Handbook for AGW sceptics

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>>So, then, tell me, how is it that CO2 knows to let infrared radiation in but not let it out?

Seriously? Dude, you need to go pick up a basic physics book. Read the chapter on wavelength absorption spectrum. Also read up on black bodies and reflectivity. Kinda takes away from your entire credibility when you make statements that show a lack of understanding of even the most basic science concepts.

So this is where it has become. People who agree with me that it isn't "insulation" (except kallend, who says it depends on what the word "insulation" is) are telling me that I don't understand it.

Meanwhile, just yesterday, I post about the water heated in a pot. Sure, I didn't refer to Planck - I hadn't studied Planck and didn't know that the effect that I described was called Planck's law.

But when I point out to the guy that it isn't insulation then I'm the boob.

Gee - instead of leaping to conclusions, try comprehending what I'm writing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is the conclusion not blindingly obvious?

No, not really. How is thins causing global warming again?

It's only not blindingly obvious to those who wilfully keep their heads in the sand.

Then explain it, John.

Explain how CO2 CONTINUES to rise, yet the temps are DECREASING.

Conversely, you could continue squawking about "ZOMG CO2!!!!!111"

Next winter will be cooler than this summer too - you do NOT have a point.

Of course I don't - after all, I don't agree with the consensus!!!

I can understand your reluctance to answer the question, though.

www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_11yr_avg.gif


And removing the El Nino effect from the data:

www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_no_enso.gif

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

You asked me if I'd put on a sweater if I was getting warmer. I pointed to some examples when, yes, I would. And you find this irrelevant? I answered your damned question and provided my reasons for saying that there are times when I may not.

I understand that you may perhaps be ignorant of certain circumstances, such as the symptomological progression of hypothermia. Or why a person running a 104 body temperature may cover himself with a space blanket.

If you have hypothermia or 104F body temeperature you shouldn't be playing here!

Quote

Quote

Have you discovered WHY CO2 lets in solar radiation but blocks Earth radiation yet?

Yes. I find it to do little with insulation and more to do with the IR absorptive properties of the stuff.

If you define insulation as blocking the flow of (heat/electricity/whatever) then it's an insulator. If you more narrrowly define it to apply only to certain types of transfer such as convection, then it's not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,078]

>how is it that CO2 knows to let infrared radiation in but not let it out?

It doesn't "let it in" any more from one direction than the other.

However, like many materials, it is transparent at some frequencies and opaque at others. Think of it like a piece of blue glass. Blue glass lets blue light (=higher frequency light) through but not red light (=lower frequency light.)

Regular (soda-lime) clear glass also works as a greenhouse material. It lets visible light pass but doesn't let infrared light pass. Attached below is the transmission spectrum from glass. Note that it is transparent from 400-800nm (visible light) and also allows some IR (up to 2700nm) and a tiny bit of UV (down to 300nm.)

This is good for us. It means we can see through it, but it blocks UV so we don't get much UV exposure. It also allows shortwave IR through, so you can use infrared cameras with regular glass lenses.

But if you try to send longwave IR through, it blocks it. This makes it very useful for greenhouses. If you make a greenhouse out of glass, the light coming in (400-800nm) hits the dirt and warms up the greenhouse. At night, the warm dirt tries to radiate the heat back into space via longwave radiation; this radiation is why you get frost. If the dirt is 95 degrees, the primary blackbody frequency is 9500nm. Glass is opaque at this frequency, so it can't escape. The glass blocks it; it absorbs some (and so gets warmer) and reflects some (and so warms the greenhouse.) And so your tomatoes survive and prosper.

That's glass. Now on to CO2:

CO2 is similar to glass. It blocks some frequencies and lets others through. Below is the transmission spectra of CO2 (and a few other gases.) Note the spectrum of oxygen - it's clear from 400 to 800nm (.4 to .8 um) except for one notch around 400nm. Which, BTW, is why the sky is blue.

CO2 is clear down to about 2000nm. Its most important absorption bands are around 10,000nm, because that's where we radiate most of our heat. The more CO2, the more longwave radiation cannot escape, and the more stays in our atmosphere.

This is a good thing overall. The greenhouse effect afforded by CO2 (and water vapor, and methane) is why our planet is habitable at all. Another bit of good news is that the transmission bands of CO2 are already almost saturated; in other words, if you double the CO2 content you don't double the heat retained by that gas, because the atmosphere is almost opaque at that frequency already. The effect is pretty small - only a few tenths of a percent additional heat retained if we double the amount.

We're not there yet. We've increased CO2 concentrations by about 50%, which means a .1% increase in retained heat (or about a watt per square meter.) That's a tiny part of the 150 watts per square meter we get from all the greenhouse gases, which is why we're talking about average temperature increases of a few degrees C and not 50 degrees C.

>It sounds as though you suggest that insulation is a one-way valve
>that lets the heat in and doesn't let it out.

No, it's more like a perfectly insulated house with a big south-facing window. It's going to get VERY hot in the summer - because energy enters as light, gets converted to heat, and then can't get back out. That insulation doesn't help you keep the sunlight out, because even a perfectly insulated window is transparent to visible light.

[JackC 0]

Quote

It sounds as though you suggest that insulation is a one-way valve that lets the heat in and doesn't let it out. An interesting thought. But thermodynamics 101 would suggest otherwise.

How can you have the gaul to try and argue your corner when you don't even understand the most basic scientific principles related to the subject?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

It sounds as though you suggest that insulation is a one-way valve that lets the heat in and doesn't let it out. An interesting thought. But thermodynamics 101 would suggest otherwise.

How can you have the gaul to try and argue your corner when you don't even understand the most basic scientific principles related to the subject?

I believe that gaul is in france...


The thing about this is that when you start excluding reputable scientists from the debate on account of their conclusions, it becomes a political issue open to anyone who wants to speak. And then we have absurdity like the G8 ordering the climate to "cease and desist" it's warming.

My all time favorite quote is very applicable here:

"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled"

- Richard P, Feynman

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

You're exactly right, bill. (See? I've said it many times, billvon is not always wrong).

And, the shortwave IR radiation comes in and is absorbed by the earth - which is why the asphalt gets hot. This radiation will then be re-emitted by the soil (such as in the evening through the radiative cooling) where it is captured by the clouds/CO2, etc. This is then re-emitted - in all directions including down. I conjunctions with the facts that heat moves to where heat lacks, not only is there some radiation emitted back down but the surface radiation slows, as well. Thus increasing surface warming.

In theory, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more long-wave IR will be absorbed and re-radiated. This is demonstrable.

This is where aerosols come in. And it is my own personal theory as to why we have not seen the degree of warming that was predicted. Even the IPCC submits that aersols have a cooling effect. Particularly Mie aersols, which scatter short-wave radiation but do nothing with long-wavelength radiation.

Large water droplets, as seen in such things as cirrus clouds, tend to reflect back the long-wave IR while letting in most shortwave. These clouds are formed by large droplets where aerosols are not as numerous.

But where aerosols are in greater contentration there is the formation of smaller drops and larger clouds. These allow the long-wave IR to escape and pretty effectively block out the sunlight. Thanks to newer technology and other requirements, most of the industrialized world has managed to slow down the carbon aerosols that can themselves capture heat.

My thought - aerosols are being underestimated. What if the aerosol cooling effect is now being underestimated (as opposed to the 1970's, where aerosol cooling was the reason why many believed a new anthropogenic ice age could occur. Hey, the science behind aerosols supported it.

What if BOTH sides are right. Could aerosols be canceling out greenhouse gases? And vice versa?

A low estimation of the effects of aerosols and the associated Mie scattering could explain why the predictions haven't rung true.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

People can quite happily understand that you stay warmer wearing an extra jumper, or that your house stays warmer with loft insulation but cannot make the mental leap to something the size of a planet. They somehow think the laws of physics are different when the scale of things get beyond what they are used to.

People also think that the sun has little to do with something like climate. People somehow think that the sun's output is static.

Amazingly, there are people aver that such warming as they see has never happened before. "Unprecedented."

Predictions on things like rainfall are so hardhitting that they suggest that increases in floods and droughts may occur, as well as lesser increases and decreases in precipitation in other places. why, the models predict that some places may experience no changes, or they may.

Thus, it is ensures that if something big, something small, or if nothing happens, it is consistent with the models. A lack of evidence is something that is predicted. Thus, no evidence of global warming can be and will be spun into it being consistent with the predictions.

Intuition aint evidence. Predictions aren't evidence.

You left it very very short by not adding that......

"Hell dude! Even evidence isnt evidence"!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

A low estimation of the effects of aerosols and the associated Mie scattering could explain why the predictions haven't rung true.

Your opinions are not helpful, and we will thank you not to attend the conference.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

It sounds as though you suggest that insulation is a one-way valve that lets the heat in and doesn't let it out. An interesting thought. But thermodynamics 101 would suggest otherwise.

How can you have the gaul to try and argue your corner when you don't even understand the most basic scientific principles related to the subject?

You brought up insulation. "More insulation means more heat trapped."

It's not like insulation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

A low estimation of the effects of aerosols and the associated Mie scattering could explain why the predictions haven't rung true.

Your opinions are not helpful, and we will thank you not to attend the conference.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JackC 0]

Quote

You brought up insulation. "More insulation means more heat trapped."

It's not like insulation.

What would you call it then?

So we've agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it allows visible and UV light in but wont let IR out), that atmospheric CO2 concentration are increasing, that mankind is producing a net increase in atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels and that thermodynamics is right. Yet you somehow still think there is some complication that negates all of thise facts and magically stops them from adding up to AGW. What is this magic you are proposing?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You brought up insulation. "More insulation means more heat trapped."

It's not like insulation.

What would you call it then?

So we've agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it allows visible and UV light in but wont let IR out), that atmospheric CO2 concentration are increasing, that mankind is producing a net increase in atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels and that thermodynamics is right. Yet you somehow still think there is some complication that negates all of thise facts and magically stops them from adding up to AGW. What is this magic you are proposing?

The magic of temperatures leading CO2 levels and not the reverse.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,078]

>So, does this mean that we can continue to pump CO2 in the
>atmosphere but global warming will take a few years off?

Nope. It's already "taken off."

>From what I've seen put out by many, we cannot pin global warming
>on anything else. Those other things are not involved with this.

?? If nothing else warmed the planet we'd all be dead. Our climate is the result of dozens of factors, greenhouse gases, and feedback loops. We are significantly changing only one factor - which is why the warming is small.

>This explaims the downward estimates. A model predicting a 1.5 C
>temperature increase by 2010, done in 1998, should be updated with
>observations.

Of course - which is why the IPCC updates their estimates with time.

>The climate models appear to generally assume greenhouse gas
>changes to be exponential.

?? There are a lot of models, some assuming exponential increases (i.e. we follow current trends) some assuming linear increases (i.e. we do a little bit to reduce CO2 emissions) and some assuming decreases (i.e. we do a lot to reduce CO2.) That's why the latest IPCC report has a lot of cases.

>A lab experiment can show me that as I add heat to my pot of water. . .

>The models seems to make assumptions that the lid will lead to
>constant growth in water temperature. This is counterintuitive to me.

?? Uh, no. The pot will increase in temperature until the pot is radiating/convecting more heat, at which point it will be back in equilibrium. It may take 15 minutes, but eventually it will reach equilibrium at a higher temperature provided nothing else changes dramatically (like all the water boils off.)

In your example, the addition of a lid increased the average temperature of the system, but the heat input and output remained the same. That's very similar to what's happening now.

[billvon 3,078]

>This is where aerosols come in. And it is my own personal theory as to
>why we have not seen the degree of warming that was predicted.

That is quite possible, although (IMO) unlikely, since we can monitor aerosols pretty easily. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that CO2 is indeed decreasing reradiation of infrared, but an additional mechanism is increasing the albedo of the earth at about the same rate, thus reducing the amount of sunlight absorbed.

To prove that theory, you'd have to demonstrate that the amount of light reflected by the atmosphere has gone up over the past 30 years or so. The data I've seen has indicated that that's not the case, but you might be able to argue that the spectral bands where all this reflection occurs is not adequately covered by current satellite observation.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You brought up insulation. "More insulation means more heat trapped."

It's not like insulation.

What would you call it then?

So we've agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it allows visible and UV light in but wont let IR out), that atmospheric CO2 concentration are increasing, that mankind is producing a net increase in atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels and that thermodynamics is right. Yet you somehow still think there is some complication that negates all of thise facts and magically stops them from adding up to AGW. What is this magic you are proposing?

The magic of temperatures leading CO2 levels and not the reverse.

How do you know "not the reverse"? Never before have any creatures caused such a huge rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Please cite a study showing that raising atmospheric CO2 levels can not increase global temperatures.

[lawrocket 3]

I haven't seen anything that reflects that the long-wave IR albedo has decreased consistent with IR output by the sun. The greenhouse gases, if holding absorbing the radiation, should be muffling the IR albedo.

Then again, the IR albedo could only show that greenhouse warming is NOT occurring. If homeostasis (is that the right word in this discussion? Maybe thermodynamic stability?) has been reached for the time being, then the albedo will be the same if we start now and it remains stable for ten years.

In other words, if the warming already occurred and it is stable, there may be no albedo comparison in the long IR wavelength to show that IR albedo dropped 2% between 1978 and 2006. It'd be like measuring the water temperature change in my notional pot of water for a period after the lid was put on.

Thus, it's another thing that really cannot be proven. Long-wave IR albedo shift could be a smoking gun. But - and I repeat - without the long-term data there would only be supposition.

Quote

To prove that theory, you'd have to demonstrate that the amount of light reflected by the atmosphere has gone up over the past 30 years or so.

Not necessarily. This is where the solar cycles come in. In the event that the sun is putting out less energy, the total albedo might not change as more light is reflected. Temperature may still increase, however, in the event that the gases are able to trap more of the long-wave IR.

If the monitoring is for IR undifferentiated, then we might not see much of a difference as less longwave can be made up by an excess of short wave that had aerosol scattering. If I've got a lid on my pot, I can turn down the heat a bit and get that water warmer than if I kept the lid off and had the same energy directed to it.


p.s. - Bill - I seriously haven't read this anywhere. These are my own thoughts. Educating myself on these things undoubtedly leads to thinking outside the box.

But, I am actually somewhat heartened that you see my point actually may actually have some merit. Mainly because I actually gather in what you post.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Please cite a study showing that raising atmospheric CO2 levels can not increase global temperatures.

He's not saying that it cannot. He is saying that it doesn't seem to be happening. How come 2008 - with 10 additional years of CO2, was colder.

NASA-GISS says that 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, but still the 9th warmest in the period of instrumental measurements. 1998 still ranks as the hottest. With each year having more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, why is the earth's temperature not following suit and rising?

CO2 = global warming.
Therefore, more CO2 should equal more global warming.
We have more CO2 in air now than in 1998.
Therefore, now should be warmer.
Now is not warmer - in fact, it's cooler.

Mike asks - "Why?" I ask, "Why?" Many of us ask, "Why?"

What the hell is going on?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Please cite a study showing that raising atmospheric CO2 levels can not increase global temperatures.

He's not saying that it cannot.

He wrote "NOT the reverse" (emphasis mine)

Quote

He is saying that it doesn't seem to be happening. How come 2008 - with 10 additional years of CO2, was colder.

NASA-GISS says that 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, but still the 9th warmest in the period of instrumental measurements.

You (and Mike, who does it quite deliberately I'm sure) confuse short term (decade or so) statistical fluctuations in climate, like El Nino events, with long term trends. If you look at the running average, the long term warming trend is very apparent.

1998 WAS an El Nino year, hence it's exceptional warmth.

www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_no_enso.gif

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,078]

>I haven't seen anything that reflects that the long-wave IR albedo has
>decreased consistent with IR output by the sun. The greenhouse gases, if
>holding absorbing the radiation, should be muffling the IR albedo.

Well, long-wave IR is going to be pretty independent of the IR radiated by the sun. The greenhouse effect concerns re-radiated longwave IR, not incident or reflected IR.

> If homeostasis (is that the right word in this discussion? Maybe
>thermodynamic stability?) has been reached for the time being, then the
>albedo will be the same if we start now and it remains stable for ten
>years.

Again, not really. Albedo is reflected energy. We're more worried about re-radiated energy. As an example, a mirror might have an albedo of nearly 1 (100%) because it reflects light, but be freezing cold and emit almost no re-radiated IR. A black metal bar heated to 2000 degrees might have a very low albedo but be emitting tons of infrared radiation - and even some visible radiation - due to its temperature and consequent blackbody radiation. The emitted blackbody radiation does not "count towards" its albedo.

However, if we do reach a new 'homeostasis', you're right in that the re-radiated infrared will increase in intensity until it 'overcomes' the blocking effect of the new CO2. Thus the energy will be maintained, although the blackbody curve will be subtly different because a warmer body emits at a different spectra than a cooler body.

>Not necessarily. This is where the solar cycles come in. In the event
>that the sun is putting out less energy, the total albedo might not change
>as more light is reflected.

If the sun is putting out less EM energy, and the albedo stays the same, the amount of light reflected (and the amount of light absorbed) must decrease, because absorbed+reflected light must equal incident light. However, as you point out, other mechanisms that can affect energy balance (like decreased or increased re-radiation) may come into play as well.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You (and Mike, who does it quite deliberately I'm sure) confuse short term (decade or so) statistical fluctuations in climate, like El Nino events, with long term trends.

So, short term things like the last ten years don't count.

What is the one and only correct answer for the proper trend length? I could go back 10k years to the last big Ice Age and show a trend of increasing temperature. I could go back 5 million years and show a trend of decreasign temperature - still low, in fact.

Is 150 years an anomaly? It appears to be - the medieval climate optimum lasted about 500 years. So the last 150 years are but a hiccup. The little Ice Age lasted for a bit longer, as well.

So, what do such short-term climate trends as the last 150 years tell us when compared to other trends, say, 10,000 years? I'll pick my preferred trend and you pick yours.

By the way - we appears to be forming a decent el nino this year.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

CO2 = global warming.
Therefore, more CO2 should equal more global warming.
We have more CO2 in air now than in 1998.
Therefore, now should be warmer.
Now is not warmer - in fact, it's cooler.

Mike asks - "Why?" I ask, "Why?" Many of us ask, "Why?"

What the hell is going on?

You're using a single year (1998) for the baseline of your comparison. It's a mistake that is leading you to an invalid conclusion. Try comparing the average temperature from 1989-1998 to the average temperature from 1999-2008. A long term warming trend does not imply that every year will be warmer than the previous year.

(Note that I don't know what such a comparison will show, only that it avoids the mistake I highlighted. The data would likely still need to be corrected for solar cycles, etc. before any reliable conclusions could be drawn.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

You (and Mike, who does it quite deliberately I'm sure) confuse short term (decade or so) statistical fluctuations in climate, like El Nino events, with long term trends.

So, short term things like the last ten years don't count.

What is the one and only correct answer for the proper trend length? I could go back 10k years to the last big Ice Age and show a trend of increasing temperature. I could go back 5 million years and show a trend of decreasign temperature - still low, in fact.

Is 150 years an anomaly? It appears to be - the medieval climate optimum lasted about 500 years. So the last 150 years are but a hiccup. The little Ice Age lasted for a bit longer, as well.

So, what do such short-term climate trends as the last 150 years tell us when compared to other trends, say, 10,000 years? I'll pick my preferred trend and you pick yours.

By the way - we appears to be forming a decent el nino this year.

Once again, picking an El Nino year as your basis of comparison is not only dumb, it's deliberately misleading. 1998 was an EN year, and it was hotter than any previous EN year.

You need to compare like with like.

Did you even bother to look at the graph I linked with a correction for the EN effect? Your post suggests you did not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

Quote

What is the one and only correct answer for the proper trend length? I could go back 10k years to the last big Ice Age and show a trend of increasing temperature. I could go back 5 million years and show a trend of decreasign temperature - still low, in fact.

There is no prefered trend length, there are many trend lengths. You have diurnal cycles, Milankovic cycles, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, El Niño Southern Oscillation, Pacific decadal oscillation, the Arctic oscillation, the North Atlantic oscillation, Hale cycles and many more. To try and measure AGW you need to strip away all of those cycles and the many feedback mechanisms to get to the underlying basline. And despite all of these complications you still have the known physical facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the atmospheric concentreation of it is increasing and thermodynamics works.

IMHO there is a massive problem with people getting all their information from pop science sources (or worse still, the conspiracy theorists dressed up as pop scientists). From astronomy to zoology; people who learn from pop science sources always, always, always have the wrong end of the stick. They have mastered the big words but they do not understand the underlying concepts and this is because big words sell pop science books, underlying concepts put people off. To paraphrase Steven Hawking "every equation in a pop science book halfs the readership", and to paraphrase my old physics prof on science without maths "you have physics with calculus, physics without calculus, and physics without physics". Pop science is living proof of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[billvon 3,078]

>What is the one and only correct answer for the proper trend length?

Probably a length we can affect, and a length we can measure.

In 8 billion years or so the earth will get very hot. 4 billion years ago it was also very hot. So those are probably out.

Likewise, go back 6 months in the northen hemisphere and it was _much_ colder, so that's a bad length of time as well.

You can pick any interval you like to prove whatever you like. But when you look at CO2 vs temperature over the past 200 years the trend is pretty clear. (Unless, of course, your job depends on not seeing it.)