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

Antarctica
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

How hot did Earth get in the past? Scientists uncover new information

More information: "Pronounced zonal heterogeneity in Eocene southern high-latitude sea surface temperatures" PNAS, 2014. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321441111
Provided by Yale University
Citation: Today's Antarctic region once as hot as California, Florida (2014, April 21) retrieved 26 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-04-today-antarctic-region-hot-california.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 21, 2014
Isn't it funny how they fail to mention that temperature trends generally lead carbon dioxide trends, and not vice versa?

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.

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.

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?

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?


Apr 21, 2014
Please show me irrefutable proof that CO2 causes warming.

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

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.

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?

Apr 21, 2014
crickets!

Apr 21, 2014
Please show me irrefutable proof that CO2 causes warming.
Please show me irrefutable proof that you are alive.

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.

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.

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!


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."

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.

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...

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...

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.

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

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.

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.


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!

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.


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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

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.

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!

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).

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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/

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

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

Apr 23, 2014
Anybody interested in surface CO2 measurements from 140 sites in 45 countries?

http://www.esrl.n..._surface

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...:-)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

Apr 24, 2014
OK @Deepsand- I mean @Maggie, I'll read them again, maybe I missed the plots with temperature rates.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. (?)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. :)

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.

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.

Apr 25, 2014
Interesting this seemed to double post just now. I'm surprised that flood control lets it do this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Apr 25, 2014
Or maybe we're being watched... OOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOO

:D

@runrig-ditto on the thanks.

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


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.

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.

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.

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


Apr 26, 2014
Run: Thanks, those are great...

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/


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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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?

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.

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.

Apr 26, 2014
Sorry, 400ppm and 295ppm, 1.35%

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.

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.

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.


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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

May 01, 2014
Just a suggestion, but perhaps try searching Wolfram-Alpha for various material properties and computational guidance?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

May 05, 2014
Alche:

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

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


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.

May 05, 2014
The Barometric formula is confirmed below 86km. So someone has confirmed it with sounding rockets and weather balloons.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?


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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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

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 bel