if ya cant add TO the conversation, why are you here

@Thermo and Alche
Yall just ignore JD-skippy with the pointy hat on in the corner and keep on plugging away
Since yall are doing all the hard work, ignore the trolls and only deal with pertinent info for this specific problem.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2014
Alche said:
@thermo, ya! That's some deep writing. Tickling my mind by way of objections is the optically thick vs. cross-sectional probabilities of photon-particle "collisions", there are differences, but I forget what they are specifically. I am guessing your background makes these intuitive. But I believe that is the only objection I see.


"Optically thick" is just a macro approach to saying that there have been enough photon-mater collisions to have absorbed a specific portion of the photons. It does not say anything about emissions. Think about what happens when a photon hits H2O. It excites the molecule which then collides with any other molecule in the atmosphere. It makes thousands of collisions and changes its excitation at each collision. By the time it does emit a new photon the photon will probably be a different frequency because the excitation has changed. However, it will still be at one of the thousands of H2O emission lines. Does that help?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2014
Certainly the up/down perspective you have is interesting, but remember, CO2 will block incoming wavelengths just as well if not better (due to importance of its other bands) from the Earth in the outer atm., just as certainly as it holds them down on the surface. The reference is from a study of Venus, where they demonstrate just that, it is the passed wavelengths of CO2 that strike near the surface and become heat that Venus' CO2 retains.


Alche: You are right. The absorption and emissions lines do not change for any molecule just because it is higher in the atmosphere. What will happen is there will be less collisional broadening at higher altitude so the lines will be more distinct and less blended together (due to a longer time between collisions). However, the important part is that when it absorbs a photon it will, after a time, emit a photon in a random direction (which can be up).
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2014
Alche: One more observation about the layers. Indulge me for a bit longer. Suppose that 10^6 IR photons (at CO2 lines) have made it to the upper atmosphere and are completely absorbed by the CO2 at that height. (that is a small number of photons, bet you can't eat just one) The CO2 is then jostled around, but not as much as at a lower altitude because the atmospheric pressure is much lower at height. Those molecules then emit. What will be different about the emission at 30,000 m from the emission at 10 m?

The difference is that the CO2 will be colder. Because it is colder it has an enveloping black body curve that contains less energy. This goes back to looking downward at the atmosphere from space and measuring the IR coming up from the earth. There are bands that the atmosphere is transparent in and those come straight through. However, the bands that are strong for H2O and CO2 come from the highest optically thick strata. Let me know what questions this raises.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
Reviweing...

@thermo
It looks like you are recreating this baby... 'memba?

http://lofi.forum...157.html

Your assumptions may be the difference I was talking about.
Just requested HITRAN sorry.

The reason lowing the Earth's temp. was that we gave CO2 100% of it absorption, and the smaller you made the pie, the bigger CO2 impact was...

Let's, to the issues at hand...
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
90% for CO2, we can construct a power series based on how much energy from the previous day is carried over to the next. This is easy to over-estimate.


You know, sometimes I amaze even myself.
-Han Solo

This really is elegant, even Maggie will go "wow" before he start whining about it... (couldn't resist, -with affection.)

If CO2 is an insulator, we can and MUST assume energy from the previous day is carried over to the next day. So, 10% from the previous, becomes 10%+10%*10%+..., at a series terminating above solar effects from seasons, we can grossly overestimate insulating power.

Actually, if I were smarter, I could probably parameterize CO2 effects right out of our argument.

More to come.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2014
@thermo
It looks like you are recreating this baby... 'memba?

http://lofi.forum...157.html

Your assumptions may be the difference I was talking about.
Just requested HITRAN sorry.


Alche: Thanks for pointing this out. Note, that this site is making a fundamental mistake. He does, correctly, consider that the CO2 and H2O do absorb the IR radiation in a short distance. However, that helps define the temperature in that "layer of the onion." Then the same gases radiate at their temperature in that layer into layers above and below. Otherwise no radiation would get out of the first 50 feet above the earth and we know that is not correct.

Now, another point. They are not the same photons at 30000 m that they were at ground level. They have been absorbed and others radiated all the way up through the atmosphere. In the site you showed us they assume that once absorbed the photons disappear and there are no more emitted. Do you see how they completely missed that?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2014
If CO2 is an insulator, we can and MUST assume energy from the previous day is carried over to the next day. So, 10% from the previous, becomes 10%+10%*10%+..., at a series terminating above solar effects from seasons, we can grossly overestimate insulating power.


If we were worried about thermal diffusion (a term from heat transfer) then the mass and conductivity of the material would be important and we would be worried about diffusion of heat through the material. Under those circumstances we would factor in the time lag. However, we are working with radiant transfer. Radiant transfer takes place at the speed of light and the relaxation of molecules. There is no carry over. If you are talking about wind and rain then we would have to develop a transient model. If we are worried about radiant transfer on a clear day we don't have to worry about the rest. We just use the standard atmosphere change in pressure and temperature with respect to altitude.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014

You cannot fathom the complexities of fluid dynamics or the properties of gasses?

MR. Stumpy:And You can "understand physics?
Explain how you can "fathom the complexities of fluid dynamics or the properties of gasses?"

The truth is that you cannot present an empirical experiment, that is repeatable, that shows where CO2 does what you claim. I am totally SKEPTICAL that CO2, in its present amount in the atmosphere today, has anything to do with the earth's climate. You cannot supply me with an experiment that shows that it does. Provide with the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing. Skepticus_Rex told you what they had found through experimentation but where are the results of your experiment? You have none, do you?



jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014
I post this for your buddies on here to look into:
A science experiment to get you all fired up.
http://www.bbc.co...er.shtml
Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake & to think that the "scientific guy", Mr. Stumpy, scoffed at me bring this fact up shows where his head is & it is in a place where logical peoples will not find themselves.
http://www.neator...century/

Putting the science of global warming to the test
http://news.bbc.c...8356.stm

"They heat two bottles – one containing "air" (last time I looked, that included carbon dioxide anyway) and one containing "atmospheric air with a greater concentration of carbon dioxide" (they didn't't say how much they were adding, of course, but I'd bet it was substantially more than 0.000388%!). Surprise, surprise — the latter bottle grew hotter… Of course it did."

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014
This "experiment" has more validity than what is going on here, now but basically serves no scientific purpose & that is where it is similar.
That these experiments, like the one that I provide a link for do not measure the amount of additional C02 needed to stop the candles heat from reaching the camera, makes it meaningless and ludicrous. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was doing what these alarmists want folks to believe, then why would one have to add CO2 to get the result presented in this video, especially since indoors the amount of CO2 is always higher than in the ambient out door atmosphere? This "experiment" does no more than what Tyndall was able to show 155 years ago with his ingenious experiments and this seems to be the best they can do after all that time has passed and look at the equipment available now; but, I'm sure that what follows is the type of experiment that Mr. Stumpy thinks proves his point.
The Greenhouse Effect - Heat trapping
https://www.youtu...JuOjiNrb
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
this seems to be the best they can do after all that time has passed and look at the equipment available now; but, I'm sure that what follows is the type of experiment that Mr. Stumpy thinks proves his point
jd the blatantly stupid
You really dont get it. you make conjectures about studies you dont even understand... let me show YOU what my posts look like:

http://onlinelibr...ed=false

anything about the above you want to refute? how about this one:
http://onlinelibr...abstract

care to chime in about that one? do you even know what they are talking about?
when you have a specific point to refute, let me know, I will forward it to the authors and let them make you publicly look like a moron... I've done it before, I dont mind doing it to you

it serves you right making ASSumptions
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014

You really dont get it. you make conjectures about studies you dont even understand... let me show YOU what my posts look like:

http://onlinelibr...ed=false]http://onlinelibr...ed=false[/url]

care to chime in about that one?
it serves you right making ASSumptions


"Time-dependent global warming due to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been estimated by employing an ocean-land global climate model." […]"The model results suggest that ocean heat capacity will produce a lag in CO2-induced global warming of about 2 decades." […]"By 2025, when the assumed atmospheric CO2 content is twice the 1860 value, the model predicts global warming of 1.5°–1.8°C, in contrast to 3.1°C when ocean heat capacity is neglected."
http://onlinelibr...ed=false]http://onlinelibr...ed=false[/url]


This, Mr. Stumpy, is what you are submitting as being empirical evidence of what CO2 does in the earth's atmosphere??
Please note the key words; has been estimated, climate model & the model predicts global warming. Thanks for all of this great info there, Mr. Stumpy but next time I'll go with Wikipedia or maybe the even "New York Times".

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
This, Mr. Stumpy, is what you are submitting as being empirical evidence of what CO2 does in the earth's atmosphere??
@jd Illiterate
still haven't learned to read yet?
what did my post say? hmmm ... lets see
let me show YOU what my posts look like:
that means, to small minded idiots who make conjecture like
what follows is the type of experiment that Mr. Stumpy thinks proves his point
that I don't like youtube video's unless supported by empirical data. ya moron. lets see what else.. ah, yes... make sure your interpreters get this one right
when you have a specific point to refute, let me know, I will forward it to the authors and let them make you publicly look like a moron... I've done it before, I dont mind doing it to you
feel free to post your refutes... about ANY study I post. the links I sent were demonstrations to show you what studies look like, not blogs or youtube video's...

can you understand that? or was it too hard for you?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
Please note the key words; has been estimated, climate model & the model predicts global warming
@jd hooker
and also please note that what I linked was called a study. it holds things like: empirical data and peer reviewed status, it is NOT bbc, or youtube, or links to blogs that might be this or that, nor is it a link to a youtube video of a non-scientific experiment.

SCIENCE works
if ya got a problem, argue the science. otherwise you are just trolling and spamming

is that simple enough for you and your interpreters to figure out? or do I need to get monosyllabic?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
that I don't like youtube video's unless supported by empirical data. ya moron. lets see what else.. ah, yes... make sure your interpreters get this one right
when you have a specific point to refute, let me know, I will forward it to the authors and let them make you publicly look like a moron... I've done it before, I dont mind doing it to you
feel free to post your refutes... about ANY study I post. the links I sent were demonstrations to show you what studies look like, not blogs or youtube video's...

can you understand that? or was it too hard for you?

This "experiment" does no more than what Tyndall was able to show 155 years ago with his ingenious experiments and this seems to be the best they can do after all that time has passed and look at the equipment available now; but, I'm sure that what follows is the type of experiment that Mr. Stumpy thinks proves his point.
The Greenhouse Effect - Heat trapping
https://www.youtu...JuOjiNrb

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
I noticed that no mention was made in the article of the non-existence of Antarctic Circumpolar current at that time. That is a major factor because that current did not exist until roughly about 30 million years ago.

Only after ocean circulation began to pass through between the South American and Antarctic continents following seismic activity and undersea topographical changes in that region did Antarctica become the deep freeze we know today. Lack of warming currents later played a major part in the change in the climate of Antarctica.

Shame on the writers of the study for not mentioning that! (Or, did they factor that into the original paper and I just missed it because I was tired when I read it?)
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2014
1.
Alche: Thanks for pointing this out. Note, that this site is making a fundamental mistake. He does, correctly, consider that the CO2 and H2O do absorb the IR radiation in a short distance...


2.
Now, another point. They are not the same photons at 30000 m that they were at ground level...


Assumption one, if you assume the author is making it, works out in CO2's favor, by quite alot.

Assumption two, which the author is making, works out in favor of CO2 as well, as we've discussed and both of us have pointed out in this thread, even.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2014
Radiant transfer
-if you are going to steer this discussion to the base-line that CO2 is a GHG, and attempt to QED it that way, I will be very disappointed.

"Radiant transfer" will fit very well into the order of magnitude study above, it will however, reduce the effects further.

Reviewing assumptions:
The data I use can come from any of the sources we've discussed; wow, huh?

The effect we are discussing is proportional to the Earth's radiated energy spectrum, we agreed to this. In fact our assumption is identity with it.

I drew a box +/- 50cm-1 around 667. Over estimating by 500% (?).
I assumed that CO2 @400ppm absorbed EVERYTHING in that band width, an over-estimation of ~130%.

I assumed 667 was the mode. Overestimating by, well, alot of a little bit. The "average" of the Earth emission is about 1750cm-1, so 25% is again being generous.

To be continued...
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
Here is where I made an inconsistent departure, again in CO2's favor:
I now considered the Earth's emissivity to be only between 200 and 1300, presenting CO2 with a much greater share of the pie.

Beer's law and water, though we can argue all day and night about how to quantify the individual impacts of the two gases, we both can see it is trivial to use Beer's exponential for to compare their impacts using the laws of exponents.

I used to least favorable of the data sources. (I was so tempted to use Arizona.edu's but that would not have been favorable to CO2, our by-law.)

I don't think you have any trouble with the rest...

The QED's are stacking up against CO2. We haven't really seen anything telling contrary-wise.

My next effort is to pick up on your threads, thank you for indulging this one.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (4) May 16, 2014
My assumption is that JDSwallows is a shill, attempting to disrupt our discussion.
Now why would anyone want to disrupt our conclusion, whatever it may be?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2014
For CO2's insulation effect I just picked a number that eclipsed springtime solar insolation. By quite alot.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
My assumption is that JDSwallows is a shill, attempting to disrupt our discussion.
Now why would anyone want to disrupt our conclusion, whatever it may be?
@Alche
fear of the result
lack of knowledge
ignorance (especially of the topic at hand)
stupidity

I figure it is all and especially the last...

please keep going. this is interesting
The Alchemist
3.7 / 5 (3) May 16, 2014
Thanks Cap'n.

Would you care to line-judge the assumptions I made about the order of magnitude (OOM) study above, before shriller voices chime in?

I've said it before: I enjoy being wrong, so have absolutely no fears.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 16, 2014
-if you are going to steer this discussion to the base-line that CO2 is a GHG, and attempt to QED it that way, I will be very disappointed.


I have no idea where you got that idea. I have no intention of using a non-mathematical argument. Instead, I am making sure we agree on the base conditions and our boundary values. We are still not there yet.

We both agree that H2O is the most important GHG. I am still waiting to see if you have come up with the way H2O mole fraction (or ppm as you suggested) changes with altitude.

We have agreed that CO2 ppm does not change with altitude until the top of the homosphere.

We are starting with a 287K earth temperature.

We are using a standard atmosphere approach to temperature and pressure.

Have I got that right so far?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2014
You know, sometimes I amaze even myself.
-Han Solo

And all this time I thought it was Steve Martin as Vinny/Todd in "My Blue Heaven"...
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
@thermo
Working on it-right now. Using a combination of measured data and pressure-temperature/water in air solubility. It appears to be a hyperbolic relation. Someone has to have done this before. Don't we have a meteorologist on his board?
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
Got the variables down, will have it soon. It will be two functions, one below temperature-induced saturation, and another above...
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (3) May 16, 2014
CO2 ppm should not change, just follow the Barometric along with the other gases. CO2ppmv should change. But you can keep it constant... experience has shown, it doesn't help the case much.

Note however how this affects the "random walk," the less dense CO2 gets, the more likely a photon is to move up rather than down. It gets less random with density. I ignored this before as well, and it didn't make a case.

Focus on Humidity. Focus on Humidity.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 16, 2014
CO2 ppm should not change, just follow the Barometric along with the other gases. CO2ppmv should change. But you can keep it constant... experience has shown, it doesn't help the case much.

Note however how this affects the "random walk," the less dense CO2 gets, the more likely a photon is to move up rather than down. It gets less random with density. I ignored this before as well, and it didn't make a case.

Focus on Humidity. Focus on Humidity.


Yes, I think someone has done this before. See how your calculations track with these measurements. They have measurements from three stations that are over land and over water. It looks like the slopes are pretty consistent. Note the X-axis is logarithmic.

http://www.esrl.n...;type=vp

I thought this was pretty interesting.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 16, 2014
Alche: You said

"Note however how this affects the "random walk," the less dense CO2 gets, the more likely a photon is to move up rather than down. It gets less random with density. I ignored this before as well, and it didn't make a case."

You do see how all of these things can influence the results. Any simplifications have to be justified and I don't want to simplify yet. There are a number of things I can do mathematically that would have been hard in the past. For instance, one of the typical numerical approaches is to divide the atmosphere up into slices. In the past we might have used 3 or 4 slices. Now I can use 1000 or more if we want to. The way I can decide that is to make the slices "optically thick" or "optically thin" with a specific criteria we will decide on to make the decision. That way we can avoid worrying about the slice being large enough to appreciably affect the radiation up as opposed to down. I will work on that and get back to you.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
Any simplifications have to be justified and I don't want to simplify yet. There are a number of things I can do mathematically that would have been hard in the past. For instance, one of the typical numerical approaches is to divide the atmosphere up into slices. In the past we might have used 3 or 4 slices. Now I can use 1000 or more if we want to. The way I can decide that is to make the slices "optically thick" or "optically thin" with a specific criteria we will decide on to make the decision. That way we can avoid worrying about the slice being large enough to appreciably affect the radiation up as opposed to down. I will work on that and get back to you.

Thermo and Alche. You 2 have made this thread an interesting and valuable learning experience. Thanks for that.
Thermo - finding the right "slice" size should be an interesting project all by itself. I suggest using the golden ratio as a baseline guide...:-) As you already know, it will increase as we rise
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
Thanks Cap'n.

Would you care to line-judge the assumptions I made about the order of magnitude (OOM) study above, before shriller voices chime in?
I've said it before: I enjoy being wrong, so have absolutely no fears.
@Alche
Not really... I am enjoying the honest discourse between people. its refreshing. P.S. Ignore the "shiller voices". hard work is its own reward, and we are all better for it
Don't we have a meteorologist on his board?
runrig is a meteorologist, and Tim Thompson has studied climate science as well as worked with it at JPL. you can find contact info on his page: http://www.tim-thompson.com/
Thermo and Alche. You 2 have made this thread an interesting and valuable learning experience. Thanks for that
@Wydening Gyre
you are absolutely correct! watching it unfold is fascinating, not just for the corroboration, but the information as well!

@Thermodynamics
homosphere homosphere homosphere

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
@Thermodynamics
homosphere homosphere homosphere

Cap'n,
You're soundin' homoglobic...:-)
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
@team
I'm going to need a sanity check on this one, I don't want the complainers saying this was somehow a fowl after the game is over.

After mulling over distributions and dew points, etc for the last few hours here is what I think is the best "average, all-things-being-equal" approach.

1. Use a temperature decline of 9.8K/1000m until precipitation would occur.
2. Then use 5K/1000m which is a wet rate.
3. Start with 12000 ppm H20
4. Use Barometric pressure decline to figure concentrations.

5. Generate our distribution from these assumption.

6. At 11km above sea level, water becomes about 10 ppm, we'll leave the below calculations until then.

"No malice or favor what-so-ever, that's right isn't it?"

PS@Wynden' would you mind elaborating more on your "golden ratio" comment? Thx.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
Note the approach above ignores the non-linear(s) near the ground where humidity can actually increase as you increase height, or increase more slowly. An inconvenient difficulty, that, if ignored, give CO2 yet another edge on reality.

PS-http://www.esrl.n...;type=vp
was literally inspirational. Thanks thermo...
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
If we were worried about thermal diffusion (a term from heat transfer) then the mass and conductivity of the material would be important and we would be worried about diffusion of heat through the material. Under those circumstances we would factor in the time lag. However, we are working with radiant transfer. Radiant transfer takes place at the speed of light and the relaxation of molecules.


This is a fascinating way of looking at it. But they are both the same. We are going to have to find the "correspondence principle" between the two.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
@thermo-
Forgive this so late in the game.

By "optically thick" you do not mean sharp transitions, right? Such as assumptions you might use for laws of "thin lenses" or "thin films"?

We are obviously in the realm of Atmospheric Science, not Optics 301.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
@thermo-
Forgive this so late in the game.

By "optically thick" you do not mean sharp transitions, right? Such as assumptions you might use for laws of "thin lenses" or "thin films"?

We are obviously in the realm of Atmospheric Science, not Optics 301.


Yes, optically thick does not have to have sharp transitions. It could if we were moving between media but we are not so it is a blending at interfaces. There will not be any step functions (of any import).
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
Alche said:

After mulling over distributions and dew points, etc for the last few hours here is what I think is the best "average, all-things-being-equal" approach.

1. Use a temperature decline of 9.8K/1000m until precipitation would occur.
2. Then use 5K/1000m which is a wet rate.
3. Start with 12000 ppm H20
4. Use Barometric pressure decline to figure concentrations.

5. Generate our distribution from these assumption.

6. At 11km above sea level, water becomes about 10 ppm, we'll leave the below calculations until then.


Have you plotted this to compare the shape with the measurements? If it is plotted on a log scale it should look like the plot. The end result of about 10 ppm is correct, I haven't plotted it out to see if it looks similar

I am also not sure how important the shape is yet. I am also not sure what I should use for the extinction coefficient yet. I am looking at a technique called Weighted Sum of Gray Gases. Continued.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
Continued: I am just not sure yet how important the details of the band absorption is. I am trying to look at a method that, not only, shows an accurate approach, but is also understandable. In heat transfer in combustion I would use the weighted sum of gray gases, but it is not clear to me if that is good for atmospheric heat transfer or if there is a clearer way to approach it.

Saturday is going to be busy so I won't be getting back to this until Sunday. If anyone has comments, now is the time to make them. If I don't see any comments I will tear into the calculations, on Sunday, based on what Alche and I have discussed to date.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
Alche: How high do you want to go to make sure we have represented most of the atmosphere? As an example, at 50,000 m the pressure is down to about 0.8 mb, the mean free path is approximately 8 x 10^-5 m and the collisions are about 5.7 x 10^6/sec. That is about the height of the stratopause. I don't know if we have to go that high or not, so I am open to suggestions. Again, I will be looking at that as well as the method for calculating the extinction in the layers.

My suggested approach is to look at this as a "discrete layer" approach. I would assume that the layers are thin with respect to the atmosphere, yet thick with respect to absorption. In that way we will get a meaningful extinction within each layer while having layers that can be considered to have constant properties (temperature, pressure, water vapor composition) within each layer. Then I can look at radiation transfer between each layer. Let me know if that meets with your approval.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 17, 2014
PS@Wynden' would you mind elaborating more on your "golden ratio" comment? Thx.

It's more an Art thing, Alch. However I've noticed that most, if not all "natural" processes/materials (ie-atmosphere) tend to follow it, roughly.
More exactly, it's 1.618... However, I've noticed a tendency of said "naturals" to work at closer to approx. 1.65 per 10(x).
I think it's the way the Universe "works" - relationally, not sequentially.
I can't explain it other than that, sorry - Artist, not a mathematician...
Kinda like the 2/3rds rule in carpentry/masonry (altho, I think it's more like 3/5ths or 5/8ths...:-))
In other words, I think each "layer" should be roughly equivalent to 1.65 of the previous one to keep variables affecting radiation at the same rate.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2014
I don't have an estimate on how much of the atmosphere you need. Remember, you're asking the equivalent of me of how many grassy fields does it take to prove unicorns were there. Use whatever you need.

The Gray-Approach does not seem apropos, it seems to simplify too many variables and effects we are not concerned with: http://en.wikiped...ficients

Otherwise we have three independant ways forward that disprove the relevance of CO2:
http://www.geocra...ata.html qualitative, but qualitative in the same was Gibralter is qualitative. (Interesting tid-bit the GWP of water was calculated by the US Energy Information Agency, and a wiki contributor referenced it as 20, but the links and googles go nowhere.)
There is little here that is arguable.

There is Aubrey's study: http://lofi.forum...157.html
With or without objections, your well observed objections make the case worse.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2014
Finally, there is my unit-less analysis, which I would love to see anyone critique.

Three-aught, and our radiation study, whatever the results, plug into the 'unitless, and can't make it any bigger.

RE the distro of water, I need to fat finger that, so I am waiting for approval to move forward...
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2014
Alche:

The Gray-Approach does not seem apropos, it seems to simplify too many variables and effects we are not concerned with: http://en.wikiped...ficients


I am not sure what you are saying here. The Wikipedia page you quoted is about electron promotion and relaxation. That is in the visible and ultraviolet. The IR is from vibration and rotation of molecules, not electron promotion. The weighted sum of gray gases is, actually, a way of taking into consideration the various lines and their broadening.

Having said that, I have no problem just taking the same approach you are taking because it is a lot less computing effort. I would like to know why you don't like the weighted sum of gray gases though. This is a learning experience for all of us so your objection is of interest to me.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2014
Alche:
I don't have an estimate on how much of the atmosphere you need. Remember, you're asking the equivalent of me of how many grassy fields does it take to prove unicorns were there. Use whatever you need.


No problem, I will just go upward until we are where we are not absorbing. We can discuss it as the calculations are built up. I think it takes 5 grassy fields to prove unicorns were there...

I am going to set this up as a finite series. I am not sure if I can do that analytically or if I have to do it numerically. I will be working through it tomorrow (most of today is taken up).
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2014
Alche:

RE the distro of water, I need to fat finger that, so I am waiting for approval to move forward...


Yes, please move forward. What would be good is to either make sure that the log plot looks like the one at ESRL:

http://www.esrl.n...;type=vp

Or we could just take data from the ESRL site and build an interpolating spline fit.
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2014
@thermo, u da best... I've been worried the last few hours you'd take the unicorn comment badly. Thanks for the good natured get out jail free.

I do need to know if you &co approve of the humidity distro..
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
Alche:
Otherwise we have three independant ways forward that disprove the relevance of CO2:
http://www.geocra...ata.html qualitative, but qualitative in the same was Gibralter is qualitative. (Interesting tid-bit the GWP of water was calculated by the US Energy Information Agency, and a wiki contributor referenced it as 20, but the links and googles go nowhere.).


I am going to point out, again, that I agree water vapor IS the major GHG. However, I will point out again that one has to take into consideration the vertical extent of the atmosphere. The idea of lumping the atmosphere into one element is a primitive approach and fails to take into consideration the changes in the atmosphere with altitude. As you are becoming aware, CO2 does not change in mole fraction (ppm) within the troposphere while water vapor rapidly declines. Also, the atmosphere depth changes temperature of the gases. Those things have to be taken into consideration and they are not in the link.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
@thermo, u da best... I've been worried the last few hours you'd take the unicorn comment badly. Thanks for the good natured get out jail free.

I do need to know if you &co approve of the humidity distro..


Alche: I greatly appreciate humor. You are not going to offend me in any way by throwing in humor. In fact, as long as we are in a technical discussion, you are just not going to be able to offend me or piss me off. You are rational (unlike Rygg2 or JDSwallow). Those guys can piss me off.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2014
Alche:

The effect we are discussing is proportional to the Earth's radiated energy spectrum, we agreed to this. In fact our assumption is identity with it.

I drew a box +/- 50cm-1 around 667. Over estimating by 500% (?).
I assumed that CO2 @400ppm absorbed EVERYTHING in that band width, an over-estimation of ~130%.

I assumed 667 was the mode. Overestimating by, well, alot of a little bit. The "average" of the Earth emission is about 1750cm-1, so 25% is again being generous.


What are you assuming for water vapor wavenumbers in the emission range of the earth? I might have missed that somewhere but I don't readily find it.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2014
Alche:
There is little here that is arguable.

There is Aubrey's study: http://lofi.forum...157.html
With or without objections, your well observed objections make the case worse.


First, I disagree that there is "little here that is arguable." In fact, I have been arguing all along that if they do not consider the atmosphere to be variable with altitude (as you correctly pointed out with respect to temperature, pressure, and water vapor) then they are not modeling the atmosphere. There has to be a mechanism for photons to be absorbed and then photons emitted. If that is left out there is something seriously wrong. So, I am arguing the arguable... :-)

Please let me know why you think that a lumped single node atmosphere is acceptable.

Also, why do you think that going to a multiple layer model would "make the case worse."

For some reason we don't seem to be communicating well on this issue.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 17, 2014
@thermo & capt'n

You're both accusing me of being educated and rational, I think you're both going to lose points on this board... :oD But it is nice to hear for once. I just read runrigs links, what I can, I am afraid my Nature subscription ran out a while ago. ACS is forever TG.

But what I could see of one, it didn't draw the conclusion. Others did not put CO2 in the cross-hairs, and one blatantly stated the only effect they saw was increased humidity, yet still blamed GHGs.

When people send me things like that, what do they want...? Apparently they read what they want to see.

We are at cross-purpose on Aubrey's study. Here is how I think how. Your approximation is much more accurate, hers, is not accurate, but it is overkill. Aubrey's gives too much credence to CO2, yours will give less, but be more x more appropriate.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2014
Hey look at this, though a cartoon, it was used almost like the bible in my work in the mid 2000's. It has been on the internet probably since the internet, I trust it and used it for agency-breaking decisions:

http://en.wikiped...city.svg

It's a "view from space." Study this and compare it with absorption of water particularly. The above link gives you concentration effects, especially at 667cm-1 aka 15 microns. It follows water, with no odd peaks for CO2.

The Water as GHG, little there is arguable. Let's put it this way, if H2O is 20x more powerful than CO2, and that seems conservative, CO2 isn't even a factor. H2O absorbs weakly everywhere, as demo'd by the link above.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2014
Which H2O value did I use? I used the one that had a flat-line over and around the 667cm-1. I've been plugging for a while now, and can't find it.
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/ starts at 4 and has an increasing distro there.
NIST, has some fireworks there:
http://webbook.ni...#IR-SPEC

So I did not use those. I found the previous with a click, now...

I will generate the humidity distro tonight/tomorrow, have it to you by the end of the day.

It occurs to me, whatever you don't like about Aubrey's approximation, you can fill in with something more real...
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2014
Which H2O value did I use? I used the one that had a flat-line over and around the 667cm-1. I've been plugging for a while now, and can't find it.
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

So I did not use those. I found the previous with a click, now...

I will generate the humidity distro tonight/tomorrow, have it to you by the end of the day.

It occurs to me, whatever you don't like about Aubrey's approximation, you can fill in with something more real...


Err.. Um.. I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the " 667cm-1" lines for H2O. That translates to about 15 micrometer or 15,000 nm. That is a CO2 band. There is no band there for H2O that I know of. Please help me understand where you found that band.

Are you reading the two references you listed above as transmittance and not absorption (as your cartoon is). Are you reading the graphs the way I am?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2014
Alche:
But what I could see of one, it didn't draw the conclusion. Others did not put CO2 in the cross-hairs, and one blatantly stated the only effect they saw was increased humidity, yet still blamed GHGs.


Please remember that H2O is the primary GHG. The idea is that it is a feedback mechanism for increased warming of the planet. If CO2 is increasing the temperature then the atmosphere will increase its ability to absorb H2O and that will further increase the temperature. I am not going to attempt to show that because feedback is tough to model. Instead, I will attempt to show that CO2 is integral to heat retention. And, that adding CO2 increases heat retention.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2014

"Please remember that H2O is the primary GHG. The idea is that it is a feedback mechanism for increased warming of the planet. If CO2 is increasing the temperature then the atmosphere will increase its ability to absorb H2O and that will further increase the temperature. I am not going to attempt to show that because feedback is tough to model. Instead, I will attempt to show that CO2 is integral to heat retention. And, that adding CO2 increases heat retention."

You are describing a positive feedback loop ie one that would cause either saturation at either either end of the temperature scale or wild oscillations. The relatively small band of historical temperatures on earth and the large variations of CO2 levels suggest that there are sufficient negative feedback loops in the climate system to stabilize it.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
If one wanted to directly measure the insulating properties of CO2 in the atmosphere the best place to do that would be in places where there is as little humidity as possible. If one were to calculate the daily temperature change (day to night) over the years in the Antarctic or some other desert and compare it to the daily CO2 levels there should be some sort of usable correlation.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
OK, ran into an interesting problem. That oddity of humidity INCREASING with height I now understand, it has to do with capacity of air to hold water. If we define the air at sea level to be 12000 ppm, the air above it can still hold more, and could theoretically be between saturation and all-things-being equal, 12000 ppm.
If we assume a column of rising air, it decreases predictably, if we assume from an ambient "reservoir" of 12000ppm, the ppm can even increase, or in general act counter-intuitively.

How do you wish to proceed?
The things you don't know you know...
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (5) May 18, 2014
Please remember that H2O is the primary GHG. The idea is that it is a feedback mechanism for increased warming of the planet. If CO2 is increasing the temperature then the atmosphere will increase its ability to absorb H2O and that will further increase the temperature. I am not going to attempt to show that because feedback is tough to model. Instead, I will attempt to show that CO2 is integral to heat retention. And, that adding CO2 increases heat retention.
If this were true, then any gaseous H2O would warm the planet, thus allowing more H2O absorption, thus causing more warming, more H2O, more warming... in a never ending spiral. And high temperature climates (like deserts, particularly in proximity to open water) would have the highest H2O content of all.

Atmospheric water reacts to energy inputs differently, dependent on it's various forms and saturation levels. It's quite complex. So much so that it might be best to generally consider it neutral for the sake of the argument.

Also, the modeling you're doing appears much to simple in regards to irradiation. Solar irradiation is extremely variable.

But do carry on. This is quite entertaining.

The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 18, 2014
@Uba,
Excellent observation, except, GHG at the top of the atmosphere reflect incoming energy, so "any gas" at the top would cool a planet. Qv. above, Venus does not pass CO2 absorbing frequencies, rather, the spectrum strikes the absorbing "surface" of Venus, this broad frequency spectrum is translated into IR, which is absorbed.

So, I am feeling how experience would be better than guessing at effects for plotting humidity, can we contact runrig, etc.?

I say this, because my science is telling me to leave it at 12000 ppm until pressure and temp change this, but my sanity is saying that ain't right....
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
If this were true, then any gaseous H2O would warm the planet, thus allowing more H2O absorption, thus causing more warming, more H2O, more warming... in a never ending spiral. And high temperature climates (like deserts, particularly in proximity to open water) would have the highest H2O content of all.
No, you are confusing effects, and you are not taking into account saturation and precipitation. The issue with CO2 is the fact that it does not precipitate out of the atmosphere like H2O does, instead remaining there until drawn out. As such, it can continue to absorb and re-emit IR for a significant time period.

Atmospheric water reacts to energy inputs differently, dependent on it's various forms and saturation levels. It's quite complex. So much so that it might be best to generally consider it neutral for the sake of this argument
For this simple discussion, I agree.
The Alchemist
2.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
SSShurre, let's discount water for this discussion...
http://en.wikiped...er_vapor

As a personal pet peeve. One of the criteria for GHG is persistence, am I missing something. One of the fundamentals of modern SCIENCE is indistinguishablity of particles,
http://en.wikiped...articles

So this means one should be concerned only with deltas, not that the CO2 molecule named George, has been replaced with CO2 particle Harry.
What am I missing, or is the IPCC just plainly and obvious full of unicorn feces?

Can anyone tell me the disconnect?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2014
SSShurre, let's discount water for this discussion...
http://en.wikiped...er_vapor
But you are not here arguing the effect of water vapour Alchem, you are trying to determine the role of CO2. Changing the game?

So this means one should be concerned only with deltas, not that the CO2 molecule named George, has been replaced with CO2 particle Harry.
What am I missing, or is the IPCC just plainly and obvious full of unicorn feces?
Replaced by? You mean added to right?

Can anyone tell me the disconnect?
You are trying to fit the evidence to your theory instead of accepting the evidence and adjusting your theory. Always leads to a disconnect when the two don't jibe.
The Alchemist
2.3 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
@Maggie
We are arguing water, that's why @thermo is having me calculate humidity. Not changing the game at all, you need to pay attention.

"Replaced by..." no I mean read the wiki-link on indistinguishable particles...

My theory remains NOT a part of this discussion Maggie...

It's obviously early where you are, and you haven't woken up yet. Come back later.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (8) May 18, 2014
@Maggie
We are arguing water, that's why @thermo is having me calculate humidity. Not changing the game at all, you need to pay attention.

"Replaced by..." no I mean read the wiki-link on indistinguishable particles...

My theory remains NOT a part of this discussion Maggie...

It's obviously early where you are, and you haven't woken up yet. Come back later.
How about this then Alchem and Thermo - can you both set out exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish here. What exactly is it that your calculations are attempting to prove?

Alchem, despite your cheap shots I have been following along quite closely. How about instead of assuming I am against you (I'm not, FWIW) you assume I am asking questions to clarify for my own understanding? You don't have to be snide in every response you know.

So assuming you can actually respond civilly, can you explain exactly how you think that article on indistinguishable particles applies to what you and Thermo are doing here?
Maggnus
4.9 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
And to clarify, I thought that the intention of this discussion was for Thermo and Alchem to determine, if possible, the role that CO2 has in warming the atmosphere, and in conjunction with that, how or if CO2 can warm the atmosphere. I am certainly amiable to being corrected on my understanding.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
And to clarify, I thought that the intention of this discussion was for Thermo and Alchem to determine, if possible, the role that CO2 has in warming the atmosphere, and in conjunction with that, how or if CO2 can warm the atmosphere. I am certainly amiable to being corrected on my understanding.


Maggie: You have that right from my understanding of where we are trying to go. It is CO2 and the addition of CO2 that is the question. The reason I am interested in water vapor is that it is one of the constituents of the existing atmosphere. As such, it is the primary GHG that keeps the earth habitable. Because of that we have to address the way H2O works in the existing atmosphere. To do that I want to be sure we are, accurately, representing the distribution of H2O. The examples that Alche has given us all lump the atmosphere into one piece. That makes calculation a lot easier, but it also does not look like or act like our atmosphere does. Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
Continued: What I have done is requested that Alche come up with a good way to represent the water vapor in the air column. I have been looking at IR attenuation while he is doing that.

What I didn't want to do is to try to figure feedback (an increase in H2O). Instead, I just want to use a representation of H2O as it is in the atmosphere. That is the reason I passed on the links to the water vapor sites with actual measurements. H2O is the only condensable gas (as we all know) and it is also the gas with a variable mole fraction (ppmv) with height. That is important for the calculations (as should be apparent to those following). So, this is a long winded way of saying Maggy is right on and I appreciate everyone who is following the discussion. I hope to have a reasonable calculation over the next week using preindustrial CO2 values and present CO2 values. Then add more CO2 to see how things change. It should show a change in radiation balance or not. Cont
thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (5) May 18, 2014
Continued: I have seen sites on both sides of the fence that have made a single node atmosphere model and claimed influence by CO2 or no influence by CO2. I think that the models do not do justice to the complexity of the problem. It is like any simplistic approach to an inherently difficult concept in that it might give you the answer you seek, but it does not represent the real world. With that in mind, the process of agreement we are trying to follow is slow and arduous. Alche has done a great job of supplying me with things to think about. I am trying to go through each example or data set to figure out what is right or wrong in them. The result is glacially slow. However, I am learning a lot about long-path radiation (I deal with short path in flames). This is fun but tough for me and I wish I were faster, but I learn at a pace that requires cogitation and repetition. Every bit of input that has been put on the site I have looked into and I appreciate.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2014
A point of interest. I just wanted to point out that any energy budget we are talking about has to be correct with respect to the interface of the "top of the atmosphere" (TOA) to space. Because of that, any significant heat transfer has to be due to radiation from the highest point in the atmosphere that is optically thick with respect to the outgoing wavelength. For instance, in the IR "window" around 11 um the radiation can come all the way from the ground (on a clear day). However, around 15 um the radiation can come from the highest optically thick layer of CO2. That means that the two sections of curve (looking from outside the atmosphere) will have different shapes based on the black body curves and the molecular spectral lines).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
If this were true, then any gaseous H2O would warm the planet, thus allowing more H2O absorption, thus causing more warming, more H2O, more warming... in a never ending spiral. And high temperature climates (like deserts, particularly in proximity to open water) would have the highest H2O content of all.
No, you are confusing effects, and you are not taking into account saturation and precipitation.
It was an intentional oversimplification used to model thermo's claims. This should have been readily apparent from my followup statement: "Atmospheric water reacts to energy inputs differently, dependent on it's various forms and saturation levels."

The issue with CO2 is the fact that it does not precipitate out of the atmosphere like H2O does, instead remaining there until drawn out. As such, it can continue to absorb and re-emit IR for a significant time period.
I disagree. As with the water cycle, there is a carbon cycle. The form is different, but it essentially does "precipitate" out (primarily in the form of biomass and free oxygen). Autumn leaves serve as an example of carbon precipitation.

Atmospheric water reacts to energy inputs differently, dependent on it's various forms and saturation levels. It's quite complex. So much so that it might be best to generally consider it neutral for the sake of this argument
For this simple discussion, I agree.
Thank you.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2014
SSShurre, let's discount water for this discussion...
http://en.wikiped...er_vapor

As a personal pet peeve. One of the criteria for GHG is persistence, am I missing something.

What am I missing, or is the IPCC just plainly and obvious full of unicorn feces?
LOL.

Can anyone tell me the disconnect?
Funny thing about the water GHG claims, is observations demonstrate otherwise. It is widely known, for instance, that the California Central/San Jaquin Valley (one of the hottest climate regions on earth) has seen a significant cooling effect as a result of large scale irrigation. That is, adding water apparently decreases temperatures.

http://faculty.uc...emes.pdf

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
Uba said:
Funny thing about the water GHG claims, is observations demonstrate otherwise. It is widely known, for instance, that the California Central/San Jaquin Valley (one of the hottest climate regions on earth) has seen a significant cooling effect as a result of large scale irrigation. That is, adding water apparently decreases temperatures.


Well, lucky for us that we aren't looking at any changes in water vapor. I am sure you know a lot more than anyone else.

If you have a thesis along the lines of what we are looking at, please contribute. If you want to bring up distracting issues that we are not looking at, please bring them up but expect us to ignore them. You are welcome to join in as we work through this. Please contribute something numerical.

In talking about CO2 going in and out of the atmosphere I am sure you are referring to the Keeling curves or something like that. If so, please let us know how you think that atmospheric CO2 is changing with time.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
Continued: Uba also said:

I disagree. As with the water cycle, there is a carbon cycle. The form is different, but it essentially does "precipitate" out (primarily in the form of biomass and free oxygen). Autumn leaves serve as an example of carbon precipitation.


What I have been referring to for precipitation of H2O is the idea that the mixing ratio of H2O changes with altitude within the troposphere. However, CO2 does not. If you can give us an example of how the annual cyclic change of CO2 is relevant to that issue, please contribute.

I had examples of water vapor precipitating as both solid and liquid over the past two days where I live. I have never had an example of CO2 precipitating as either. Carbon is combined with other elements by plants, but so is H2O and I do not consider that to be precipitation. Maybe I missed that lecture in chemistry class (or would that be a physics class?). Do you have CO2 hail where you come from Uba?
The Alchemist
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
@uba, not funny or unexpected at all. Evaporation means ground cooling. The atmosphere is another story. Lots of possible and off-topic effects.

Well me friends it looks like this conversation is going this way: Everything submitted will be NG until you get the answers to want to see.

@thermo, if you are game, lets tidy up...
Considering the confusion, would you mind if we simplified and just considered the green house effect of 280 to 400 ppm change in CO2, in absence of all other factors? Leave N2/O2 as non-interacting species, ignore other effects detrimental to the CO2 cause effects and see what % difference in retained energy it makes?
We still should use the 667cm-1 band if you ask me.

Then, though, I am going to have to ask you to hold the course, and ask what share of the pie that really is. Because the ankle-biters will claim that huge number is proof.

Apologies, thermo, this late in the game, but it seems to me we need to break out the crayons... or be accused of...
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
fraudulence.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
Alche:

@thermo, if you are game, lets tidy up...

Considering the confusion, would you mind if we simplified and just considered the green house effect of 280 to 400 ppm change in CO2, in absence of all other factors? Leave N2/O2 as non-interacting species, ignore other effects detrimental to the CO2 cause effects and see what % difference in retained energy it makes?

We still should use the 667cm-1 band if you ask me.


I agree about getting on with this. However, I still want to make sure we are on the same page as we do.

If you want, I can download water vapor data from the ESRL site and just interpolate for water vapor from actual data. I would take a curve that is over water so we get good water vapor participation. I can run the one I choose by you to see if it looks good to you.

As for the 667 cm-1 band, that is the one that is most used so I have no problem with that. Let me know if that is OK and I will get going on setting it up.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2014
fraudulence.

A simple question. Does humidity affect CO2 'density"/effectivity?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
ESRL is great, but it looks like you would not be remiss in holding water vapor constant until 3km, and even as high as 6km. Which upon reviewing the different dates looks reasonable, and lines up with my own research, but is intuitively nutty. Does it male sense to you? If so, just use 12000 ppm, and the even weirder increasing humidity with height.

Or just ignore water all together. Use the N2/O2 for a "pressure medium," and press with the simple radiation arresting properties.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
@Whydening Gyre
Negative, what water does is absorbs at the 667cm-1 wavenumber, not very much, but since there is over 30x the concentration (for the first 3km?), a little bit is alot. For example... 1% absorption becomes (1-.01)= .99 & so 1-(.99^30) = 26%, the magnitude is actually more like and greater than 5 normal units, 1-(.95^30) or 78%.

So water competes with CO2 at it's absorption wavenumbers. That is one of many reasons water is important.
It also absorbs broadly, if weakly over the majority of IR, and does have major peaks. So while CO2 has one relevant absorption band, water has impact "everywhere." It also melts, evaporates and condenses to move heat around, and has many available states that heat energy can be dumped into via radiation.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2014
Apologies, thermo, this late in the game, but it seems to me we need to break out the crayons... or be accused of... fraudulence
Perhaps I am not following correctly, or this is a bit satirical? maybe I'm taking this wrong, I dont know, but IMHO: if science took this route whenever all the idiots or skeptics chimed in pressuring the main players, we would still be in caves riding dinosaurs (cheap shot on creationist anti-science, I know, but totally worth it to me, and relevant)

@Alche and @Thermo
PLEASE CONTINUE
you will always have jihadist style terror tactics and idiots wanting to discredit/inhibit/redirect work (or politicize it to death), as well as Spamming Trolls throwing out irrelevant idiocy. Look at the difference between creation science and REAL science.

don't let the idiots win
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
@Whydening Gyre
Negative, what water does is absorbs at the 667cm-1 wavenumber, not very much, but since there is over 30x the concentration (for the first 3km?), a little bit is alot. For example... 1% absorption becomes (1-.01)= .99 & so 1-(.99^30) = 26%, the magnitude is actually more like and greater than 5 normal units, 1-(.95^30) or 78%.

So water competes with CO2 at it's absorption wavenumbers. That is one of many reasons water is important.
It also absorbs broadly, if weakly over the majority of IR, and does have major peaks. So while CO2 has one relevant absorption band, water has impact "everywhere." It also melts, evaporates and condenses to move heat around, and has many available states that heat energy can be dumped into via radiation.

Thanks, Alch. for humouring an old artist.:-)
Next simple question - water/humidity is ice at higher altitudes - that should definitely affect absorption/reflectivity, shouldn't it?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
Thanks, Alch. for humouring an old artist.:-)
Next simple question - water/humidity is ice at higher altitudes - that should definitely affect absorption/reflectivity, shouldn't it?

And - does the ratio of major atmosphere gases to eachother change at higher altitudes? If it does significantly (not sure what amount would be considered significant, tho), wouldn't that also affect absorption?
Not questioning anybody's expertise, by the way...
I just was taught that the only dumb question was the one not asked...:-)
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
ESRL is great, but it looks like you would not be remiss in holding water vapor constant until 3km, and even as high as 6km. Which upon reviewing the different dates looks reasonable, and lines up with my own research, but is intuitively nutty. Does it male sense to you? If so, just use 12000 ppm, and the even weirder increasing humidity with height.

Or just ignore water all together. Use the N2/O2 for a "pressure medium," and press with the simple radiation arresting properties.


Alche: I do not want to ignore water vapor. I have been thinking about the suggestion of using a constant water vapor content at 12,000 ppmv for the first 3 km. I have been searching for anything better and haven't found it tonight. If Run or someone else with some background has a better suggestion I would like to hear from them. If not, I have no problem using the 3km constant approach. From there up I can use one of the ESRL data sets.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
does the ratio of major atmosphere gases to each other change at higher altitudes? If it does significantly (not sure what amount would be considered significant, tho), wouldn't that also affect absorption?
Not questioning anybody's expertise, by the way...
I just was taught that the only dumb question was the one not asked...:-)


Whyd: We covered that earlier in the discussion. As a recap, the homosphere is well mixed for everything except water vapor. From there up it starts stratifying. At the top of the homosphere is the thermopause (80 - 100 km) and then it becomes the heterosphere and is stratified.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2014
Whyd: We covered that earlier in the discussion. As a recap, the homosphere is well mixed for everything except water vapor. From there up it starts stratifying. At the top of the homosphere is the thermopause (80 - 100 km) and then it becomes the heterosphere and is stratified.

THanks, Therm. My bad...
I'll blame it on dysleftia...
Or ADHD or Lasik surgery...
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2014
@Cap'n
satirical

As a scientist named "The Alchemist" how could I be otherwise?

But to be honest Cap'n, the jhadists have won. As with every terrorist tactic, it wasn't the jhadists, either. The true terrorist use "let's you and him fight," and the result of a Saudi attacking the US? Larry Silverstein receives billions of dollars for losing 7 buildings, from 3 planes when only 2 were hit, AND the US invades Iraq.

Another result is http://phys.org/n...pse.html

I've been fighting and losing to the http://www.imdb.c...0427944/
attacks for years. If the Phys-article above is true, they have won.

Our only hope is that it cools the surface enough that albedo is increased, and that alternative still sucks.

So let's keep arguing about whether of not it is CO2, because until it is definitive, no one does anything different. Which was the goal all along.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 19, 2014
But to be honest Cap'n, the jhadists have won
@Alche
why would anyone continually come to phys.org and fight against people who post pseudoscience? usually the SAME people, usually the SAME crap. Usually irrelevant or blatantly stupid. sometimes subtle (like jvk), most times completely debunked (like EU & cantdrive, or AWT & Zeph, or creationist posts)
So let's keep arguing about ...CO2
no... the effects of CO2. from what I can tell, this argument is about the overall effects, their importance & contributions to warming, not that CO2 is the only player
no one does anything different
and this will not change if the smart folk give up and let stupidity reign

I guess I see things differently.
the jihadists (in this case, the overwhelmingly stupid) only win when we stop trying, thus allowing stupidity to reign and spread
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
@Cap'n
You're revealing a heart of gold. Thank you.
But it has been a long time since I thought how I felt about it, or my opinion mattered... now it seems the facts are immaterial. The house is burning down: We turned the heat up, and now the only hope is the pipes burst from the cold.

I wonder if I decided to eradicate the CO2 myth earlier if it would have made a difference. I doubt it. The truth and an intuitive model that has predicted climate and macro-weather change didn't do it, so why would I think attacking a lie would? Just adding fuel to the fire no doubt.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
@Cap'n
I did mean your own Heart of Gold, not mine, in case y'all think I'm that narcissist.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2014
@Cap'n
You're revealing a heart of gold. Thank you.
But it has been a long time since I thought how I felt about it, or my opinion mattered... now it seems the facts are immaterial. The house is burning down: We turned the heat up, and now the only hope is the pipes burst from the cold.

I wonder if I decided to eradicate the CO2 myth earlier if it would have made a difference. I doubt it. The truth and an intuitive model that has predicted climate and macro-weather change didn't do it, so why would I think attacking a lie would? Just adding fuel to the fire no doubt.

Don't give up, yet...:-) There is so much more to the equation than CO2, including other constituents of atmosphere particulates, heat (more than just solar), wind, what lies BELOW the atmospheric regions being examined, gravitational, magnetic, etc.
Funny thing, tho - Terra is pretty good at managing ALL these factors...:-) I've got my money on her.
Chuck Geier (The Artist, not the PSU neuroscience guy..:-)
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2014
Gang: I have no intention of giving up. I am still pushing forward at my pace to make sure I understand what I am doing. I have been reading posts on various sites, technical papers, and analytically methods from both sides of the house. From what I can see, any single lump analysis (zero dimension model) has to fail because it does not accurately reflect the "lapse rate" (change of temperature with altitude). It is also called the "billiard ball model." It is used extensively by people who don't know how to build a 1-D model. There is no surprise that 1-D models take a while to build because it has to describe the interaction of layers from the ground to "space." From what I have read, the zero-D models were used up until the 1920s. Then the 1-D models started (but were still not widely used because it took a lot of calculation). Now we can build a 1-D model on a laptop computer. Cont
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2014
Continued: Building a 1-D model is exactly what I am working on. The pros have teams working on building 3-D models. The major difference between the 1-D model and the 3-D model is that the 3-D models can take convection into consideration. I cannot so I am using the lapse rate for the standard atmosphere (as my first iteration). If it were a 3-D model I would be able to predict lapse rate and mixing. I can't do that so I have to start with a version of those that is widely accepted. That is why I am using the standard atmosphere and also why I am concentrating on finding a way to accurately represent water vapor. Water vapor is extremely important and has to be represented or we would not be doing this right. I wish this were faster on my end, but I would not be doing this job well if I rushed ahead without the homework I need to do. I want to be able to defend (in the technical sense of a defense of a thesis) the model (whatever the results).
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
No worries over lapse rate, if memory serves, you can leave CO2 concentration constant up to 17km. It is great that you are accommodating it though.

@team, I haven't given up on the thread. I'll see it through.

Additional data, we've mentioned that GHG function just the opposite in the upper atm.; well the same will be true of water, and CO2 qv..

@thermo, be careful of your homework, and don't stray too far, I know a lot about models, they tend to use engineering/linear approximations, because they are easier, then there are the bad approximations, and outright mis-approximations.

Keep as much as you can to the radiation mechanics:

What are the photon densities at a temperature, how many photons does a layer of CO2 absorb of that, what defines saturation of a CO2 layer before it "passes" radiation, how does water compete? Etc., etc., etc..
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
As a sanity check,
remember the difference is a 35% difference in [CO2].

The exponent of 0.35 is 1.42/ 142%. So that is the ball-park maximum we can expect from increasing CO2, unless other effects come into play.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
Alche:
@thermo, be careful of your homework, and don't stray too far, I know a lot about models, they tend to use engineering/linear approximations, because they are easier, then there are the bad approximations, and outright mis-approximations.

Keep as much as you can to the radiation mechanics:

What are the photon densities at a temperature, how many photons does a layer of CO2 absorb of that, what defines saturation of a CO2 layer before it "passes" radiation, how does water compete? Etc., etc., etc..


That is why I am doing my homework. I want to be able to reflect reality. You will get a chance to comment once I get my act together. What I want to be able to do is to explain every decision in the model. I can't do that if it is simplistic. Part of the homework is to make sure I understand the decisions of those who have tried this before (both good and bad). I have also done this sort of thing long enough to know it won't be perfect the first time.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
Alche: Let me start down the path that I have been walking in putting this together. I am going to discuss the concept of "saturation." I have seen many web sites that discuss the saturation behavior of CO2 and explain that when the earth's atmosphere is optically saturated with CO2, no more radiation in that particular band can pass through so adding more CO2 does nothing to change the radiative transport. I have seen a number of references that talked about shining a light on a wall and that all of the light is absorbed or reflected by the wall and, therefore, adding more wall will not decrease the beam any more than it already has.

Let me explain the inherent fallacy in that thought. Take a thin section of wall at 287K and shine a light at it. Go to the other side of the wall and point an infrared spectrometer at it. What does the IR spectrometer show? It shows a wall with IR radiation coming off of it with characteristics of a 287K spectrum. Continued
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2014
Continued: What that means is that the wall is not passing visible light but its radiation characteristics have not changed and you can measure them. Please think about this for a bit before shooting off a note that says that the slice of wall is different from a slice of gas. Because it is not.

If the gas is optically thick and is absorbing all of the incident radiation then the gas has its own IR emissions that are coming off in random directions and are directly related to its temperature. Suppose it has absorbed all of the photons at 687 cm-1 that it can and has stopped every one from passing through (lets not discuss the reality that some will get through anyway). Each photon has excited a molecule that will now relax through collision or emission. The photons that are emitted by the slice of gas then move on from the position they are at in the slice of gas in a random direction. Some are reabsorbed and some are passed through the layer. Continued
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2014
Continued: There are other molecules that are excited from collisions after the absorption of the 687cm-1 photon and they can emit at different wavenumbers. The wavenumbers are dictated by statistics and quantum mechanics but they do not have to be the same as the incoming photon wavenumber if there has been a collision.

The emission of the slice of atmosphere will be dictated by its temperature in accordance with quantum mechanics. So, if a slice is "saturated" it will still emit upwards and downwards in accordance with its temperature.

Photons always get stopped when they are absorbed. It does not matter if they are all absorbed at a layer because that same layer then emits just as the slice of wall does in the example. That is why "saturation" is a fact of life and has little to do with radiant transfer in the atmosphere.

Please look this explanation over and tell me where you are disagreeing or if it is not clear.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) May 19, 2014
Well, lucky for us that we aren't looking at any changes in water vapor.
And yet you keep talking about water vapor.

I am sure you know a lot more than anyone else.
Not everyone, just you.

If you have a thesis along the lines of what we are looking at, please contribute.
My initial comment directly addressed a claim you made.

Subsequently, I responded to Maggnus and The Alchemist.

If you want to bring up distracting issues that we are not looking at, please bring them up but expect us to ignore them.
Again, I didn't bring up anything, it was you.

You are welcome to join in as we work through this.
Thanks, but like I said above, do carry on. This is interesting.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 19, 2014
Uba said:
Well, lucky for us that we aren't looking at any changes in water vapor.

And yet you keep talking about water vapor.


The key is that, as I said, we are not going to use "changes" in water vapor. In other words I am not going to try to change the content of water vapor from pre-industrial times to today. I will use data from today.

I will use water vapor. I will not change the content of water vapor when we change the amount of CO2. Is that clear enough for you Uba?
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
@thermo good work. (not that I am almighty enough to praise you, but it looks good to me:)

Here's thing about saturation, and you must have been reading a Denier or derivative site, I think. The results are opposite.

Once CO2 has absorbed it's frequency it passes, not blocks radiation. So when it is saturated it passes all wavelengths, this side of its dynamics. It is intuitive why that is important for low concentrations, and a departure from Beer's law assumptions.

The mechanism is say 10 wavepackets hit CO2. One is absorbed, the other nine and any subsequent packets pass through until it releases it burden.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
@Wydening-thx for the golden mean explanation, I've been looking for a non-natural, rather hard science application for it for a while...

@Philosophy, so I am thinking about why all these radiation laws and fundamentals make logical sense. It occurs to me, it is not so much necessitating a logic created them, rather supervenience, we think a certain way because are building blocks are arranged a certain way.

(Sorry this is a drive-by, I am not going to comment any more on it:)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2014
Alche said:
Once CO2 has absorbed it's frequency it passes, not blocks radiation. So when it is saturated it passes all wavelengths, this side of its dynamics. It is intuitive why that is important for low concentrations, and a departure from Beer's law assumptions.

The mechanism is say 10 wavepackets hit CO2. One is absorbed, the other nine and any subsequent packets pass through until it releases it burden.


I have to admit I never saw that one coming. Can you please give me a link to a site that says this? This, appears to me, to be an argument a pro-AGW site would use to "prove" that adding CO2 warms the earth. It is wrong, but it is interesting. If it were true, then adding CO2 would stop the photons from leaving the earth and warm it. Less CO2 would let more photons through cooling the earth. However, it totally misses the point that an excited molecule will relax through emission, collision, or both in milliseconds or microseconds.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
Alche: Here are some sites that I am familiar with that use the version of saturation I am familiar with. Please let me know which sites use the version you gave me.

http://stevengodd...a-fraud/

http://nov79.com/...atn.html

http://www.random...co2.html

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
@thermo-err sorry for the faux pas, I did mean, of course, a radical pro AGWer site.

But per your objection... err... quantum mechanics?

Absorbing a photon causes it to be kicked up to an "excited" state. It can only absorb another packet to kick it into an N+2 state (or L+1 angular state) or what ever excitation nomenclature you want to use for chemical bonds, different energies either way.

But I can see things from your perspective; in plasma, once things are ionized, they absorb energy very universally.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
@thermo-err sorry for the faux pas, I did mean, of course, a radical pro AGWer site.


Do you mind if we dismiss this or do you think we need to discuss it. I think it is apparent that either way, saturation is not a viable argument as soon as you recognize that every gas will radiate according to its temperature.

But per your objection... err... quantum mechanics?


Yes, quantum mechanics.

Absorbing a photon causes it to be kicked up to an "excited" state. It can only absorb another packet to kick it into an N+2 state (or L+1 angular state) or what ever excitation nomenclature you want to use for chemical bonds, different energies either way.


Remember the energy of the photons we are discussing is low. They are in the IR. When the molecules collide they can exchange packets of energy according to the laws of quantum mechanics. If they collide before they emit they are kicked into alternate states. cont
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2014
Cont: From the alternate states they can still emit if they are excited and that might be at a different wave length than they absorbed. Likewise, the molecule they hit could emit if it is the right molecule. For instance, the collision has to be governed by the allowable states. If a CO2 molecule collides with N2, there will be a different exchange than the collision of CO2 with H2O because some of the collision energy is not allowed by QM in the collision with N2. In that case it will go into translation energy instead of vibration or rotation.

The bottom line is that the collisions modify the allowable radiation. The radiation then becomes "thermalized" just not in the way some of the strange sites out there address it. What we see from each body of air at a given temperature is the characteristic output of the gases at that temperature - independent of the general excitation by the incoming photons. The photons can change the temperature. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2014
Since we are looking at mean values and not instantaneous values I will not be building a transient model. That means I will consider the temperatures to change with altitude, as in the standard atmosphere, but not change with time. In that case we will have steady state between the layers. I would be using a typical finite element approach. My elements will be arranged by height and will exchange photons but not gas. I am considering the homosphere to be mixed and the thermopause to be the boundary. I will use water vapor starting at 12,000 ppmv keep it constant for a height of 4km and then decrease it as we have agreed (as seen at ESRL).

Let me know what else is not tight in this discussion. Do you agree that saturation falls out when we consider the real gas layers and lapse rate?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
@thermo good work. (not that I am almighty enough to praise you, but it looks good to me:)

Here's thing about saturation -
Once CO2 has absorbed it's frequency it passes, not blocks radiation. So when it is saturated it passes all wavelengths, this side of its dynamics. It is intuitive why that is important for low concentrations, and a departure from Beer's law assumptions.

The mechanism is say 10 wavepackets hit CO2. One is absorbed, the other nine and any subsequent packets pass through until it releases it burden.

Actually, Alch - doesn't the first packet get "pushed" through a saturated layer by the next one, thereby adding an actual physical constraint to each subsequent wavepacket? Therefore adding a time factor to the process?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
Since we are looking at mean values and not instantaneous values I will not be building a transient model. That means I will consider the temperatures to change with altitude, as in the standard atmosphere, but not change with time. In that case we will have steady state between the layers. I would be using a typical finite element approach. My elements will be arranged by height and will exchange photons but not gas. I am considering the homosphere to be mixed and the thermopause to be the boundary. I will use water vapor starting at 12,000 ppmv keep it constant for a height of 4km and then decrease it as we have agreed (as seen at ESRL).
Let me know what else is not tight in this discussion. Do you agree that saturation falls out when we consider the real gas layers and lapse rate?

Good, Thermo- Keeping it simple as necessary - But not simpler...:-) (Albert taught me that one)

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2014
Whyd:
Actually, Alch - doesn't the first packet get "pushed" through a saturated layer by the next one, thereby adding an actual physical constraint to each subsequent wavepacket? Therefore adding a time factor to the process?


Let me see if I understand what you are saying here. Photons don't push (or even interact strongly). If a photon is within a specific cross section of a molecule and at the right wavelength it can get absorbed. When that happens it excites the molecule. If the molecule stays excited for the right amount of time the molecule will relax and emit a similar photon. Or, depending on the transitions it can emit a photon at another wavelength if the transition to a different level is allowed. If the molecule collides with another molecule they can both change excitation and or velocity and then either emit at a different wavelength or not. However, other molecules in the gas can emit according to the temperature that gives the characteristic BB signal
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2014
Alche: I am starting to plug real numbers into the equations so I will start running them by you. Don't get too excited, I only get to work on this after my day job is done and that means less than 24 hours a day. However, I am beginning to make some progress. I have looked at the band between 13 and 17 micrometers and it looks like that is responsible for about 18.8% of the power emitted by the Earth at 287K. So, I will round that to 19%. It will not really make much difference if I am that close. The rest of the calculations will have greater uncertainty.

I also got a number for the absorption coefficient for CO2 in that band and it is 1.48/(m atm).

I will use the partial pressure of the CO2 from calculations made with the standard atmosphere and assuming the concentration constant to the thermosphere. I am still looking for the equivalent numbers for H2O. I have some numbers for H2O but I want to be sure they are all consistent.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 21, 2014
@thermo, absorption coeff, isn't that what we are figuring? I think there are too many assumptions in that to just blanket-use it.

You can't just leave the saturation problem, there are something like 10^18 photons at 667cm-1, to 400 CO2 molecules at 7*10^9 collisions per sec, that is still too many photons to discount. Also, it is 400 ppm - 280 ppm (adj for height).

I don't see why you call IR out as low energy, atoms don't care so long as they can absorb there.

I still have to puzzle through your statements... like for example, CO2 absorption/emission is at 667cm-1 +/- sigma, but thermal don't care about specific wavelengths.

I found something conceptually useful. I drew the Molecular Orbitals for water and CO2, and now understand quite a bit about their absorption/transition character.

Ah, you bring up a good point, time. Are you completely sure CO2 is more important than day vs night?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Alche:
@thermo, absorption coeff, isn't that what we are figuring? I think there are too many assumptions in that to just blanket-use it.


You are going to have to help me out with what you are asking here. We can use a number of approaches to look at the absorption and transmittance of the IR through the the gas. All of them boil down to exactly the same thing. A simple differential equation that Beer solved along with Lampbert. It is the same differential equation used in radioactive decay. It is a simple relationship that shows that the amount of loss is related to the amount of input and it has a simple exponential decay. Please explain why I should not use this? I am open to another approach, but all of the approaches I have seen are equivalent.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Alche:
You can't just leave the saturation problem, there are something like 10^18 photons at 667cm-1, to 400 CO2 molecules at 7*10^9 collisions per sec, that is still too many photons to discount. Also, it is 400 ppm - 280 ppm (adj for height)."


That is why I asked if you were OK with the explanation I gave you. Apparently, you are not yet. Please explain to me how you are coming up with 400 CO2 molecules. Try 400 ppm of Avogadro's number for each mole?

And, no, the ppmv does not change from 400 ppmv to 280 ppmv with height. The total pressure and partial pressure do, but not ppmv or mole fraction within the homosphere. The CO2 mole fraction starts changing when we get to the heterosphere.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Alche:
Ah, you bring up a good point, time. Are you completely sure CO2 is more important than day vs night?


No, I have never said that CO2 was more important than day versus night. However, we are looking at slow changes in the earth so we are averaging. If I was trying to build a high-fidelity model I would have to make it transient. However, since we are looking at long term changes due to CO2 we should be able to average over the year or decade or whatever the time frame is. Let me know if this is different than you were expecting. I am trying to examine the balance of radiant heat flow in the atmosphere and I expect to be able to set a single temperature for the earth and then look at heat flows based on that.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Alche:
I still have to puzzle through your statements... like for example, CO2 absorption/emission is at 667cm-1 +/- sigma, but thermal don't care about specific wavelengths.


I will readily admit that this is not my best job of trying to explain as I go along. I would give a lot of money to be able to stick a diagram in here instead of trying to put everything into words.

As for the concept of thermal, translation is what is perceived as temperature. Rotation and vibration are more quantized that translation. So, molecules can bounce into each other and change their velocities without having to exchange a specific energy for a transition of states. Because of that a CO2 molecule can exchange kinetic energy in the form of velocity changes with an N2 molecule, whereas the N2 molecule can't take the low energy rotation or vibrations that CO2 has available. To change those it has to hit H2O or CO2. Is that any clearer? I'm trying but it isn't easy to be clear.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
Thermo,
Thanks for correction on photons. Let me try again-
a "layer" of a gas molecules(CO2, in this instance), absorbs a radiative photon packet becomes excited/saturated. It has it's own time frame to "decay" that excitation on to the next "layer" of CO2. If subsequent packets arrive at that first "layer", they excite the molecule even more, but the "decay" rate is still the same. Which, in effect, causes a "backup" of photons until the molecule is excited enough to speed up it's "decay" rate, thereby passing on it's excitation state to the next "layer".
Or something like that...
Man, I give you guys high fives for attempting to "snapshot" such a dynamic process..:-)
(which, by the way, can also be modeled as a waveform...)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2014
I will readily admit that this is not my best job of trying to explain as I go along. I would give a lot of money to be able to stick a diagram in here instead of trying to put everything into words.

the old quote - "a picture is worth a thousand words..."
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 21, 2014
280 ppm pre-industrial level, 400 ppm current. That is a change we are concerned with.

400 ppm Avogadro's vs 400 ppm will not matter, if you consider it in proper perspective, of course.

Having slept on it overnight, I have to agree with your collision-logic, but in considering collisions you've change the problem from one I've always assumed was an exponential increase-modeled based on siple absorption/emission (and I still can't shake this) into a linear one, or a very closely linear one, to be technically accurate.

It is obvious that a proportional increase in heat retained by CO2 is not sufficient to cause significant change.

So I need to ask, QED?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
Wyhd:
Thermo,
Thanks for correction on photons. Let me try again-
a "layer" of a gas molecules(CO2, in this instance), absorbs a radiative photon packet becomes excited/saturated. It has it's own time frame to "decay" that excitation on to the next "layer" of CO2. If subsequent packets arrive at that first "layer", they excite the molecule even more, but the "decay" rate is still the same. Which, in effect, causes a "backup" of photons until the molecule is excited enough to speed up it's "decay" rate, thereby passing on it's excitation state to the next "layer".
Or something like that...
Man, I give you guys high fives for attempting to "snapshot" such a dynamic process..:-)
(which, by the way, can also be modeled as a waveform...)


Great question. Let me start by saying that the relaxation process is random in our view. We cannot predict any decays, we can only address the statistics of the decay. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Continued: The relaxation process does not have a specific time frame for each molecule any more than radioactivity does. Instead we talk about half-life and stochastic processes. Having said that, the idea that we have huge numbers of molecules (even for ppmv concentrations) lets us use calculus to address the decay processes. That is a fundamental difference between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. What that means is that some of the molecules decay in nanoseconds and some will take milliseconds. The average meets the half-life criteria.

Having said that, I can get to your question as I understand it. While there will always be some photons that make it through the atmosphere untouched (large numbers) most will not be the same photon by the time they make it to the top of the atmosphere. Instead, photons of the same wavenumber are indistinguishable and most will have excited a molecule and disappeared to be replaced by another photon as the molecule decays. ct
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
Whyd:
If subsequent packets arrive at that first "layer", they excite the molecule even more, but the "decay" rate is still the same. Which, in effect, causes a "backup" of photons until the molecule is excited enough to speed up it's "decay" rate, thereby passing on it's excitation state to the next "layer".
Or something like that...


The reason I said this was a great question is that it is one I have asked myself as I have gone through this. I think the bottom line is numbers and statistics. If we can produce a huge number of similar photons, something like that will happen. A way to do that would be with a high-power laser and a container of CO2 gas. If that does happen we get non-linear response, the system digresses from normal behavior and it starts failing to behave as a normal system. Under those circumstances it will divert from Beer's law, as Alche pointed out up the thread. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
Continued: I think that can happen in some natural systems, but not the ones we are working on. In fact, the Beer's law response gives us a statistical approach to determining how far an "average" photon will travel through the gas. As long as the system is not overloaded it will behave as expected. However, if we hit it hard enough it will not respond as predicted. At the gas concentration we are working with and the IR flux we are working with, we are well in the linear area for the gas response to photons and we don't have to worry about it. Even if we had a few orders of magnitude more photons it would only increase the average path length, not move into the realm of non-linear response. The flux from the earth is small with respect to radiators and does not compare with a high-energy laser. Even at just a few ppmv the system will still be linear and predictable at a statistical level. That is the reason IR spectroscopy works. For 10 molecules it probably won't.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Alche:
400 ppm Avogadro's vs 400 ppm will not matter, if you consider it in proper perspective, of course.


The perspective I think of it in is that 1 ppmv translates to 6.024x10^17 particles in one gram-mole of the substance. That is not a small number and, just because we are not dealing with numbers like that, the "ppm" can confuse us. As I pointed out to Whyd, the emissions from the earth are both diffuse and low energy per photon. If you think of the molecules as "scarce" then it is just because we are not used to working on the molecular scale and we have trouble working with the numbers involved. Instead, we are firmly in a linear response area. If you think otherwise, give me a reputable source of the concern. I have looked closely at this and path length and excitation seems to be firmly in the linear response area.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
Alche:
Having slept on it overnight, I have to agree with your collision-logic, but in considering collisions you've change the problem from one I've always assumed was an exponential increase-modeled based on siple absorption/emission (and I still can't shake this) into a linear one, or a very closely linear one, to be technically accurate."


Let me know if my responses to Whyd and you have covered this. We are linear.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
Alche said:
It is obvious that a proportional increase in heat retained by CO2 is not sufficient to cause significant change.

So I need to ask, QED?


It is not the heat retained by CO2 that makes a difference, it is the temperature profile of the atmosphere that changes the heat transfer from the ground to space. A small change in the temperature profile (not a change in one temperature) changes the dynamic heat transfer in the system.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
It is not the heat retained by CO2 that makes a difference, it is the temperature profile of the atmosphere that changes the heat transfer from the ground to space. A small change in the temperature profile (not a change in one temperature) changes the dynamic heat transfer in the system.

In thinking about this I realize there is a huge number of other molecular structures besides CO2 in the IR path, bringing their own frequency absorption rates into the mix. Are you averaging all those together, as well? I'm sure the absortion rate from one element would have some small, but cumulative effect on the others, right?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
Whyd:
In thinking about this I realize there is a huge number of other molecular structures besides CO2 in the IR path, bringing their own frequency absorption rates into the mix. Are you averaging all those together, as well? I'm sure the absortion rate from one element would have some small, but cumulative effect on the others, right?


Right. Particularly water vapor, dust (scattering), clouds (absorption and scattering)... I have to leave all but water vapor out. I just can't produce a 3D model. That does not mean the 1D model is useless. Instead, it is letting me look at the changes in absorption profiles based on CO2 alone (at this point) and soon to include H2O. This brings up another interesting aspect. The idea that the overlap of any lines means that photons are taken from one molecule and given to another type. I have seen that confusion at a number of sites (both pro and anti AGW). Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Cont: What many people don't understand is the quantum requirement that makes molecules absorb specific wavelengths. They have a vague idea that there are lines but they lump them into bands. That can be done under some circumstances, but the use has to be carefully weighed. Generally, lines are broadened by many processes and the wings of lines can overlap. However, that does not mean the cross section is the same as something with a line at a specific wavelength. CH4 might have lines that are in the vicinity of H2O lines, but they might not overlap or overlap weakly. You have to do a line-by-line analysis to understand the overlap. HITRAN is the gold standard for that.

The Earth is relatively cold. Because of that, collisional broadening is much lower than in a flame. Likewise, Doppler broadening. As you get higher in the atmosphere the lines become more distinct and they overlap less in the wings. That has to be considered for interference.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Cont: Because of the large mixture, approximations are made, but not arbitrarily. Instead, the lines and bands are examined in the overlap areas and studies are done on how much they interfere. That interference becomes much less as we go up in the atmosphere and temperature and water vapor content go down. Likewise, if there were a synthetic fluorocarbon in the atmosphere it's lines would become more distinct and the overlap would become less so it would contribute proportionately more to absorption of photons of wavelengths nothing else absorbs. Clouds, dust, and SOx all become less unless there is a volcanic eruption so the higher you go the more distinct things become and the less interference you see.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
@thermo, tomaeto/tomato.

One is a function of the other.

The problem you're facing is you can't prove a false premise.

Discounting Aurey's simplistic proof on grounds it over-estimated CO2 impacts.
Allowing for water having a much greater GWP than 20x CO2.
There is my unit-less study.
There is you pointing out about homospheric effects, which, to translate: That is the integral of energy from the effect without the homosphere to the effect with, colossal energy, trivializing any importance from CO2.

Now there is your pointing out the effects is linear with the increase of CO2, and granting atmospheric effects are non-linear, they are certainly not increasing.

I am not sure what you want. The better you make your own premise the worse the CO2 statement becomes.

Just how many nukes do you need to stop worrying about a bullet?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
Alche:
The problem you're facing is you can't prove a false premise.

Discounting Aurey's simplistic proof on grounds it over-estimated CO2 impacts.
Allowing for water having a much greater GWP than 20x CO2.
There is my unit-less study.
There is you pointing out about homospheric effects, which, to translate: That is the integral of energy from the effect without the homosphere to the effect with, colossal energy, trivializing any importance from CO2.


What are you talking about? What is the "false premise" you are alluding to?

Any zero-D model will be wrong because it does not take the atmospheric column into effect. That includes your zero-D "unitless study." I have given you the reasons those models have to be wrong.

You seem to have misunderstood the effect of the homosphere. Please explain.

I am working through the 1-D model and learning a lot. Are you saying you have nothing left to learn?

Please correct anything you think I have said wrong so far.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
The false premise is that CO2 has an effect.

So far I understand that "zero-D" model. Just because it is a zero D, doesn't mean it can not arrive at a correct conclusion. It simply mean that if you move away from it's assumptions, it becomes wrong very fast. If fact it is wrong, it over-compensates for CO2's impacts in the lump sum you refer to...

I am sure you are not over, and I will continue to pay attention, but I'm declaring victory.

Captain Stumpy was right in saying
Homosphere, homosphere, homosphere
he saw what I didn't, it's a death-knell. It raises the temperature of the Earth, what 23K?

Let me explain a comparison of our models. You came up with a linear dependence on concentration, which frankly trumps radiation factors I used. But, I used laws of exponents to factor away what I didn't know.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
The false premise is that CO2 has an effect.

So far I understand that "zero-D" model. Just because it is a zero D, doesn't mean it can not arrive at a correct conclusion. It simply mean that if you move away from it's assumptions, it becomes wrong very fast. If fact it is wrong, it over-compensates for CO2's impacts in the lump sum you refer to...

I am sure you are not over, and I will continue to pay attention, but I'm declaring victory.

Captain Stumpy was right in saying
Homosphere, homosphere, homosphere
he saw what I didn't, it's a death-knell. It raises the temperature of the Earth, what 23K?

Let me explain a comparison of our models. You came up with a linear dependence on concentration, which frankly trumps radiation factors I used. But, I used laws of exponents to factor away what I didn't know.
Yep, just about what I expected. What a charlatan!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
A comparison of our models is Effect = Effect(naught) x exp (([CO2]2)/[CO2]1) x (atmospheric function); where the atmospheric function will be an integral of an exponent.

Your will be Effect = Effect(naught) x [CO2] x (atmospheric function).

Unless you have some 1000x order of magnitude effects, you are not even close.

I know everyone's going to whine and declare foul, but there it is.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
Look, it has already started.

I will still pay attention, but the game is over, check mate in several-D, including two you yourself have brought up.

@Maggie, you don't get respect 'cause you're a doof.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
An interesting turn of events. Alche has decided that I can't come up with an effect for CO2 because he "knows" there is no effect. I, on the other hand, am learning a lot as I go through the process of putting a reasonable 1-D model together. No problem dropping out Alche, I will press on as is. I will continue to post what I find as I move through the exercise. Anyone can feel free to ask any questions as I go along (Alche, that includes you if you want to know more).

So far I can say that anyone who tells you they can prove or disprove AGW with a simple zero-D model is probably wrong. Ask them to explain it to you and the problems should jump out at you as you go through it with them. Even with a 1-D model one has to carefully determine how they will use the parameters. The radiant interchanges between the layers of the atmosphere are challenging. Any model that does not look at those is lacking.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
@thermo, don't be like that.
I told you I'd watch your progress.

But consider (again):
Water is a broad spectrum absorber. It not only has IR peaks, but at 30+x concentration, highly competitive (about 1 photon for 1 photon). So it matches it in it's absorption band, and eclipses it in many frequencies. It also is estimated to be responsible for >>10% of effects from evaporation and condensation.

The minor gravity effect you countered with the homospere: The mixing effect is the primary factor in raising the Earth's temp. vice the Barometric Formula.

You pointed out that CO2's linear effects trump the exponential, and you are right, to my astonishment. But exp X >> X. So...

I've learned much as well, but so far I've learned that I have been giving CO2 several orders of magnitude too much credit.

How much evidence until it is obvious?

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
Alche: I am truly sorry if you feel offended by my response to your dropping out, but it was unexpected. For you to have come to the conclusion that CO2 does not have an effect based on premises I have been showing to be inadequate research is disappointing. I would have much rather seen you responding in a measured manner to make your points. Instead, you just dropped out. How do you expect someone to act when someone drops out and declares victory?

Water is a broad spectrum absorber. It not only has IR peaks, but at 30+x concentration, highly competitive (about 1 photon for 1 photon). So it matches it in it's absorption band, and eclipses it in many frequencies. It also is estimated to be responsible for >>10% of effects from evaporation and condensation.


This is nonsense. I have said that water vapor is the major GHG. You seem to think that because it is, nothing else can make a difference. You are completely wrong and don't have the stones to argue the point.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
Alche:
The minor gravity effect you countered with the homospere: The mixing effect is the primary factor in raising the Earth's temp. vice the Barometric Formula.


What are you talking about? You thought there was a gradient in CO2 brought on by gravity. You thought that gradient meant there was no CO2 above a mountain peak. Luckily, this forum keeps a record of your posts so you can go back and look at it. You are saying this gross error has no effect on your calculations. What does that say about your calculations? You still believe you can lump your numbers together when you have an error like that?

Then you go on to say that water vapor trumps all. It is water vapor that changes with altitude as I pointed out to you. As you go up, the ratio of water vapor to CO2 changes. What happens in the upper troposphere when water vapor is at 10 ppmv and CO2 is at 350 ppmv? How can you model that in a 0D model?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
I DID think there was a gradient brought on by g. But it was a very minor error, previously I'd held CO2 constant to high altitudes to show how little impact it had, but THAT error revealed something orders bigger, and contrary to CO2 impacts.

Yes you have acknowledged H2O is a major GHG, and I only say it trumps CO2, 3 ways and multi-fold.

Lets find out what happens when CO2 is 350 ppmv and water is 10... and the atmosphere is 22 kPa.

I'm watching, but if you declare victory because of that cross-section, of a cross section of a linear increase of a small factor, I will be disappointed.

Actually, here's what will happen. You come up with some number like 4x10^5 watts/unit increase. Everyone jumps for joy because that's so huge! see it's real!
After that, it doesn't matter that that is part of something that is 10^10 watts/unit. Because no one is listening, and they certain won't hear "background noise"

So again, how many relevant factors before we agree CO2 is not relevant?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
& it shouldn't be such a surprise, I've been suing for victory many times. Wearing my shoes, don't you think I've been very patient while you've made sausage? As far as I am concerned evidence is overwhelming.

You've introduced two effects that make CO2 irrelevant, shouldn't we both?

What has to happen to convince? Right now, don't you have doubts about CO2's impacts?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
& it shouldn't be such a surprise, I've been suing for victory many times. Wearing my shoes, don't you think I've been very patient while you've made sausage? As far as I am concerned evidence is overwhelming.

You've introduced two effects that make CO2 irrelevant, shouldn't we both?

What has to happen to convince? Right now, don't you have doubts about CO2's impacts?


What two effects do you think make CO2 irrelevant?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
Look, it has already started.

I will still pay attention, but the game is over, check mate in several-D, including two you yourself have brought up.

@Maggie, you don't get respect 'cause you're a doof.
From you? I could not care less.

You are a fraud Alchey, and I said from the beginning that you would drop out once the going got tough. You don't look for evidence to help form a premise, you make a premise then seek evidence to support it, while ignoring anything you don't understand because you think it doesn't fit.

I also said that you would regress into the same BS you pulled with deepsand and that you would be unable to follow the conversation as the calculation became more complicated because you are trying to fit it all within your highschool-level mathematics.

You proved me right on every count. You don't even have the good graces to admit you're not able to follow Thermo's explanations.

You are a fraud. And you are not a chemist!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
How much evidence until it is obvious?
That you are a fraud, or that you are not a real chemist?

The answer is already obvious, both are true!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
& it shouldn't be such a surprise, I've been suing for victory many times. Wearing my shoes, don't you think I've been very patient while you've made sausage? As far as I am concerned evidence is overwhelming.
You're right, it is overwhelmingly obvious that CO2 is the driver of global warming. It is also obvious that you are charlatan and that you unable to formulate cohesive arguments to support even the small amount of knowledge you have.

Thermo came at this honestly. You are just a lying turd.

You've introduced two effects that make CO2 irrelevant, shouldn't we both?

What has to happen to convince? Right now, don't you have doubts about CO2's impacts?
Proof. You know, that thing you cannot provide.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
@thermo,
Perhaps you think I am jumping the gun. That's fair, but I've done this exercise before.

For example, you indicated water's lack of effect at higher altitude, true.

Last time I only used CO2 effects.

You will, indeed must find that H2O is competitive with water at the lower attitudes, but you will also find that the difference between pre-industrial CO2 levels and current CO2 levels go rapidly yet asymptotically to zero just as things get interesting.

And then there are Maggie's predictable drivel.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2014
@thermo,
Perhaps you think I am jumping the gun. That's fair, but I've done this exercise before.
Yea, no wonder you can't convince anyone.

"snip"

You will, indeed must find that H2O is competitive with water at the lower attitudes, but you will also find that the difference between pre-industrial CO2 levels and current CO2 levels go rapidly yet asymptotically to zero just as things get interesting.
How would you know that charlatan? Where's YOUR math? Thermo's is there for all to see, where's yours?

And then there are Maggie's predictable drivel.
Ya I don't suffer fools lightly. Liars and charlatans less so.

And so I declare that you lost, and you obviously have no idea how to determine the strength, or lack thereof, of the radiative forcing of CO2.

So when do we begin to see your proof?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
OK, I will take this opportunity to respond to one of Alche's comments. Alche said:
You will, indeed must find that H2O is competitive with water at the lower attitudes, but you will also find that the difference between pre-industrial CO2 levels and current CO2 levels go rapidly yet asymptotically to zero just as things get interesting.


I, highly, recommend that those of you who are interested get copies of JavaHawks with the HITRAN database. It lets you look at a line-by-line spectrum for all common gases (and a lot that aren't common). You also get to look at the cross sections as well as intensities. What you can do use it to overlay H2O on CO2 and see how they compare at a section of the spectrum. It is particularly interesting in the area of 13,000 nm to 17,000 nm. This is where you start understanding that bands are made up by lines. There are a lot of gaps between the lines. Continued
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
Alright, @thermo, surprise me, "walk across my swimmin' pool."

I am still curious though, when your demonstration fails, where do we go from there? It is obvious this is not an acceptable answer.

Yet I can't see how an unbiased observer could come to any other conclusion.

"My math..." ? @thermo will provide "my math," and then what will you say?

I am at a loss. Again, what will prove it if we haven't already?

The two effects are the homospere's dynamics and the linear dependence on concentration.

Why is it my facts are charlatanism, yet thermo hasn't reached a conclusion and is right?

@Captain-did I peg the "fraudulence" or what? AT&T should make me their CEO for that.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
Continued: In fact, they use computer programs to try to determine the cross sections and interactions. Alche, you seem to think that you can just estimate how much interference there is and it is not that easy. Part of that I have spent time doing is to try to better understand the area between 13 um and 17 um where there are minor water background lines and strong CO2 lines. The question of how much interference they actually have is not an easy one to determine. There are some computer programs that do that with the HITRAN data base and that is what I will try to do next.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 22, 2014
I have been granted access to HITRAN, but despite the Linux files, it does not seem Linux friendly. The .BIN is useless, at least to my poor system, and I can even open it to make it work.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) May 22, 2014
Alche said:

The two effects are the homospere's dynamics and the linear dependence on concentration."


And I said: "What?"

So, I convinced you of the existence of the homosphere and the linear response of low concentration gases and that convinced you that CO2 doesn't matter? How could it? Those are facts of chemistry and physics. How did that convince you CO2 is unimportant? It seems like It is only a small step in the process of building the model. Obviously, you can just skip the math and those messy steps and make an estimate that the rest of us can't. You keep doing that and I will just plug along on making calculations.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
@thermo
I know it is easy to determine: It's probabilities and probability distributions, plain and simple.

Those probabilities are a result of quantum mechanics, excitation states and all the cool stuff associated with radiation and Boltzman's constant.

Incidentally did you draw the molecular orbital's for water and CO2. CO2 is pretty pegged, but water requires some imagination, for example, it must be able to exchange rotational energies between its hydrogen bonds and develop some interesting asymmetries.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
I have been granted access to HITRAN, but despite the Linux files, it does not seem Linux friendly. The .BIN is useless, at least to my poor system, and I can even open it to make it work.


Get JavaHawks. It is a Java program that lets you manipulate the database. It should be at the same FTP site.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
@thermo, Homosphere-absolutely. One of the many things that make CO2 irrelevant is magnitude of effects.

The homosphere churns heat from -18C (the Earth's theoretical temperature without) to "ambient." That is a heck of a lots of energy.

The linear effect will become apparent.

Here is another effect with mixed blessing. You do not have to worry about H2O competing with H2O. The radiation at wavelengths is so available, that I believe they are both well saturated.

This also gives us an intuitive correspondence between the "satellite transmission spectrum" I sent you and individual absorbency.

Unfortunately, this means that since effects are saturated for both molecules at both frequencies, it is legitimate to reduce CO2's impacts, by that much. Being nice, I'd say 1/60. I could also argue, that, all CO2's energy/wavelengths wold be completely absorbed with or without CO2.

Let the whining begin.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) May 22, 2014
I could also argue, that, all CO2's energy/wavelengths wold be completely absorbed with or without CO2.

But, Alche. Isn't it the re-emission rate of CO2 vs H2O important? IT emits it's absorbed IR slower and at higher temp, therefore "retaining" the heat longer, right?
Artist, not sci-guy, so forgive if that question seems irrelevant..
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
I could also argue, that, all CO2's energy/wavelengths wold be completely absorbed with or without CO2.

But, Alche. Isn't it the re-emission rate of CO2 vs H2O important? IT emits it's absorbed IR slower and at higher temp, therefore "retaining" the heat longer, right?
Artist, not sci-guy, so forgive if that question seems irrelevant..


Whyd: Very close. The re-emission rate of both H2O and CO2 are similar in nature. The difference is that H2O is more concentrated near the ground and CO2 more concentrated in the upper atmosphere. What most people do not understand is that the re-emission at the optical top of the atmosphere is where heat is lost to space. In the IR "window" near 10 um the atmosphere is nearly transparent and the optical top of the atmosphere (TOA) is near ground level. At 15 um the TOA is in the Stratosphere (due to CO2). The higher the TOA the less can be radiated by the constraint of black body laws.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
From Alche:
Let the whining begin.


Are you saying that any physical argument I give you or any maths I lay out are whining because it does not agree with your gut?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
@thermo,
No, I assumed Maggie was going to interject with his whining.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
Alche:
The homosphere churns heat from -18C (the Earth's theoretical temperature without) to "ambient." That is a heck of a lots of energy.


What do you mean by "homosphere churns heat" ? Are you saying that the movement of the atmosphere is responsible for the warming of the earth from a non-atmosphere planet to what it actually is? I don't like to be obtuse, but I can't understand what this means. Can you please explain it?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2014
Alche said:
Here is another effect with mixed blessing. You do not have to worry about H2O competing with H2O. The radiation at wavelengths is so available, that I believe they are both well saturated.


I thought that I had dealt with "saturation" above. Apparently, not. In fact, your version of saturation is different from the definition of the web sites that use it to prove that IR can't get to the top of the atmosphere (which is nonsense since the earth cools by IR radiation). In fact, Whyd had it right that the interchange of IR between altitudes is what moves IR through the atmosphere. Alche, re-read the sections above on "saturation" and let me know if you have any questions.

Also, this is a great web site.

http://scienceofdoom.com/

Read his section on Back radiation. In sections he gets mathematical but you can skip those sections and he warns you when he gets to them. However, they are not complicated and he does a great job of explaining things.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
@Wyndening-
thermo gave a good description.

My argument comes for complete comes from this:
http://upload.wik...city.svg

If you look at the arizona.edu or any other absorption plot, and then use the above as an idea of what the atm does with it. There is no bump at the CO2 absorption wavelengths. Not conclusive of course, intuitive though.

In critique of thermo's statement above, he will find that, at a certain point in the atm, GHG work in reverse. Where the Sun's energy's trump the Earths, high in the atm., they block incoming radiation, just as they retain it below.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2014
Alche:
My argument comes for complete comes from this:
http://upload.wik...city.svg

If you look at the arizona.edu or any other absorption plot, and then use the above as an idea of what the atm does with it. There is no bump at the CO2 absorption wavelengths. Not conclusive of course, intuitive though.


What is that bump at 15 um? Have you looked at the 15 um absorption for both CO2 and H2O?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
@thermo,
If you use my intent, the English will fall into place. 'Could care less how some other person uses the word as jargon. As a matter of fact deepsand tried to get me to say something other than what I was saying by saying I meant someone else's jargon.

If you have five orders of magnitude of photons available, then you do not need a strong absorption to have it be saturated.

No, worries about the "bump..." like I said, that is 30+ years old, and I present it because it is useful conceptually as how to go from the lab to the atmosphere... There might be a more pronounced lack of a bump it they made the diagram today. :o)

You really expect me to look at something called science of doom. :oD
Right after the Legion of Doom, and I will probably give more credence to "Grog, the ape." Sorry, but bias, bias, bias...

If they have anything worth saying, you'll find it in an unbiased source.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
Ah, you can't just use Beer's for saturation/absorption because in the lab there is a good thermal and photonic reservoir for the heat to go to. (By example, calculating absorbency of molten NaCl, not very useful, unless you are in the UV..., JUST an example.)
Also, if you use absorption in your efforts to prove your absorption effects, you're not only putting recursion in there, you are trying to show the absorption with CO2's spectrum absorption, not by assuming it.
Right?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
What do you mean by "homosphere churns heat" ? Are you saying that the movement of the atmosphere is responsible for the warming of the earth from a non-atmosphere planet to what it actually is? I don't like to be obtuse, but I can't understand what this means. Can you please explain it?


Just like a fan in the a room in winter. Actually nothing like that, except conceptually.
NO! it is not responsible for warming, insulating.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
@thermo, to re-iterate my question above to you personally:

You have seen a lot of effects and physical properties contrary to CO2 having a significant effect.
Just what do you have to see before you say, "Yup, that's not the driver."
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) May 22, 2014
@thermo, to re-iterate my question above to you personally:

You have seen a lot of effects and physical properties contrary to CO2 having a significant effect.
Just what do you have to see before you say, "Yup, that's not the driver."


Contrary to you being able to "go with your gut," I have to go with information. I have been in the business of extracting information from scientific phenomena for 40 years and I go with data and calculations. You can go with your gut, but that does not mean you understand what is happening. Science is about extracting information from many phenomena that are not "intuitive." Even some of the things I have put out to you, you have rejected because they don't fit into your paradigm. I will not make that same mistake. You betray yourself by not being ready to read something because it has the name "doom" in it. The guy is really sharp and if you don't share his view, you can at least look at his math.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
Alche:
If you have five orders of magnitude of photons available, then you do not need a strong absorption to have it be saturated.


WTF is "five orders of magnitude of photons?" What does this even mean? Do you mean 10^5 photons? If you do, that is almost nothing. Think Avogadro's number.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2014
@thermo, to re-iterate my question above to you personally:

You have seen a lot of effects and physical properties contrary to CO2 having a significant effect.
Just what do you have to see before you say, "Yup, that's not the driver."


Just to be clear, the first simulation I have done is to look at the absorption of the 13 - 17 um radiation from the ground. It seems to do what is projected in the way it is extinguished on the way up. I am still in the early stages and I build programs incrementally and look at each part as I go through the implementation stage. So, I have not seen a thing yet that is not working like the physics says it should.

So, let me ask you, how long do you say that physics is wrong before you give up?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
Well I've presented what needs to be discounted, it is quite a rouge's gallery.
Don't forget sunlight on the way down. Order's bigger than Earth's on the way up.

"Turn my swimming pool into wine."

This should help:

http://www.spectr...body.php
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
BTW, if you invoke the model without showing it, it doesn't count.

You've given a lot, but you will need to summarize.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
Well I've presented what needs to be discounted, it is quite a rouge's gallery.
Don't forget sunlight on the way down. Order's bigger than Earth's on the way up.


Just how much 13 - 17 um radiation do you think is in sunlight?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014


"Turn my swimming pool into wine."

This should help:

http://www.spectr...body.php


Thanks for giving me an achievable task. What you are saying to all who are following this thread is that you will not accept physics but you do accept metaphysics... I'm not sure I want to convince you. As for Spectraclac, I have been a member for years.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
"I think?"

Hey, you've introduced effects that I did not use before, because I believed they would be DETRIMENTAL to the CO2 argument, and concentrated on the primary contributing factors.

What do I think?
I think that CO2 more than a few km above ground will block orders more sunlight from warming Earth, than it will insulate Earth's own radiation. & so I expect to see how this expectation is wrong.

I expect that the atmospheric difference between pre-industrial and present levels will be the cornerstone. I expect that difference to decrease with height IAW the atmospheric model you are using.
EG

[CO2groundCurrent] x Atm function - [CO2groundPre] x Atm function = current effect driver.

I expect this difference to both exist (hooray for CO2!), and be smaller than background fluxuations (boo! I need to be contradicted).

Water..., atmospheric mixing. Etc. etc.

Whatever model/equations you derive I want to be able to check it.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
Alche:
What do I think?
I think that CO2 more than a few km above ground will block orders more sunlight from warming Earth, than it will insulate Earth's own radiation. & so I expect to see how this expectation is wrong.


Alche. We agreed to look at the band at 13 - 17 um. Are you now saying we need to consider all of the spectrum of both the sun and the earth? If so, please tell me which bands you consider important. If I know why you think this is important then I can help you understand why you are wrong.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
Negative, I am saying if you're going to introduce effects, you must consider both sides.

How much incoming Sun's energy will CO2 diffuse vs. the Earth's out-bound. I don't think the answer is helpful to CO2. It puts the onus near ground level, where it is competed with by water...

I thought we were only considering the 667cm-1 wavelength? What's this about 13 - 17? Or is that "Earth's emission band?"

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
I am kind of excited though that you are getting results.

Will you share your ground rules, assumptions and approximations? In the form of formulae of course.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
I thought we were only considering the 667cm-1 wavelength? What's this about 13 - 17? Or is that "Earth's emission band?"


Did you want to consider only a single wavelength or were we talking about the band centered on 667 cm-1 (15 um)? I am looking at the band since it makes little sense to look at one wavelength. Instead, the band extends from approximately 13 um to 17 um and there is some interference with water vapor at the longer wavelengths. I am surprised you didn't know that 15 um is the same as 667 cm-1 and that band is what we have been referring to for the past quarter of this post. :-)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
I am kind of excited though that you are getting results.

Will you share your ground rules, assumptions and approximations? In the form of formulae of course.


Of course I will share as much as is needed to make everyone feel good about the work that is going into this. I am doing it to better understand the physics of long-path-length optical interactions. Mine has always been short in the past. I have found a number of techniques that I will pass on as I have done all the way along. A good spot to start is the approach in the last site I posted

http://scienceofd...diation/

And the back radiation section there. It is not quite what I am doing, but similar in nature. It is a great review.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
How much incoming Sun's energy will CO2 diffuse vs. the Earth's out-bound. I don't think the answer is helpful to CO2. It puts the onus near ground level, where it is competed with by water...


Diffusion is a different phenomena from absorption. As for how much will CO2 diffuse, this is where things become much different from absorption. Diffusion has to do with a match between the size of particles (molecules) and the wavelength of light. It does not have to do with absorption and emission, So, CO2 will take part in diffusion but so will N2 and O2. Since we know CO2 is a trace gas, the impact of CO2 will be a trace on diffusion. If you are considering absorption it will not be in the 13 - 17 um range I am looking at.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
@thermo
Diffusion: Tomaetoe-Tamato. What d you call a directed incident and a scattered resultant?

Personally, I use meters for wavelength and /seconds for frequency. Units are one of the biggest problems with our education system. I became familiar with cm-1, I am trusting you when you change units.

If you are using "Science of Doom" it is biased, and you need to be leery of deceptions. Please be especially clear when you borrow from that site in your approach.

"The best place to hide a lie is in between two truths."

Again, if it is true, you should be able to find the same information from another source.

Actually, I am surprised you need to, that site is obviously going to come up with a particular conclusion, the person who wrote the site's opinion is not any better than yours.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE don't turn this into a jargon/vocabulary definition thing!

That is exactly what deepshlt did when it was obvious he'd agreed that I'd made my case.

He said-something about my definition of saturation. I can't be responsible for everyone with a website's opinion of saturation.

He said I didn't account for increase, when in fact, I think I just used 400 ppm and didn't worry about atmospheric thinning and used the bulk CO2 rather than the pre-industiral difference. As mentioned, I used an exponential increase on two occasions, he insisted I should use linear. That reduces impact of CO2, exponentially, but there you are.

Will all this generosity "we" still came up negligible-err excuse me, "stale-mated."

Sorry, @thermo you have better tools, you don't get off so easy... :OD
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
Alche:
I thought we were only considering the 667cm-1 wavelength? What's this about 13 - 17? Or is that "Earth's emission band?"


I am not trying to make this a battle of jargon. I am trying to figure out what you are saying and you are trying to figure out what I am saying. For instance, the interchange from cm-1 to um is something that can be confusing. The problem is that the primary references for spectroscopy use cm-1 and physics uses um or nm. Can we agree that we can use each of them according to our references and the other can make the translation? If not, tell me what you want to use.

As for diffusion versus absorption, that has to be discussed. They are two different things and if I were to use it, I would expect you to ask me to explain it. I could want to discuss diffusion instead of absorption. In that case I would just have to explain why.

In the case of sunlight, I do not see its relevance to the band we are looking at. I do need that explained.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
Alche:
He said-something about my definition of saturation. I can't be responsible for everyone with a website's opinion of saturation.


Let me see if I understand your definition of "saturation." Feel free to yell if I have it wrong. The way I understand your definition of saturation it is that you believe that there are many more photons than there are molecules to absorb them. So, all of the molecules are filled up with photons and the rest of the photons that have no molecules to absorb them travel through the atmosphere untouched to space. That is because the molecules in the air column that can absorb the photons are saturated and the photons travel past them. Is that correct?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
Now, let me give you a definition from a typical web site that says there can be no CO2 AGW effect because of saturation.

They say: The lower atmosphere is optically saturated with CO2 because a beam of IR going through that section of air is attenuated significantly within 10 meters. Because of that, adding more CO2 will not, appreciably, affect the transmission of IR because the IR is already attenuated without the addition of more CO2 - so why would adding more make any difference?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
The typical website sounds like claptrap. I think I might understand what it is saying, but I'll wager they're generating a false conclusion/support with the statement.

Conceptually, you're interpretation of mine is correct. I would leave it at; there are many more photons than there are molecules to absorb them, and even if absorbency was only 1%, I still think it'd be "saturated."

Though, if the case is less photons, it becomes competitive, and that isn't much help either.

You are considering higher levels of the atm.. GHG insulate the Earth near ground, you must now also consider the energies they prevent from reaching the Earth by the same mechanisms. You may need to consider secondary mech.s if the thermosphere is part of the plan, etc..

@thermo, use the units that work best for you. I try not to tell the people doing the heavy lifting how to do the job. You seemed to be using cm-1 back there for a while, so I endeavored to make cm-1 intuitive again.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
So let me ask you what I hope is a flattering question.

You've been doing so deep digging, you've had to look at some junk science, you've no doubt looked at crappy results from credible sources. How do you think your perspectives have changed?

Do you now have a different perspective of yourself next to this whole "big" issue? For example whiners on this site will say it's too complicated, do you believe that? Or do you think that both you and they can get their arms around it?

Thanks!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2014
@Maggie,
I took umbrage at your "stale-mate" comment and I think I owe you an apology. By stale-mate you meant that you, yourself went from a pro-CO2 stance to one that said, hmmm, there are good questions on both sides. I should have been flattered.

What I saw was deepsand's telling me I was wrong because he told me I had used someone's definition I knew nothing about, that I had not taken this and that into account when I had, and then tried to cut the Gordian Knot with something spurious, IMO. After that, "stale-mate" stung.

I apologize if I misjudged you on that score.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 24, 2014
So let me ask you what I hope is a flattering question.

You've been doing so deep digging, you've had to look at some junk science, you've no doubt looked at crappy results from credible sources. How do you think your perspectives have changed?

Do you now have a different perspective of yourself next to this whole "big" issue? For example whiners on this site will say it's too complicated, do you believe that? Or do you think that both you and they can get their arms around it?!


Good question. I will give you my perception. I have learned that the issues are subtle and complex and cannot be addressed simply. I have learned that every 0D analysis I have seen is inherently wrong. If there were reliable functions that could be integrated from the ground to the upper atmosphere that would simplify the situation but there are no such functions. They would have to be piece-wise continuous. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 24, 2014
Continued: Because of the piece-wise nature of the problem it is natural to use finite differences or finite elements. I chose finite elements because of the flows of energy from level to level. So far the approach seems pretty good.

I'm doing this to better understand how these flows take place. To do this correctly, requires complex models. To try to cut corners I don't think you have any way to understand what is going on.

To include convection and chemistry in the mix requires huge arrays of elements and a supercomputer. I am convinced that handling the physics of the energy balance is straight forward. How the energy moves on the earth is much more complex. Heat transfer from the sun to the earth, and from the earth to space are much easier and only require a 1D or 2D heat transfer analysis. The reason is that the lapse rate includes the complex analysis and that can be measured. The radiation transfer is what determines the balance.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 24, 2014
I just ran across a .pdf written by Gordley, Marshal, and Chu Titled: "LINEPAK: ALGORITHMS FOR MODELING SPECTRAL TRANSMITTANCE AND RADIANCE"

In the paper they say: "The atmosphere is a heterogeneous medium that rapidly changes character as a function of space (view direction), time, and spectral band-region. Fast rigorous calculations, sufficient for modeling these conditions, require tedious but efficient numerical procedures for constructing raypaths and spectra."

I think this is a good summary and remember they are only talking about radiation here. I have been careful to stay with a single band to keep the problem tractable for a single person working on this in their spare time. Modeling is always a series of decisions about what can be included within the limits of your resources and making sure the inclusions are those parameters that must be included to keep the model true to the phenomena you are interested in understanding.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2014
@thermo,
I have been modeling the Earth's changes based on weather patterns, geography, glacial/polar retreat and the addition of heat.

That is a reason I am so confident.

It is a simple and intuitive model that has perfectly predicted change in climate and macro-weather.

So if you believe in subtlety and complexity, I am afraid you're drinking from the cool aid.

We are talking about planetary change. Effects needed to CHANGE the entire planet, with it built in buffers etc.. There is nothing subtle about the magnitudes of energy required to change the Earth.

That is another reason I am so confident. Whatever it is it will not be arguable. Rather like the unit-less study I've presented. It gives two things, the magnitude required for change and the amount CO2 will have to contribute.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2014
Please forgive the previous, I asked your opinion and criticized.

To change the Earth I believe you need a freight train, however. Which is why I also believe the medias is inspiring ridiculous debate about whether or not CO2 is the causal. To me prediction is the ultimate proof of science.

My simple model has predicted perfectly, without CO2.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2014
@thermo,
I have been modeling the Earth's changes based on weather patterns, geography, glacial/polar retreat and the addition of heat.

That is a reason I am so confident.

It is a simple and intuitive model that has perfectly predicted change in climate and macro-weather.

So if you believe in subtlety and complexity, I am afraid you're drinking from the cool aid.

We are talking about planetary change. Effects needed to CHANGE the entire planet, with it built in buffers etc.. There is nothing subtle about the magnitudes of energy required to change the Earth.

That is another reason I am so confident. Whatever it is it will not be arguable. Rather like the unit-less study I've presented. It gives two things, the magnitude required for change and the amount CO2 will have to contribute.
In other words: " I have no proof I am right, but it feels like I should be and therefore any empirical proof you provide will not be good enough."

That's some science all right!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2014
@team,
here is another factoid.

https://wiki.brow...etherley

Factoid, of course because they say it is because of increase of GHG's but of course H2O is the primary GHG, so...

So another factor we need to remove, a 2.2% increase in the major GHG, that is 2-3% of the atm. vs. a what 35% increase in a 0.035%. This is a factor of 64x one vs another.

Again, I have to sue for CO2 not being relevant. Or ask why a significant increase in a significant GHG takes second fiddle to a significant increase of a minor constituent and "normal" contributor?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2014
Thank you Maggie, I'd love to here your refutation of my previous post.

No, in other words, I am right because my method easily predicts the future states, not confusion.

Guys, how many ways does this have to be over?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 24, 2014
@team,
here is another factoid.

https://wiki.brow...etherley

Factoid, of course because they say it is because of increase of GHG's but of course H2O is the primary GHG, so...

So another factor we need to remove, a 2.2% increase in the major GHG, that is 2-3% of the atm. vs. a what 35% increase in a 0.035%. This is a factor of 64x one vs another.

Again, I have to sue for CO2 not being relevant. Or ask why a significant increase in a significant GHG takes second fiddle to a significant increase of a minor constituent and "normal" contributor?


Alche: Are you saying that the increase in water vapor is not related to a change in temperature or is it related to an increase in temperature? The reason I ask is that many seem to think there is no increase in temperature. I think that part of this comes from ocean temperature increases. What is your view?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2014
I am saying we've had a significant increase in a major GHG, and no one is saying it's responsible for GW.

But a small change in a trace gas with minimal effects is supposed to be bringing down the house.

How many elephants must be loose in the house-
Before we start to ignore the mouse?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 24, 2014
I am saying we've had a significant increase in a major GHG, and no one is saying it's responsible for GW.

But a small change in a trace gas with minimal effects is supposed to be bringing down the house.

How many elephants must be loose in the house-
Before we start to ignore the mouse?


Alche: Can you site anyone who is saying that the increase in H2O is not causing an increase in temperature? I am serious because I have not seen anyone actually say that.

I have seen many sources that assume that increases in CO2 will increase heat into the environment which will increase water vapor as a feedback mechanism, but I have not seen anyone who denies that H2O is a GHG and affects temperature.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2014
Because the argument is to demonstrate the importance/lack of of CO2, not that of water.

A 2% difference in Water is approximately 240 ppm.

The difference in CO2 is 140 ppm.

Water's effects are three fold.

We can do the math from here, but a 2% difference in H2O should produce effects "obvious to the casual observer" much much greater than CO2.

QED?

If not, why? and if not, why should we trust to complex and subtle rational when we ignore obvious and powerful effects?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 24, 2014
Because the argument is to demonstrate the importance/lack of of CO2, not that of water.

A 2% difference in Water is approximately 240 ppm.

The difference in CO2 is 140 ppm.

Water's effects are three fold.

We can do the math from here, but a 2% difference in H2O should produce effects "obvious to the casual observer" much much greater than CO2.

QED?

If not, why? and if not, why should we trust to complex and subtle rational when we ignore obvious and powerful effects?


Alche. Is it not clear that I have said that H2O is the most influential of the GHGs?

For some reason, you keep coming back to it and I have to keep saying it is a gas that must be taken into consideration. I have said that from the beginning. The issue here is whether or not the addition of more CO2 makes any difference.

Please let me know if you understand that I have agreed from the beginning that H2O is the most important GHG.

Also, give a reference from a scientist who thinks H2O does not matter.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2014
Uh, yes, you do say it.

But I am wagering you are not dismissing CO2 because of it, or any other "elephant." Whereas I am saying because of it, and many other factors, CO2 is a red herring.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (2) May 25, 2014
Uh, yes, you do say it.

But I am wagering you are not dismissing CO2 because of it, or any other "elephant." Whereas I am saying because of it, and many other factors, CO2 is a red herring.


Okay, new angle. From my understanding, water "condenses" and accumulates around other particulants to form rain drops. Is it possible CO2 with it's higher re-emission rate is preventing water from "condensing" and dropping? Thereby increasing the atmospheric water content?
It's entirely possible that it's the interaction of all these different gases with eachother, that is important.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2014
@Whydening
For a self-proclaimed art type, you ask some awesome questions.

Yes, the increased heat from emission effects would prevent development of rain drops. It is not a large effect-or is a large effect if you believe CO2 is the driver, either way, it shows amazing insight on your part. Richard Feynman would be proud.

Radiatively, we are mostly ignoring the interaction between molecules. I am pretty sure it would be yet another strike against CO2, water having more degrees of freedom, absorbancy and available states than CO2, it would be a one way trip.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 25, 2014
Alche said:
I am saying we've had a significant increase in a major GHG, and no one is saying it's responsible for GW.


I specifically asked if you can supply a link to scientists who say that H2O is not one of the gases responsible for the retention of heat in the atmosphere. You have made the observation that "no one is saying it's responsible for GW." I have not seen any papers or web sites that make this claim. Most say it is a feedback mechanism but is responsible for warming. I assume you have one that says it is not.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) May 25, 2014
Alche said:
But I am wagering you are not dismissing CO2 because of it, or any other "elephant." Whereas I am saying because of it, and many other factors, CO2 is a red herring.


I am not dismissing CO2 because my task is to investigate the physics. Since I am still working on it I can't dismiss anything. It appears that you have dismissed it by the use of the term "red herring."
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2014
It needs to be noted here that Alchem did not come into this exercise with the intent to follow the science to a conclusion, the path that Thermo has been taking. Rather, Alchem came into this exercise with his mind already made up and has been working only to highlight his predetermined outcome. That is NOT how science is done.

You have shown you do not understand the physics (solar radiance PASSES THROUGH atmospheric CO2, it is not absorbed by it). You have shown that you do not understand radiative transfer of CO2. (dF=5.35 ln(C/Co) where dF is forcing in Watts/sq.M, 5.35 is the tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed value, and C/Co is the change in concentration.) (Myhre 1998). You have shown you do not understand climate sensitivity (λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)).

Worse, you have declared in the middle of the game that you have "won" without having done anything except provide word salad to support your position.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2014
@ Thermo, although Alchem has chosen to stop participating (not that he really was to begin with) I hope that you continue this through to the end. I like the way you are proceeding, and I think it gives a good read to someone who is willing to follow the thread all the way through, both to see how you arrive at your conclusion (once you get there) and the steps you took to get there. As hard as it may be, keep an open mind - let the science lead you where it will.

Thank you for your effort and the work you are doing!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 25, 2014
It is amazing, I have brought up many reasons why CO2 should be dismissed as unimportant.

@thermo,
It seems all you'll need to do is pull something out thin air and this entire site will rally to your cause. It would warm my heart to see that happen but please don't (just pull something out of air).

Right now it seems you are counting on subtle and complex effects from "the science of DOOM," and other biased references to prove your case, and this is OK somehow. You haven't even produced a product yet, to the forum you've already proved you're point, and I am the one accused of being biased. :)

Yet disproving CO2 effects with >240 ppm of a much stronger GHG is not valid?
The parameterizing the magnitude of the effect is not valid?
Water's bulk...
Homospheric mixing.
Photon density availability of molecules.
etc..

I'll continue to generate more, proving the true is far easier than proving a false premise.

Meanwhile you can continue to:
"Feed my household with this bread"
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2014
It is amazing, I have brought up many reasons why CO2 should be dismissed as unimportant.
Well, no, but more important, THAT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE YOU AGREED TO! You provide word salad, misconceptions and clear misunderstandings as "proof" of something you have already decided. How many different ways must this be said Mr Says He Is A Chemist?
It seems all you'll need to do is pull something out thin air and this entire site will rally to your cause. It would warm my heart to see that happen but please don't
Disengenuous.
Right now it seems you are counting on subtle and complex effects from "the science of DOOM," and other biased references to prove your case, and this is OK somehow.
Bull! He hasn't tried to "prove" anything!
You haven't even produced a product yet, to the forum you've already proved you're point, and I am the one accused of being biased. :)
Because you are!!!! If you have proven anything in this thread, that is it!.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2014
It seems all you'll need to do is pull something out thin air and this entire site will rally to your cause
@Alche
sorry chap, this is truly bad form. You agreed to sit in and help with an experiment and provide assistance and you've made an assumption half way through and dropped out.
if all science worked that way, then we would have never gotten past flat-earth special-circumstance-god-created-the-universe
I'll continue to generate more, proving the true is far easier than proving a false premise
and that was the point of this slow exercise. Thermo never discounted H2O, etc. he SOUGHT TRUTH
You should either man up and continue with the exercise or quit and know that, regardless of the outcome, you did not have the mentality nor the cojones to stand up and be counted.
but to post such disingenuous and untrue comments as above is truly poor taste and bad sportsmanship

@THERMO
PLEASE CONTINUE, I am open to the conclusions
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (3) May 25, 2014
@Whydening
For a self-proclaimed art type, you ask some awesome questions.


Radiatively, we are mostly ignoring the interaction between molecules. I am pretty sure it would be yet another strike against CO2, water having more degrees of freedom, absorbancy and available states than CO2, it would be a one way trip.

Alche - carbon binds pretty easily with the other 3 main elements in the atmosphere (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen). This means it's (black-body) effects radiate fairly easily to them. Meaning, the more of it there is bound to these, the more "diffused" it's effect. While I don't think carbon (on it's own) is the MAIN driver, I do think the COMBINATION is. Therefore, the more of it in the air, the higher the heat retention.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2014
Poor form?

If you need me to break down any of what I've stated as conclusive, I will be more than happy to do so.

Poor form is what is going on right now.

@thermo, by all means, prove me wrong.
"Turn my water into wine."

@Whydening
I actually have considered that effect, especially H2O+CO2 --> H2CO4 species.
They are very transient. Excellent observation again.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 25, 2014
Note, at any time thermo can change his model to incorporate any introduced effect or property and conclude, "Yes, CO2's effects are negligible."
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2014
I am continuing. No one needs to worry about that. I have a couple of days of family obligations due to the holiday, but I will be on the model as time allows. If you are following the progress, I have built the finite element model and I have IR radiation from the ground to the sky working (the black body from the ground is easy). I am using the 13 - 17 um band. I am now looking at each element and sending emitted radiation up and down from each element. I have not gotten that going yet. To get that going, I am calculating density, pressure, and temperature for the air at each altitude, the partial pressure of CO2, and emission from the CO2 in each element. I have not gotten to the H2O yet.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2014
Poor form? Poor form is what is going on right now
@Alche
are you referring to my comment?
you gave your word to sit in on a little experiment, and now you've shown that your word is useless because you've backed out before the end AND you've decided it is best to attack based upon your perceived superior conclusions, therefore truly bad form and in poor taste

If this is all we can expect from you, then consider it over for you and leave Thermo to do his work, please
I am continuing. No one needs to worry about that
@Thermodynamics
thank you for continuing. I will also continue to look for that study.
I can't find it and sifting through phys.org archived data is painstakingly slow, especially as it grows
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 25, 2014
@capatin
Let's inspect my word:

We agreed that we would use physical properties and fundamentals. Not invoke sites or citations.

We agreed we would work together, with thermo the lead because of his asset availability. Any model he is working should be a collaboration. I have suggested several means to make the conclusion easy. Capt'n you were supposed to be line-judge, and you haven't objected to any of my premises, but neither did cry foul at the science doom, or the other references that are out of scope.

As far as I can tell, I have concluded the discussion based our ground rules, several times.

I am working on yet another.

Nowhere in our rules is thermo's model required. What is required is discussion of constants, phenomenon and assumptions.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 25, 2014
Assumption 1: Infinite reservoir of energy available to be absorbed by CO2 molecules between 627 and 717 cm-1.
2: CO2 dumps all its energy in one collision, 10^10 collisions/sec
3: 100% of that energy is dumped and retained at ground level. Never lost, not transferred.
4: The properties of our atm, w/CO2 the only absorber. I know I wanted thermo to do water, I apologize. I wasn't as cocky starting this up.

5.3E18 kg of atm., 0.0289644 kg/mol atm
1.83*10^20 moles atm, 7.32*10^16 moles CO2
10^10 Collisions per second --> 6.32 *10^31 CO2 absptn/day

6.626E-037 planks kJs
29980000000 c in cm
1.98E-026 mult fator cm-1 to E --> 1.3249786916E-021 Unit energy in band

Absorptions/day x Energy in band =
8.38E+010 kJ

363 watts/m2 * 5.1 *10^14 m2 Earth surface =
1.85*10^17 Watts radiated by the Earth, 1000 kJ/watt

kJ from CO2/kJ radiated by Earth x100%

= 4.53 * 10^-8%
This is magnitudes too large!

Can SOMEBODY PLEASE check my math?
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2014
@thermo,
I have been modeling the Earth's changes based on weather patterns, geography, glacial/polar retreat and the addition of heat.[...]
That is another reason I am so confident. Whatever it is it will not be arguable. Rather like the unit-less study I've presented. It gives two things, the magnitude required for change and the amount CO2 will have to contribute.


A model of chicanery and whole cloth, no doubt.

So then, Alchemist, let's see this almighty model of yours.

Oh, wait --you can't show it us --just praise its omniscience and perfection...

OK, then --give us a set of predictions for the upcoming 2 years, regionally and hemishperically, which includes all your fine-grain model outputs, eg, sea level, longevity of ENSO, ice balance changes(polar and glacial), avg sea ice extent/mass, avg surface temps, etc on a month to month basis.

Set it up on a webpage, so that we can all refer to it at will to check the accuracy of its predicti\ons.

DO IT NOW, OR STFU.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
@capatin
Let's inspect my word:
Yes, lets:
We agreed that we would use physical properties and fundamentals.
ok.
Not invoke sites or citations.
You did? Where? How can you possibly discuss such a subject without "sites or citations? Show your exact wording where you said this.
We agreed we would work together, with thermo the lead because of his asset availability. Any model he is working should be a collaboration.
And, except for claiming you've won, how have you collaborated? WHat, exactly> do you think you've added?
I have suggested several means to make the conclusion easy. *snip*
I say you haven't. Show them - your exact words.
As far as I can tell, I have concluded the discussion based our ground rules, several times.
Then you can't tell much. It has barely started.
Bah, its the same game you pulled with deepsand. If you have nothing of substance to add, perhaps you should sit back and try to listen for a change.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2014
Assumption 1: Infinite reservoir of energy available to be absorbed by CO2 molecules between 627 and 717 cm-1.
2: CO2 dumps all its energy in one collision, 10^10 collisions/sec
3: 100% of that energy is dumped and retained at ground level. Never lost, not transferred.
4: The properties of our atm, w/CO2 the only absorber. I know I wanted thermo to do water, I apologize. I wasn't as cocky starting this up.
This is gobblygook! Take it one line at a time and explain what you think is so obvious. Hint for you - it's not obvious!

5.3E18 kg of atm., 0.0289644 kg/mol atm
1.83*10^20 moles atm, 7.32*10^16 moles CO2
10^10 Collisions per second --> 6.32 *10^31 CO2 absptn/day
Where do you get "5.3E18"? What is mol? What are moles? What exactly are you trying to show here?

We'll move to the next lines after you explain what you think this set of calculations shows.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2014
Tomorrow Maggie.
It won't make a difference of course-because I'm already wrong.

The problem my friends is:
"People will believe a big enough lie."

You've been given a big lie, with no reason to dis-believe. So no one ever checked.

@Caliban, we'll discuss my model after this issue is done.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2014
OK Maggie-I'll repeat myself, but tomorrow, I'm tired, and your usual BS is tiring.


Yeah, yeah, sure.

And don't forget those f***ing predictions from your almighty model, while you're at it.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
Let's inspect my word
@alche
good idea
If you don't believe the above link, and want to go over a bottom up approach, I'm game
when Thermo replied
I do not believe the link because it only took me a few minutes to find errors
and you said
OK @thermo, this will be fun
and now about this
Capt'n you were supposed to be line-judge, and you haven't objected to any of my premises
i am an observer, and the objections/agreement was to be between you and Thermo, which happened back and forth. it was a collaborative effort, to which just as it got half way, you claim
As far as I can tell, I have concluded the discussion based our ground rules, several times
now, if you want me to JUDGE, then based upon Thermo's
Since I am still working on it I can't dismiss anything
I can only conclude that you've backed out based upon your own convictions and beliefs. This is where I get the fact that you've abandoned half way...

ctd next post
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2014
@Alche
continuing
Not invoke sites or citations
1-no one invoked sites that were not agreed upon
2- the sites were to be for observers to gain info
3- the collaboration was STILL BETWEEN you and Thermo
so... point taken, but you should accept this as point against you as well
Nowhere in our rules is thermo's model required
this was to be a collaboration, therefore TWO models were to be REQUIRED... one from Thermo, One from YOU, so you dont get this point
I am working on yet another
you were supposed to be working a collaborative effort between the TWO of you and sharing/comparing results, as far as I could tell and read into this effort.

Now, IMHO, perhaps you think you should stand by your convictions and beliefs, which is an admirable trait, however you accepted this as a collaborative effort to do some science, which means sticking it out to the finish regardless of the results. Something that I accepted when this started, and something that I will continue ...

ctd
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2014
@Alche
continued
your discussion of constants, phenomenon and assumptions should be between You and Thermo...
now, as you've been given support for this collaboration, to the point that people who normally attacked you left you alone for the purpose of completing this effort, It is only proper that you complete the task

To pull out is breaking your word, as I see it. and given that you said I was one of the judges, when in all actuality I am nothing more than an observer who is a mere investigator, then I am giving my opinion, and spelling out where I think you've violated your word

You may or may not agree with my logic, however, I believe it is solid and based upon facts as well as what I perceived was the agreed upon task at hand. Therefore, as there is now collaboration, and you've backed out, and Thermo is not done....

You can still join back in the collaboration.

last thing: the conclusion should be BOTH models published together here & compared / discussed
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
Well said, Cap'n...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2014
Capt'n you were supposed to be line-judge, and you haven't objected to any of my premises, but neither did cry foul at the science doom, or the other references that are out of scope
@alche
Now, as you think I am line judge, to this I would state: the collaborative effort was ALSO between the two of you, and the two of you should be working out the issues between you. as a "judge" I would only get involved when both parties decide they are correct and there would have to be a decision, to which I was never asked to interfere or rule on anything

I would also suggest bringing in a judge that is more capable: Tim Thompson

last point, then g'nite: I SUGGEST that you continue with the models till the end of the experiment. if this were a scientific research, it would only be done when all the data was in, so I can only conclude that until ALL models are in, and ALL parties agree that all models are valid, then the collaboration is NOT finished.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2014
It won't make a difference of course-because I'm already wrong.
The problem my friends is:
"People will believe a big enough lie."
You've been given a big lie, with no reason to dis-believe. So no one ever checked
@Alche
just read this. had to respond
Maggnus is making points to be addressed. you should take time to spell out your answers and be specific. this is about science, accuracy and communication,

it is Maggnus RIGHT to demand proof and definition for clarity, is it is everyone else's. also...

now about your "big enough lie"...this collaboration is NOT the first analysis of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, therefore your results should be supported by empirical data published in studies. it is NOT a matter of not being "checked"

SCIENCE is the acceptance of empirical data, not fitting data to a belief.

be specific. be concise and clear. communicate what you are doing and what it means. this is one objective of the collaboration, is it not?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
Tomorrow Maggie.
I'll be watching.
It won't make a difference of course-because I'm already wrong.
Probably, but I'll give you yet another benefit of the doubt you do not deserve

You've been given a big lie, with no reason to dis-believe.
Good god, another conspiracy. Pray tell, all knowing one, what possible end would some nebulous entity seek by such a lie?
So no one ever checked.
You're wrong, shall I show you yet again? You're wrong.

@Caliban, we'll discuss my model after this issue is done.
Please, no need to wait. What other misconceptions do you have?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2014
Alche: I am not sure exactly what you are saying about "not invoking sites." My perspective is that I would like to give visual examples to those following since I cannot embed graphics in this web site. As an example of this I used WattsUp as one example early on. I chose that because I didn't care about it being a site with a bad reputation, because it had a reasonable explanation of a point I was trying to make. Likewise, later I included a link to scienceofdoom.com because it had a good explanation of what I am finding to be a good approach to a finite element approach to representing the layers in the atmosphere. Let me be clear that I am not finding examples that exactly show the approach I am using, but the scienceofdoom approach is pretty close. Observers can go to those sites to get ideas of where I am going. Let me also say I am doing this effort "without a net." In other words I have not been down this lane before and I am not sure where it will lead. Stay tuned.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
Alche: I am not sure exactly what you are saying about "not invoking sites." **snip** Let me be clear that I am not finding examples that exactly show the approach I am using, but the scienceofdoom approach is pretty close. Observers can go to those sites to get ideas of where I am going. Let me also say I am doing this effort "without a net." In other words I have not been down this lane before and I am not sure where it will lead. Stay tuned
Just in case anyone cannot see the obvious, Thermo is saying "I am doing the best I can to find examples of what I am trying to do and find explanations for why I am doing it this way. I do not know what I will find" whereas Alchem is saying "I already know what we are going to find, and because I have already decided how this will end, I will only consider that which supports the premise I already know".

Alchem can't even explain his stated assumptions.

You're doing fine Thermo, keep it up!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2014
One thing at a time:

I haven't backed out... I am waiting for thermo same as you. The last thing I knew I threw down red flags...

...@thermo-Wattsup is very biased, and uses high school minus science and deceptive rational to prove its point.
Skepticalscientist is the same.
I will not even dignify "science of doo," if I invoked that you'd laugh me off the page.

If it is true you can find it from a more reliable source. I don't know what else to say.

cont..
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2014
@Maggie/group-lets start with my recent QED, we can run the rest down afterwards. Except you all already know they are wrong, right? This to should be fun.

The model is Absurdist - it is NOT absurd. It uses extreme assumptions to prove the point.
What I did was made the assumption that ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere could pull energy from the Aether and feed the Earth with this energy at ground level. It also magically keeps it, that is does not let it escape to space.

It fed it in a square band 667+/-50 cm-1. It did this at a rate equaling the number of collisions it has per second, multiplied by minutes, then 24 hrs.

So, examining your "critique,"
What are moles?
OH MY GOD! REALLY-I am not responsible for teaching you high school science- A mole: http://en.wikiped...8unit%29

Reviewing the rest-if you don't understand a mole, I can begin to know what else you need help with... please let me know what the next issue is...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2014
carbon binds pretty easily with the other 3 main elements in the atmosphere (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen).
This is incorrect. NOx is not easily produced. It is normally produced as a result of high-temperature combustion.

http://en.wikiped...xide#NOx

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2014
I specifically asked if you can supply a link to scientists who say that H2O is not one of the gases responsible for the retention of heat in the atmosphere. You have made the observation that "no one is saying it's responsible for GW." I have not seen any papers or web sites that make this claim. Most say it is a feedback mechanism but is responsible for warming. I assume you have one that says it is not.


"Current global climate models suggest that the stratospheric water vapor feedback to global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is weak"

http://www.scienc...19.short

"If a weak water vapor feedback climate model could be constructed, climate modelers could then analyze it systematically to see if its fit to data is comparable to or better than other models. No such model currently exists."

http://www.annual...25.1.441

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2014
@Maggie
I just googled how many molecules were in the atm. in kg, to answer your other question.

Moles convert kg to number.

This model is very interesting for many reasons. I wonder if you can see the trump?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2014
@Maggie/group-lets start with my recent QED, we can run the rest down afterwards. Except you all already know they are wrong, right? This to should be fun.
No. lets finish this. DO you even know what QED means?

The model is Absurdist - it is NOT absurd. It uses extreme assumptions to prove the point.
It does nothing of the sort, and your use of those "assumptions" without explanation is laughably ridiculous. Try it again, starting with the first line, explain what your "assumption" is built upon.
What I did was made the assumption that ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere could pull energy from the Aether and feed the Earth with this energy at ground level. It also magically keeps it, that is does not let it escape to space.
Again, you are making absolutely no sense. How does CO2 "pull energy"? What is "Aether"? How does this "feed the Earth"?

And jeezus on it goes! What the f#*k are you talking about about sums it up!!!!!
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
It fed it in a square band 667+/-50 cm-1. It did this at a rate equaling the number of collisions it has per second, multiplied by minutes, then 24 hrs.
It fed it? WTF does that mean? How does a band become square? The number of collisions with what? THIS IS GOBBLYGOOK!!!

OH MY GOD! REALLY-I am not responsible for teaching you high school science- A mole:
Yes, really you arrogant ass, and you are "teaching" me nothing. What part of "explain what you are doing" do you not get? Do I have to teach you grade-school English? YOU ARE NOT MAKING SENSE!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
@Maggnus, I am afraid the reason you are having difficulty with this is the same reason you didn't know what a "mole" is.

Do you know what an assumption is? It means I don't have to explain it, you may disagree with it, and have reason to do so, but it is an assumption... My assumptions were to show an overwhelmingly advantageous environment for CO2 to have an effect. Kind of like letting it run a marathon using a car.

667 cm-1 +/-50 cm-1, something I believed anyone who'd been reading this post would understand. We are concerning ourselves with the CO2 band peaking at 667 cm-1. I added a HUGE buffer/big window of 50; 617cm-1 to 717 cm-1.

Collisions per second; again, I'd assumed you were reading: thermo referenced CO2 collisions as his mechanism for energy transfer. I assumed 100% absorption for every CO2 molecule and the ability to pick that energy up right after a collision, with 100% effect again.

You do know 667cm-1 is associated with both energy and a blackbody temp.?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
@Maggnus, I am afraid the reason you are having difficulty with this is the same reason you didn't know what a "mole" is
Are you actually stupid, or being purposefully obtuse? I know what a mole is, yet I continue to await your explanation of why you think it it if use here. EXPLAIN YOU ANSWERS!

Do you know what an assumption is? It means I don't have to explain it, you may disagree with it, and have reason to do so, but it is an assumption... My assumptions were to show an overwhelmingly advantageous environment for CO2 to have an effect. Kind of like letting it run a marathon using a car.
Ok, answers the first question in this post. SO let me try to explain it to you using grade school terminology.

When you make an assumption regarding a scientific treatise (which this is pretending to be) the basis of your assumption is more important than your use of the assumption in any calculation. In fact, that you make any "assumption" immediately requires an explanation.ct
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
so you saying something like "means I don;t have to explain" is pure bullocks. Of course you do dimwit, especially when asked how you arrive at your "assumption".

For instance, your poorly worded, non-specific, hand-waving word salad here:
Infinite reservoir of energy available to be absorbed by CO2 molecules between 627 and 717 cm-1."
What do you mean "infinite"? How can any energy source be infinite? What do you mean "reservoir"? Where is this reservoir? How does it make energy available to be absorbed? Or at all? What happens to the "reservoir" once absorption has occurred? What happens to the CO2 molecule when it absorbs this magical, infinite, energy? How does the molecule absorb the energy in the first place?

EXPLAIN YOURSELF!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2014
);
If you knew what a mole was, you wouldn't need to know why I am using it here.

Rephrasing; imaging I gathered up all the CO2 in the world, put it at ground level, let it absorb all the energy it needs to emit at it's maximum possible rate, without even taking that energy from the environment. BUT it gets to put that energy into the environment, without that energy dissipating-a perfect GHG.

You would think you'd see an effect, much much greater than it real effects right?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2014
Reservoir has a meaning in thermodynamics.
Infinite, means as an analogy, the car can have all the gas it wants, with perfect fuel efficiency, without refueling. The only limit is how fast the car can go. It doesn't need a gas station.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
My assumptions were to show an overwhelmingly advantageous environment for CO2 to have an effect. Kind of like letting it run a marathon using a car.
How do you think your assumptions "show an overwhelmingly advantageous environment for CO2 to have an effect"? Under what conditions? Why does it give CO2 such an advantage? How does that work in this application?

Why do you even need to make such an assumption? Do you not have actual data to work with? How does CO2 absorption of energy equal "running a marathon using a car"?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
Alchem , we are crossing each other's answers here a bit, so I am going to take a minute to let you reply before posting again. I will try to post only after I have seen you post from here on.

If you knew what a mole was, you wouldn't need to know why I am using it here.
Certainly I do. We are not measuring the total molecules in the atmosphere (nor the total number of CO2 molecules) as it is unnecessary to the calculation being done here. Have you forgotten what it is Thermo and you are trying to determine?

What does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have to do with determining how and whether or not a CO2 molecule can effect the temperature of the atmosphere?

The Alchemist
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
No, Maggie, I am doing all of this to try to explain to you.

If I let someone drive a car in a marathon I would expect them to win, right? If I give CO2 advantages beyond nature, you would think I could generate an effect, within 1/10,000(?) of the environment, correct?

If I give CO2 similar advantages, I would expect it to have retain energies somewhere near those produced by 287 K, right?

How do you propose I count the number of CO2 molecules?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
What does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have to do with determining how and whether or not a CO2 molecule can effect the temperature of the atmosphere?


Err... Using all the CO2 molecules? That's my best guess at answering THAT question. Now, I sincerely hope I don't think you mean what I think you mean.

The assumption are TO GIVE an overwhelming advantage to CO2. To demonstrate even with these advantages, it still does approach the magnitude necessary to havr an effect.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
No, Maggie, I am doing all of this to try to explain to you.
You're not doing a very good job so far.

If I let someone drive a car in a marathon I would expect them to win, right? If I give CO2 advantages beyond nature, you would think I could generate an effect, within 1/10,000(?) of the environment, correct?
Why would you give any advantage except to build a strawman you can later tear down? Why not just work with what is already known?

If I give CO2 similar advantages, I would expect it to have retain energies somewhere near those produced by 287 K, right?

How do you propose I count the number of CO2 molecules?
This is meaningless in the context of your discussions with Thermo. You have not yet even determined if or how CO2 can add energy in the form of heat to the atmosphere. Why would you need to determine the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere for that?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
What does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have to do with determining how and whether or not a CO2 molecule can effect the temperature of the atmosphere?


Err... Using all the CO2 molecules? That's my best guess at answering THAT question. Now, I sincerely hope I don't think you mean what I think you mean.

The assumption are TO GIVE an overwhelming advantage to CO2. To demonstrate even with these advantages, it still does approach the magnitude necessary to havr an effect.


So you are trying to jump ahead. Yet these word salad things you call "assumptions" have nothing to do with how CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere. Or anything else for that matter. As you have set them out, they are absolutely meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

Do you understand what Thermo has been doing? Hmmm, that's a poorly worded question but I don;t know how else to put it to you. You are treating this like sunlight does not pass through atmospheric CO2. Is that an accurate paraphrase?
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
Unf***ingbelievable.

Alky,

This is actually kinda painful to witness.

I recommend skipping the whole justification and description process of your "model", as it is shockingly obvious that its validity or even usefulness as a model is all, and entirely, in your head --and your head, alone.

However, since you have made the claim that it has been perfect in terms of its predictive accuracy, then you may still be able to salvage some shred of credibility or crumb of dignity by publishing those predictions just as I have called for above, as this will be the only way that the accuracy of your "Model" can ever be objectively verified.

Your other option is to bail out -or forever after this be heaped with scorn, derision, ridicule, and contempt.

I would be happy for you, at this point, if I was able to say A.M.F., but what I really expect to happen is that you will join the ranks of trolldom here at PO, and continue to troll on about your definitive knowledge of all things.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
Any bets as to which "model" will have greater predictive accuracy?

Many thanks due you, thermodynamics, for approaching and engaging in this effort to collaboratively quantify CO2's effect as an atmospheric greenhouse gas.
Even more so, since it was a foregone conclusion that alky was engaged only to the extent of practicing fraud and chicanery.

But be of good cheer! You've already definitively proven that alky has certainly been heating some air, right?

And that is no small acheivement, in and of itself.

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2014
I think I've been very patient.

Mumbo-jumbo... ); IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A MOLE IS, WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING CRITIQUING ANYTHING?! I learned and loved the mole in seventh grade for Pete's sake, and you accuse me of not being a real chemist? Can I accuse you of not being a real HS grad.?

You haven't even been able to clarify what you believe is mumbo-jumbo.

@Caliban-different model, different subject.

Can anyone who understands the value of setting up simple assumptions to exemplify a scenario check my work, please? One with at least basic chemistry, at their command? I believe it is another QED.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2014
This is meaningless in the context of your discussions with Thermo. You have not yet even determined if or how CO2 can add energy in the form of heat to the atmosphere. Why would you need to determine the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere for that?


I am sorry, counting the number of CO2 particles is meaningless?

We are trying to dis/prove the effect of CO2, how is how many meaningless.

Have a party.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) May 26, 2014
Mumbo-jumbo... ); IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A MOLE IS, WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING CRITIQUING ANYTHING?! I learned and loved the mole in seventh grade for Pete's sake, and you accuse me of not being a real chemist? Can I accuse you of not being a real HS grad.?

You haven't even been able to clarify what you believe is mumbo-jumbo.
While I am not surprised you have taken this tact, I am saddened. We are just beginning to get somewhere.

Tell you what, given you seem unable to unwilling to answer my previous questions, how about you answer this last one.

Can you explain the accepted explanation by which CO2 is able to trap infrared radiation and thus heat the planet? Don't go off on some tangent on what you think is wrong with the accepted physics, just explain here by whatever means you think necessary how the accepted physics of CO2 trapping works.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2014
I think I've been very patient.

@Caliban-different model, different subject.

.


Not so fast, you lying jackass.

You made the claim, and now you're denying it, trying to set it up as though the context of that claimed model and claimed predictive accuracy were being claimed in a somehow different context.

This is, in trollspeak, simply an admission of NO MODEL, and therefore NO PREDICTIVE ACCURACY --in fact, NO PREDICTIVE ABILITY --OR MODEL-- AT ALL.

And for cryin' out loud --please desist from carrying on this farce.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) May 26, 2014
carbon binds pretty easily with the other 3 main elements in the atmosphere (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen).
This is incorrect. NOx is not easily produced. It is normally produced as a result of high-temperature combustion.
http://en.wikiped...xide#NOx
If I was talking about Nitrogen with Oxygen, you might be right.
However, I was talking about CARBON binding with the 3 main elements of the atmosphere.
Be sure brain is engaged before responding next time....
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
carbon binds pretty easily with the other 3 main elements in the atmosphere (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen).
This is incorrect. NOx is not easily produced. It is normally produced as a result of high-temperature combustion.
http://en.wikiped...xide#NOx
If I was talking about Nitrogen with Oxygen, you might be right.
However, I was talking about CARBON binding with the 3 main elements of the atmosphere.
Be sure brain is engaged before responding next time....


This is Uba Whyde, you are putting unfairly high expectations upon him!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2014
@Cali-if you are really interested in the model it is on the facebook link below. Ping me there. Though I already know what your responses are, so... --yawn-- in advance.

Like Maggie, you are nothing but a muckraker, too busy rakeing the filth at your feet to notice the wonders around you.

@Maggie
Can you explain the accepted explanation by which CO2 is able to trap infrared radiation and thus heat the planet? Don't go off on some tangent on what you think is wrong with the accepted physics, just explain here by whatever means you think necessary how the accepted physics of CO2 trapping works.


Yeah Maggie, I used the accepted explanation to demonstrate why there is too little of that to work this side of Venus.

The problem is, if you encountered the Sibylline Books, you'd throw away the "Gooblygook" because it was written in Greek, a language, like science you don't understand.

Cont.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2014
Here you are, using the pseudo-intellectual approach of feeding someone's statement back at them, mixed with muck, trying to make yourself look intelligent.

This is classic:
What do you mean "infinite"? ... infinite? What do you mean "reservoir"? Where is this reservoir? How does it make energy available to be absorbed? Or at all? What happens... once absorption has occurred? What happens... magical, infinite, energy? How does the molecule absorb the energy in the first place?


You don't even understand why I'd make these assumptions. Where is the reservoir? LOL. How...? LOL. You don't even know a reservoir is a thermodynamic convention.

This is great to:
What does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have to do with determining how and whether or not a CO2 molecule can effect the temperature of the atmosphere?


What is a mole? What are moles?


I can't begin to talk to you if you don't understand the basics.

Is Cali one of your avatars? Great timing.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 27, 2014
Yeah Maggie, I used the accepted explanation to demonstrate why there is too little of that to work this side of Venus.
So no then, you can't even explain the theory you think you can overthrow. I thought as much.

The problem is, if you encountered the Sibylline Books, you'd throw away the "Gooblygook" because it was written in Greek, a language, like science you don't understand

No, the problem is you attempting to counterfeit controversy. If you cannot even explain the science you think have miraculously overturned, then you are almost certainly not overturning it.

It is no different than Zephyr and his blathering about aether like it is something worth considering. You are not using science, you are invoking magic.

Clearly your "theory" is fiction. You should have kept working along with Thermo, at least then you could have kept a thin veneer of respectability. Now you've just shown yourself to be another quack.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2014
@Maggie
What is a mole? What are moles?...I continue to await your explanation of why you think it it of use here.
-Maggnus
HA-HA-HA, LOL I think we all now know why Maggie is always slinging "you're a fraud," around.

@Team, I am still working with thermo. If anyone thinks I am not, I am. Sorry about the confusion, I was very frustrated to find out about the western antarctic... & that it doesn't matter.

Capt'n persuaded me to hang on, so I will.

Waiting, like the rest of you.

and laughing...
What is a mole? What are moles?...I continue to await your explanation of why you think it it of use here.
-Maggnus
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2014
@thermo and @Capt'n, would you mind checking over my latest claim to solving the problem, see if I have any oversights? Thx.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
Thank you for your patience. Let me report back on progress so far. As I have related, I am working on a finite element approach to the issue of vertical changes in the atmosphere. I am using the tools for a "standard atmosphere" as found in the Mathematica language, that way anyone with access to Mathematica (or to a Mathematica manual) can duplicate the lapse rate and pressure changes as are found in the standard atmosphere. I am dividing the vertical atmosphere into layers. The number of layers is arbitrary but I am using the combination of 200 layers and 20,000 meters to start the calculations. The height and number of layers are variable as we move through the modeling process. In the standard atmosphere they start with sea level as 288.15K so I have adopted that to stick with the standard approach.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 27, 2014
I am taking the middle of each layer as the representation of the temperature and pressure for the entire layer. That lets me use difference equations instead of differential equations for each layer. The lapse rate is small with respect to the thickness of a layer and I can change the thickness of each layer to look at sensitivity later. Using the 288.15K the Wien peak is at 10,056.5 nm (994.4 cm-1). I am using the CO2 band from 13,000 nm to 17,000 nm (588.2 cm-1 to 769.2 cm-1). The band is centered on 15,000 nm (666.7 cm-1). I think this band is what Alche was referring to as "square." The reason is that rather than using a small band model or line-by-line I am using a mean across the band as though it was square. This is a "difference" approximation that is used in many heat transfer analyses.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2014
This particular band from 13 to 17 um contains about 18.8% of the energy emitted by the earth when the mean temperature is 288.15K. There are "continuous emission lines" for water vapor in this band (but no closely spaced line band) and I am in the process of looking at the contribution of water vapor. It seems to be higher as we get toward the long wavelength wings of the CO2 band, but I will give you numbers as I get there. I am using the approximation of 1.48 that I mentioned above and translating the pressure at altitude to partial pressure of CO2 to use the atmosphere units in the absorption constant. That means the emission and absorption changes in proportion to partial pressure and temperature as we go up. I am using equation 11-21 from Siegel and Howell (4th ed) as the form of the emissions for each layer. I then compute the emissions upward and downward from all of the vertical elements. I will do some analyses at this point and report back before moving on to water vapor.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2014
@Cali-if you are really interested in the model it is on the facebook link below. Ping me there. Though I already know what your responses are, so... -yawn- in advance.


Alky, dear-

But of course, I will be more than happy to take a look at your model on facebook, that you link to below. Even though we all know that I am already cringing in anticipation of the kind of
nuttier-than-a-fruitcake pseudoscience I'm likely to encounter there. Perhaps you do possess some predictive accuracy, after all. Still, I haven't actually seen it, so how could I know for sure?

Oh, wait -there is no link....

Do be a dear and correct that deficiency, won't you?

Like Maggie, you are nothing but a muckraker, too busy rakeing the filth at your feet to notice the wonders around you.


Will wonders never cease! Again, you succeed in speaking truth,
as there can be no doubt that we've had to rake through quite a bit of your filth -specifically, bullshit- to get at any truth mired within it.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2014
@Cali-odd, all I do is hit "find" facebook and press the next button a few times.

@Thermo- Don't you think you're band-width is a little...large, especially if you are keeping it square.

I am not sure how you can get 83% of the energy in that band, either way, Planks constant x frequency...
more ltr/
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2014
... I was using +/-50 cm-1 as over-kill, even with low-res. spec.. With high-res., we have sharp peaks etc..

Send me Seigal-Howards eqtn..

Sorry, typo-above... 83 should be 18. 1/5 from that little space... with the frequency low compared to the rest?

I know there is nothing to do about it now, but wouldn't it have been easier to generate partial-diff. atmospheric functions and integrate? That way it would be easy to follow. You can get into a lot of errors without meaning to... have you done a layered apprch before?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2014
@thermo-
Sorry, do you want me to "just shut-up" until you're finished, or line by line you?

I thought I objected to 1.48 for possible "circular argument/derivation," (sorry vocabulary failure) problems...
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
... I was using +/-50 cm-1 as over-kill, even with low-res. spec.. With high-res., we have sharp peaks etc..

Send me Seigal-Howards eqtn..

Sorry, typo-above... 83 should be 18. 1/5 from that little space... with the frequency low compared to the rest?

I know there is nothing to do about it now, but wouldn't it have been easier to generate partial-diff. atmospheric functions and integrate? That way it would be easy to follow. You can get into a lot of errors without meaning to... have you done a layered apprch before?


It might have been easier to generate a partial differential equation and integrate, but it would have been inaccurate. The problem is that there are limited continuous variable descriptions of the interactions in the atmosphere and it you put them together they become intractable. If I could have solved it in closed form I would have done it (and so would many others). We can't unless it is grossly simplified.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
@thermo-
Sorry, do you want me to "just shut-up" until you're finished, or line by line you?

I thought I objected to 1.48 for possible "circular argument/derivation," (sorry vocabulary failure) problems...


Please line-by-line me. Otherwise, it might come as a broadside and no one likes that.

You objected to 1.48 but didn't give me a reason why. It is exactly what we are looking for as the "square wave" function. Can you tell me why that number is wrong? It looks good to me. Just give me another number to plug in and I will.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2014
@thermo-
Sorry, do you want me to "just shut-up" until you're finished, or line by line you?

I thought I objected to 1.48 for possible "circular argument/derivation," (sorry vocabulary failure) problems...


Please line-by-line me. Otherwise, it might come as a broadside and no one likes that.

You objected to 1.48 but didn't give me a reason why. It is exactly what we are looking for as the "square wave" function. Can you tell me why that number is wrong? It looks good to me. Just give me another number to plug in and I will.

Okay! Now, THIS is the kind of conversation I'm talkin' about!
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2014
@thermo-
Sorry, do you want me to "just shut-up" until you're finished, or line by line you?

I thought I objected to 1.48 for possible "circular argument/derivation," (sorry vocabulary failure) problems...


Please line-by-line me. Otherwise, it might come as a broadside and no one likes that.

You objected to 1.48 but didn't give me a reason why. It is exactly what we are looking for as the "square wave" function. Can you tell me why that number is wrong? It looks good to me. Just give me another number to plug in and I will.

Okay! Now, THIS is the kind of conversation I'm talkin' about!


Just stick with us Whyd, we will get there, inch-by-inch. :-)
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
I said:
It might have been easier to generate a partial differential equation and integrate, but it would have been inaccurate.


I meant that it would NOT have been accurate.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 27, 2014
Let me take a few minutes to explain why I like to build models. The models are not, generally, designed to perform exactly as the physical world does. Instead, the models are designed to help me understand processes that are difficult to observe or interpret. That does not mean that models are not accurate, it means that models provide an abstract view of specific observables that are difficult to measure or analyze. Let me give you an example. If I were an auto designer, I would be able to model the response of an automobile to a head-on collision. In the model I would be able to determine stresses and strains that result from an impact. I would be able to observe the collapse of pieces of metal in the car and determine how a steering wheel might respond to an impact. However, it would be unrealistic to expect any model to exactly predict how the steering wheel would bend when hit by a dummy. Continued
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
Instead, I would know how to design an airbag to avoid serious damage to a crash dummy based on my model. I would then run the car into a wall to see how the prediction worked.

In this case, we are working with an artificial environment. The temperature is an average "standard atmosphere" and the CO2 contents are two concentrations that have been decided on but would, probably, not exactly what would be measured if a balloon went up outside my house and made measurements. What I will be interested in are radiant fluxes that are moving up and down in the atmosphere. I will be able to tell what they are in my artificial layered atmosphere and I will be able to tell how they change with changing conditions. Once the model is built I can see how specific fluxes at specific heights change and that will tell me how the heat balance changes. I am not quite there yet, but I hope to get there either tonight or tomorrow night. Then will come the water vapor. cont
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
Continued: At this point I don't really know how the model will work. Instead, I am trying to plug in a reasonable physical description of the heat transfer that takes place, in a way that is a standard approach to radiant heat transfer in industrial processes. This is an application of physics and chemistry to a problem in atmospheric dynamics and the program is deceptively subtle. In looking at the physics I can concentrate on the dynamics of heat transfer without worrying about exact correspondence. For instance, I consider my slices in altitude to be isothermal and we know that is wrong. however, we also know that lapse rate is not, necessarily, monotonic and that means that plugging in a measured lapse rate would deviate from the mean and be difficult to reproduce. So, it will be interesting to see if we see any of the phenomena that are reported (such as specific changes in radiation with altitude that is related to CO2 content).
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2014
@Cali-odd, all I do is hit "find" facebook and press the next button a few times.


Alky,

Odd is when you say you are providing a link, and then don't. POST THE LINK to your model-to-end-all-models, and don't temporize or prevaricate. DO IT NOW.
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (4) May 27, 2014
Cali: I think he listed his facebook address below as:

https://www.faceb...4557455/

I will be interested in your comments.

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
Cali: I think he listed his facebook address below as:

https://www.faceb...4557455/

I will be interested in your comments.


Ok, thanks for that, thermo...

What genius!......This man has managed to do --in one flash of unequalled brilliance-- what thousands have been unable to do. Has anyone contacted the Nobel Prize Commission? No?

Good --don't bother.

The Alchemist has done what thousands of other antipseudo science assclowns have done and continue to do, and has assembled a number of a priori assumptions, and claims to support these assumptions by matching up one _very_ loosely quantized phenomena or another on the basis of an "equation" of stating a quanta, and then crying out: behold, these two quantities are equal to this other quantity.

Global warming solved!!!!!!!!

cont'd
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
cont'd
Nevermind any attempt at identifying and quantifying all the multiple inputs that comprise the total planetary heat budget, or to identify and quantify net losses or gains in thermal energy.

No folks, it all boils down to one simple, and(in alky's mind) incontrovertible fact: Global warming is solely and entirely due the extra heat added to the atmosphere's surface layer by human combustion of fossil fuel.

This comes as no surprise -especially since it comes from alky. As I was reading it, I was assailed by a feeling of deja vu -and then I remembered that he has tried to foist this "model" in the past.

I suppose it's possible I've completely misunderstood the whole thing, so it would seem -as I pointed out before- that the acid test will be for alky to power up his ubermodel, and set up a webpage detailing those fine-grain output predictions it generates -for the upcoming two years. An empirical test of the predictions' claimed(his claim -not mine) infallible accuracy.
contd
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2014
So, get on it, Alky...you say that your model is capable of generating -with infallible accuracy(I paraphrase)- any fine-grain predictive outputs that may be desired. I provided a list about thirty posts ago:

OK, then --give us a set of predictions for the upcoming 2 years, regionally and hemishperically, which includes all your fine-grain model outputs, eg, sea level, longevity of ENSO, ice balance changes(polar and glacial), avg sea ice extent/mass, avg surface temps, etc on a month to month basis


so that should give you ample material to get started with, perhaps others here would like to add to it?

The proof, as is said, is in the pudding.

That probably answered your question, thermo. Although probably far more sarcastically than you may have wished.

thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2014
As I described above, I am using finite elements that are 100 meters thick. The Temperature and pressure are assigned based on the center of each element. As an example, for the lowest element the temperature and pressure will be assigned to 50 m altitude and so on. What I am going to try to do is to enter the information on the elements as strings of numbers for you to pull off the entry and use in a spread sheet to see the results of the calculations. I will explain what the first set of numbers is. Total power from the surface of the earth is approximately 390.918 Watts/Meter^2. This is the amount of radiation coming up from the earth and passing through the atmosphere. In the strong CO2 band around 15000 nm (the band from 13000 nm to 17000 nm). The band is approximately 18.8 % of the 390.9 W/m^2 or about 73.4 W/m^2. Cont
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
That power is radiated upward and is attenuated according to Beer's law. I am going to give you a string of numbers and it is going to be 200 numbers (one for the intensity leaving each element headed up). Let's start.
That power is radiated upward and is attenuated according to Beer's law. I am going to give you a string of numbers and it is going to be 200 numbers (one for the intensity leaving each element headed up). Let's start.
69.28545001 65.41476345 61.80264966 58.43001547 55.27839373 52.33090632 49.57292283 46.99094977 44.57253638 42.30552617 40.17877403 38.18265195 36.30825055 34.54732186 32.89172905 31.33399037 29.86767321 28.48680612 27.1858435 25.95925688 24.80194828 23.70955688 22.67802216 21.70356175
20.78235963 19.91088752 19.08614859 18.30534426 17.56586011 16.86502722 16.20037139 15.56980568 14.97137577 14.40325094 13.86353658 13.35047201 12.86258596 12.39849702 11.95690767 11.53645595 11.13587306 10.75410952 10.39017737 10.04314635 9.712024481 9.395885512
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
8.014514625 7.773350647 7.542535563 7.321575571 7.109925697 6.907074812 6.712616604 6.526165915 6.347357559 6.17578025 6.011047438 5.852857181 5.70092265 5.554971316 5.414689768 5.279782826 5.150024092 5.025198068 4.905099588 4.789487397 4.678133804 4.570867614 4.467525557 4.367951901 4.271958637 4.179367984 4.090049507 4.003878582 3.920736124 3.840474435 3.762953579 3.688073444 3 .615738213 3.545856167 3.478310442 3.412990086 3.349817708 3.288719112 3.229623164 3.172436074 3.117068639 3.063460673 3.011554389 2.961294296 2.912604814 2.865413914 2.819674506 2.775341307 2.732370773 2.690701219
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
2.65027375 2.611051333 2.572998308 2.536080335 2.500247109 2.465450504 2.431661226 2.398851028 2.366992678 2.336042719 2.30595952 2.276719939 2.248301632 2.220683028 2.193839455 2.167747143 2.142386943 2.11774036 2.093789534 2.070478507 2.047753608 2.025601192 2.004008038 1.982961332 1.96244751 1.942453435 1.922967515 1.90397851 1.88547553 1.867436782 1.849841224 1.832679554 1.81594275 1.799622057 1.783699078 1.76815602 1.752985386 1.738179896 1.72373248 1.709627581 1.69585012 1.682394027 1.669253401 1.656422503 1.643887977 1.631636855 1.619664201 1.607965217 1.596535231 1.585359556
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
1.574423907 1.563724388 1.553257203 1.543018652 1.533005131 1.523213127 1.51363922 1.504280077 1.495132451 1.486182038 1.477414877 1.468828353 1.460419912 1.452187064 1.444127377 1.436238479 1.428518056 1.420963851 1.413573662 1.406336394 1.399241186 1.392286259 1.385469874 1.378790333 1.372245975 1.365835179 1.359556361 1.353407974 1.347388507 1.341489168 1.335701328 1.330023765 1.324455282 1.318994711 1.313640907 1.308392751 1.30324915 1.298209035 1.293271359 1.288429089 1.283675306 1.279009161 1.274429827 1.269936491 1.265528358 1.26120465 1.256964606 1.25280748 1.248732543 1.244734074
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2014
OK, the above is a single vector that shows the beam from the ground to space (0 m to 20000 m). What you should be able to see is that only about 1.24 W/m^2 of the original 73.4 W/m^2 gets through the atmosphere. You should be able to plot this to see that the decay of the signal is pretty quick and then slows down as the atmosphere becomes thinner. I am going to hold off on putting more lists up until I know if this is convenient and not too distracting to everyone trying to read the text. If you want me to put more up, realize it will take about 5 more entries like this and I don't want to spam the site.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) May 28, 2014
OK, the above is a single vector that shows the beam from the ground to space (0 m to 20000 m). What you should be able to see is that only about 1.24 W/m^2 of the original 73.4 W/m^2 gets through the atmosphere. You should be able to plot this to see that the decay of the signal is pretty quick and then slows down as the atmosphere becomes thinner. I am going to hold off on putting more lists up until I know if this is convenient and not too distracting to everyone trying to read the text. If you want me to put more up, realize it will take about 5 more entries like this and I don't want to spam the site.

Not that I could actually comprehend the full implications of these numbers, but - Great work, Thermo. Forgive if wrong, but you are intending for this "beam" info as an aggregate model for layers, planet/wide?
Also - a belated Happy Memorial Day to all you vets (both alive and not) out there... Thanks for your service.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) May 28, 2014
The 1.48: I am unfamiliar with the convention, since it is not between 0 and 1, there are assumptions built into the number, and no saying if I remember correctly from my 5th year lab, I think they depend on the apparatus environs, elegantly, but may not be appropriate for free space. You can end up with recursions, (larger or smaller), especially since you are using linear layers, if the dependence is a log (as memory also hints).

"Inaccurate" Let's make no pretensions, I've made the claim the effect is obviously trivial, the mainstream says otherwise. This little approach should be able to give us a ball/not several ball parks answer.

"Inaccurate" What function are you using to generate yours layers? If you made a Green's function, or several, it would be accurate and continuous.
That is my background bias, I always have favored transformation and manipulation properties to summa's. My pride is a 6x6 matrix of mixed exponentials and powers calculating solvency.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
@thermo about Cali-don't be too interested in his comments: 1. In all likelihood Calliban is just a avatar of Magnnus, and we all know what he has to say.

I am worried about iterations, you have claimed mucho more power than I am comfortable with, with each layer you'll be getting the famous Einsteinian compound interest effect, it is the most powerful force in the universe, and if you start with even something a little bigger than reality, well 5% iterated 10 times is 60%, unintended that's mucho error-doe.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
@Caliban/Magnnus, well there is one effect that is did/does and will continue to predict that until recently, and don't deny it was until recently, that the most important impact was the world's ice, not insignificant increases in temperature. Temperature, I have always claimed is a secondary effect.

Let's briefly examine the primary effect; 6 cm of sea-level rise. Even Magnnus should be able to multiply the 0.06m x Area of Ocean x heat need to melt ice and calculate the actual change in STATE of the Earth.

You can't refute this, it IS. Sorry Cali/Maggie/"What's a mole?", you can.

@team, Sorry, back to the matter at hand. Do I get points for being nice qv. above?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
I am having trouble with the site: You had blocks and blocks of numbers, they don't seem to be showing up again. Maybe we've reach the limit of blog-space? :) Try again later. That's what I get for responding to Maggie.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
Up again...
Again, I don't get the 18.8%.

I had hoped you would use MATLAB to create functions for precise absorption of CO2. High res spec reveals four major areas to concern, 2 delta-function like absorbency, a impact-function-like X^2 exp X^2 -like absorbency (the tall one) and a more gradual (X - X) exp -(X-X/range) -like one.

Ah, well, this should be fine, but again, If you are going to be square, don't you think you should minimize your band? I guessed I was going with a ridiculous 5x, your is probably more like 30x.

Unless of course I am looking completely the wrong way.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2014
Alche: You said:
Ah, well, this should be fine, but again, If you are going to be square, don't you think you should minimize your band? I guessed I was going with a ridiculous 5x, your is probably more like 30x.

Unless of course I am looking completely the wrong way.


Yes, I think you are wrong. Let me explain the mysterious 1.48. In Beer's law, the number of molecules is counted and is related to the intensity of the light passing through the medium. All the 1.48 is, is a constant that changes partial pressure of CO2 to the number of molecules. I could have done that myself, but this was easier. The factor takes total pressure in atmospheres and the mole fraction of CO2 expressed as ppm and converts it to molecules. The molecules then absorb light in proportion to their cross section and number and directly proportional to the intensity of the light going through. The result is the familiar Beer's law.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2014
@thermo about Cali-don't be too interested in his comments: 1. In all likelihood Calliban is just a avatar of Magnnus, and we all know what he has to say.

I am worried about iterations, you have claimed mucho more power than I am comfortable with, with each layer you'll be getting the famous Einsteinian compound interest effect, it is the most powerful force in the universe, and if you start with even something a little bigger than reality, well 5% iterated 10 times is 60%, unintended that's mucho error-doe.


You know, if you are going to whine, try to keep it real. You know I am not Cali, so how about you just leave off that bs and concentrate on what you're doing?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2014
n Beer's law, the number of molecules is counted and is related to the intensity of the light passing through the medium.
Ie: A=ebc where A is absorbence (Log^10*Po/P). e = the molar absorbtivity with units of L mol-1 cm-1, b = the path length, and c = the concentration of the compound. Right on the mark Thermo.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2014
Next vector:

70.50520799 67.72434467 65.08437446 62.57732143 60.19501945 57.92986923 55.77543122 53.72565572 51.77485751 49.91714515 48.14702368 46.45987433 44.85134748 43.31734588 41.85356551 40.45598342 39.12125175 37.8462105 36.62787618 35.46307151 34.34882038 33.28267122 32.26230491 31.28552712 30.34996312 29.45338416 28.59397802 27.77002682 26.97990167 26.22181212 25.49407436 24.79533631 24.12431365 23.47978618 22.8603877 22.264831 21.6920987 21.14122255 20.61128087 20.10122186 19.61005261 19.13700133 18.68133213 18.24234323 17.81921659 17.41117858 17.01763926 16.63803508 16.27182774 15.9183759 15.57707198 15.24746165 14.92911025 14.62160183 14.32442877 14.03710927 13.75929109 13.49063667 13.2308225 12.97944291 12.73611223 12.50055564 12.27250938

Cont:
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2014
Cont:

12.05172028 11.83786203 11.63062384 11.42979 11.23515317 11.04651405 10.86360817 10.68618322 10.5140689 10.34710129 10.18512262 10.0279162 9.875274961 9.727063791 9.583152471 9.443415498 9.307674425 9.175758426 9.047559781 8.922974544 8.801902413 8.684195804 8.569713193 8.458368279 8.350077689 8.244760881 8.142294088 8.042558428 7.94548451 7.851005224 7.759055667 7.66953198 7.582334234 7.497406408 7.414694268 7.334145314 7.255671326 7.179187288 7.104647837 7.032009019 6.961228238 6.89223096 6.824945228 6.759334166 6.695362008 6.632994066 6.572162831 6.512803036 6.454884808 6.398379152 6.343257915 6.289486055 6.237029589 6.185863146 6.135962095 6.087302528
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2014
@Caliban/Magnnus, well there is one effect that is did/does and will continue to predict that until recently, and don't deny it was until recently, that the most important impact was the world's ice, not insignificant increases in temperature. Temperature, I have always claimed is a secondary effect.

Let's briefly examine the primary effect; 6 cm of sea-level rise. Even Magnnus should be able to multiply the 0.06m x Area of Ocean x heat need to melt ice and calculate the actual change in STATE of the Earth.

You can't refute this, it IS. Sorry Cali/Maggie/"What's a mole?", you can.


Oh no you don't.

You make the claim of your model's ability, and if you fail to use it to generate any testable predictions, then you are no more than a liar, at the very best.

My money is on "liar" status for you, but there is still time for you to prove me wrong(and I know that you would like nothing more)...but you better get with it -the clock is ticking away, alky.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2014
Cont:

6.039782193 5.993301949 5.947843453 5.903388842 5.859920722 5.817419779 5.775867214 5.735247073 5.695543828 5.656742359 5.618804281 5.581692229 5.545393168 5.509894402 5.475183559 5.441227448 5.407993705 5.375471647 5.343650856 5.312521177 5.282053912 5.252221042 5.223013775 5.194423533 5.166441949 5.139043835 5.112204557 5.085916866 5.060173684 5.0349681 5.01027093 4.986053586 4.962310271 4.939035321 4.916223198 4.893868489 4.871965905 4.850510279 4.829496561 4.80891982 4.788750103 4.768957984

Cont
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2014
4.749539476 4.730490674 4.711807762 4.693487001 4.675524738 4.657917397 4.640661481 4.623753573 4.60716981 4.590886698 4.574901464 4.559211396 4.543813835 4.528706178 4.513885877 4.499350437 4.485097415 4.471124422 4.457412102 4.443941355 4.430710244 4.417716867 4.404959364 4.392435909 4.380144714 4.368084026 4.356252129 4.344647343 4.333253871 4.322056096 4.311052655 4.300242209 4.289623446 4.279195079 4.268955847 4.25890451 4.249039858 4.2393607 4.229853963

That completes the second string of numbers. You should be able to plot them and get an idea of how two different columns with the same lapse configuration behave. The difference between the two is that one has 280 ppmv (preindustrial) and the other has 400 ppmv (today). Remember, this does not have water vapor in it yet. This is just a look at what CO2 does. And, it is only the radiation from the ground at 288.15K, not the self-radiation from the layers of the atmosphere yet.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2014
a belated Happy Memorial Day to all you vets (both alive and not) out there... Thanks for your service
@Wydening Gyre
thank you. it is appreciated. You keep up the good work too.
In all likelihood Calliban is just a avatar of Magnnus
@Alche
sorry, no. Caliban is NOT Maggnus
they don't seem to be showing up again. Maybe we've reach the limit of blog-space? :) Try again later. That's what I get for responding to Maggie
question: you are running windows, aren't you?
it is more likely that this problem is your computer (maybe the servers- idk)
IF you have a good anti-virus (as well as anti-malware and anti-spyware) you should run it now, and run it MINIMUM weekly, more often if you are doing a lot of posting here. Windows and the advertising here (even with a paid subscription) tend to have issues
so because of the sheer volume of posts here, refresh often (F5) and make sure you keep the adware/spyware/malware/ A / V working & clean out cookies/temp files too
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2014
This is just a look at what CO2 does. And, it is only the radiation from the ground at 288.15K, not the self-radiation from the layers of the atmosphere yet.
Are we beginning to discern a pattern? What numbers you getting there Alchem?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
Now I am going to pass on two more sets of numbers. These are the numbers of each level of the atmosphere and this is the hemispherical emission from each level. This number is both the intensity of radiation up and the intensity of radiation down. It is then transmitted up through each element on the way up and each element on the way down. Going up this is added to the previous vectors. Going down it is not.

4.221446049 4.138634862 4.056734681 3.975741366 3.896801206 3.819882083 3.743820226 3.668611648 3.594252353 3.521794737 3.451208664 3.381425156 3.312440365 3.244250432 3.177834822 3.113164718 3.049244745 2.986071197 2.923640354 2.862846974 2.803664123 2.745181989 2.687397 2.63030557 2.574740018 2.520674592 2.467262544 2.414500436 2.362384821 2.311675094 2.262347126 2.21362785 2.165513963 2.118002149 2.071786584

Continued
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
Continued:

2.026844753 1.982469566 1.938657844 1.895406403 1.85335872 1.812493188 1.772153931 1.732337903 1.693042049 1.654851627 1.617746559 1.581129909 1.544998756 1.50935017 1.474716756 1.441079712 1.407895395 1.375161005 1.342873737 1.311521313 1.281085982 1.251069538 1.221469301 1.192282589 1.163953405 1.136465171 1.109363991 1.082647307 1.056312554 1.03076383 1.005985563 0.981564292 0.957497574 0.933782965 0.910783893 0.888485953 0.866516935 0.844874512 0.823556352 0.802895037 0.782876969 0.763161241 0.74374564 0.724627946 0.706108368 0.688174251 0.670517564 0.653136203 0.636028059 0.619460116 0.603420768 0.587635736 0.572103022 0.556820623 0.542031153 0.527723739 0.513648899 0.499804736 0.486189353 0.473020136 0.460286993 0.4477661 0.435455664 0.42335389 0.411656989 0.400355566 0.38924737 0.378330707 0.367603884 0.35723828

Continued.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2014
0.347225391 0.337388259 0.327725285 0.318234871 0.311104436 0.306209269 0.301319044 0.29643376 0.291553414 0.286793519 0.282150373 0.277507226 0.27286408 0.268220933 0.264018679 0.260257317 0.256495955 0.252734593 0.248973231 0.245225647 0.24149184 0.237758034 0.234024228 0.230290422 0.226698528 0.223248546 0.219798564 0.216348582 0.2128986 0.209579508 0.206391306 0.203203104 0.200014902 0.1968267 0.193758366 0.190809899 0.187861432 0.184912965 0.181964498 0.179127632 0.176402367 0.173677101 0.170951836 0.168226571 0.165652174 0.163228644 0.160805114 0.158381585 0.155958055 0.153534526 0.151110996 0.148687467 0.146263937 0.143840407 0.141593717 0.139523866 0.137454014 0.135384163 0.133314312 0.13124446 0.129174609 0.127104758 0.125034906 0.122965055 0.121045245 0.119275476 0.117505707 0.115735938 0.113966169 0.1121964 0.11042663 0.108656861 0.106887092 0.105117323 0.103476171 0.101963635 0.100451099 0.098938563 0.097426027 0.095913491 0.094400955 0.092888419 0.091375883 0.089863347 0.088460828 0.087168324 0.085875821 0.084583318 0.083290815 0.081998312 0.080705808 0.079413305 0.078120802 0.076828299 0.075704131
</