Global warming

[CapelDodger]

Not clever, just pointing out figures like that are statistically meaningless with error bars that large.

You are forgiven, but don't let it happen again unless you're going to share.

Said figures and error-bars are entirely the product of mhaze's imagination. OK, mhaze can make up some stuff that's statistically meaningless. So what?

This only arose because mhaze was claiming 50-80% inaccuracy in ice-extent reports. Which is rubbish, I'm sure you'll agree. His "thought experiment", if I can so dignify it, was where he retreated to. Without, of course, conceding that his 50-80% inaccuracy claim was actually based on predictions, not reports, and was therefore bollocks.

This was another thread, as I recall; it can be hard to keep track.

 

[CapelDodger]

I heard that no one has solved the warmers problem, that you can't warm the planet by 5C just adding CO2, even taking albedo into account.

What about taking water vapour and methane feedbacks into account?

(Actually, I was hoping for something on Africa. No news from there? Apart from the floods, of course.)

 

[a_unique_person]

The important point is that there is energy flowing from the red hot block of metal to the white hot block of metal. That extra energy will make the white hot block of metal slightly hotter than if the red hot block of metal wasn't there.

Of course the net energy flow is from the white hot block of metal to the red hot block of metal, just as the net energy flow is from earth's surface to the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean the atmosphere cannot provide energy to the surface.

What he said .

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Regarding the possible consequences of CO2 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. With CO2 we are talking about "three body problems". The interaction of the molecules with the rest of the atmosphere are impossible to model with computers. It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy. In turn this implies lab experiments on CO2 do not provide a valid factual basis for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere.

Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.
​

Originally Posted by AUP
I know I'm going out on a limb here, but that sounds like utter piffle.
​

The important point is that there is energy flowing from the red hot block of metal to the white hot block of metal. That extra energy will make the white hot block of metal slightly hotter than if the red hot block of metal wasn't there.

Of course the net energy flow is from the white hot block of metal to the red hot block of metal, just as the net energy flow is from earth's surface to the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean the atmosphere cannot provide energy to the surface.

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

 

[CapelDodger]

Your reference does not support your assertion. Further, it presumes a 1% CO2 rise per year, it does a 1000 year projection, and the 3C - 6C "worst case" is for 1200 ppm CO2. There is NO mention of tipping points, which are the basis for your entire Alarmist point of view.

Using the data on the page you reference, and it's projections LR is correct.

Burning all fossil fuel reserves, you could not reach a 5C increase.

The 3-6C includes 5C. So how does the data support that it can't reach 5C? It kinda says that it can.

It's not just the fossil-fuels you have to take into account, there's also CO2 and methane from melting permafrost. That's already happening, which may represent a tipping-point that's already been passed.

If the Amazon rain-forest dies back to savannah there'll be another big chunk of CO2 from there. That's being watched closely.

Tipping-points and 5C-plus climate change are evident in climate history. Look what happens between a glaciation and an inter-glaciation. A slow warming, then wham, a whole new tempo. That's a tipping-point.

Misuse of references, intellectual dishonesty, and a refusal on repeated requests to acknowledge the problems.

On a different tack, there are severe problems with the Avery-Singer indeterminate cycle if it's solely based on D-O events. Which apparently it is. Those involve very sudden warmings around Greenland when some tipping-point is reached, and bear no similarity to what's going on in the real world.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

There are several factors in the computer models that cannot be directly modeled, but are incorporated via observation and tuning. That this has to be done seems to be one of the big complaints about the models, but they still come up with reasonable outputs.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

The sentence actually being referred to is

Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.

You said that for some reason. And, as has been pointed out, it's bollocks.

As to your highlighted sentence, it's not impossible to know how the energy is absorbed. There's plenty of theory available, and observations to test it on. Most of the radiation is absorbed by conversion to kinetic energy.

Observation of the big bad analogue experiment supports the theory. If you take a look around you'll notice that the atmosphere is getting warmer - just as theory predicts.

 

[CapelDodger]

Your reading skills are in a low tipping point AUP

Your posting skills are clearly at a low ebb.

I distinctly remember you posting that McIntyre, fresh from from cooling-down the US, was in the process of cooling-down Africa and there was some big announcement coming soon. That was a while back. Any progress on that, or has McIntyre lost his mojo?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

The sentence actually being referred to is

Quote:
Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.​

You said that for some reason. And, as has been pointed out, it's bollocks.

Care to elaborate on that a bit?

 

[a_unique_person]

Care to elaborate on that a bit?

It's about 30 years since I did some basic thermodynamics. The classic science story was the turn of previous century, physicists seemed to have all the basic science under control, it was just a matter of refining the existing knowledge. Except for the black body radiation issue, but it was assumed that was just a minor detail to be worked out.

Radiation, it turned out, was emitted not as a continuous stream, but as particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

As Oponol has already said, the energy is radiated by earth, but a part of it is captured in the troposphere by gas molecules, some of which will be CO2. It is then re-emitted in a random direction. Some of this will go back to earth. Then it will be re-emitted again. Less of this will be captured. The sun will continually feed this cycle. The net effect is to slightly raise the temperature of the earth. The "greenhouse effect", not by convection, but by radiation. Increase the amount of CO2, you increase the amount of radiation trapped.

 

[mhaze]

It's about 30 years since I did some basic thermodynamics. The classic science story was the turn of previous century, physicists seemed to have all the basic science under control, it was just a matter of refining the existing knowledge. Except for the black body radiation issue, but it was assumed that was just a minor detail to be worked out.

Radiation, it turned out, was emitted not as a continuous stream, but as particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

As Oponol has already said, the energy is radiated by earth, but a part of it is captured in the troposphere by gas molecules, some of which will be CO2. It is then re-emitted in a random direction. Some of this will go back to earth. Then it will be re-emitted again. Less of this will be captured. The sun will continually feed this cycle. The net effect is to slightly raise the temperature of the earth. The "greenhouse effect", not by convection, but by radiation. Increase the amount of CO2, you increase the amount of radiation trapped.

And as they head downward, every photon that collides with another molecule is thousands of times likelier to hit a water molecule than another CO2 molecule, because of the relative ratios of those molecules. Every time gas gets another bundle of kinetic energy, it expands slightly relative to the gravity field - using up that kinetic energy.

Sure looks like this is primarily a convective heat transfer system, not radiative. But you would like to focus on the (approximate) 1/1000 of the energy system that is radiative and claim that it is the major driver.

O....kay.....

Which does lead us right back to Kristian Byrnes comments -
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Another problem that has been suggested with the whole radiative-heat transfer theory proposed by the IPCC is because as altitude increases, density decreases, thus leading to fewer and fewer collisions. There are fewer molecules in a unit of space above than below. I would agree that CO2 molecules would suffer fewer collisions at higher altitudes and have a chance to relax and emit their photons in all directions, 50% in an upward direction and 50% in a downward direction. But the photons headed upward are going to travel farther than the photons traveling downward because of the lower density above. Further, as the photons travel downward and are absorbed by CO2 molecules, they are again subjected to collisions. This makes me wonder how a photon can make it back to the surface of the earth and reheat the surface.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[oponol]

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

"It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy."

I don't see why it's impossible to know, it's physics all the way down.

 

[oponol]

And as they head downward, every photon that collides with another molecule is thousands of times likelier to hit a water molecule than another CO2 molecule, because of the relative ratios of those molecules.

Depends on the height, water vapor concentration drops off exponentially with height wheras co2 concentration is virtually constant throughout the lower atmosphere. At higher heights the chance of colliding with a co2 molecule rather than a water vapor molecule becomes higher.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Another problem that has been suggested with the whole radiative-heat transfer theory proposed by the IPCC is because as altitude increases, density decreases, thus leading to fewer and fewer collisions. There are fewer molecules in a unit of space above than below. I would agree that CO2 molecules would suffer fewer collisions at higher altitudes and have a chance to relax and emit their photons in all directions, 50% in an upward direction and 50% in a downward direction. But the photons headed upward are going to travel farther than the photons traveling downward because of the lower density above. Further, as the photons travel downward and are absorbed by CO2 molecules, they are again subjected to collisions. This makes me wonder how a photon can make it back to the surface of the earth and reheat the surface.[/FONT][/FONT]

Because all layers are emitting downward and all layers are being warmed by absorbing photons emitted from layers above. It cascades down.

 

[mhaze]

Depends on the height, water vapor concentration drops off exponentially with height wheras co2 concentration is virtually constant throughout the lower atmosphere. At higher heights the chance of colliding with a co2 molecule rather than a water vapor molecule becomes higher.

Because all layers are emitting downward and all layers are being warmed by absorbing photons emitted from layers above. It cascades down.

It might be useful to simplify here (for the purposes of discussion) and assume that all downward tracks at the 30,000 foot level are absorbed by water vapor, and all upward tracks at th 30,000 foot level are absorbed by CO2. All downward tracks then affect the water cycle and radiative downward impacts are laughably small.

But leaving the effects on the water cycle aside, your exposition above of the radiative model is still inadequate, as you neglect to mention that in all of those layers subject to that radiative cascading, air is getting thermal energy, and as it heats up, the entire air mass moves up and/or sideways, but seldom down.

Just saying that a cold layer can transmit energy to a hot layer by way of re emission of photons (radiative) is clearly wrong. Both kinetic and radiative mechanisms must be accounted for in their relative proportional impacts on energy transfer.

Because of these factors, I think that my original assertion that standard AGW/IPCC 2007 overemphasizes the "radiative model" is essentially correct (leaving aside a heap of published work in 2007 that supports my position).

 

[a_unique_person]

It might be useful to simplify here (for the purposes of discussion) and assume that all downward tracks at the 30,000 foot level are absorbed by water vapor, and all upward tracks at th 30,000 foot level are absorbed by CO2. All downward tracks then affect the water cycle and radiative downward impacts are laughably small.

But leaving the effects on the water cycle aside, your exposition above of the radiative model is still inadequate, as you neglect to mention that in all of those layers subject to that radiative cascading, air is getting thermal energy, and as it heats up, the entire air mass moves up and/or sideways, but seldom down.

Just saying that a cold layer can transmit energy to a hot layer by way of re emission of photons (radiative) is clearly wrong. Both kinetic and radiative mechanisms must be accounted for in their relative proportional impacts on energy transfer.

Because of these factors, I think that my original assertion that standard AGW/IPCC 2007 overemphasizes the "radiative model" is essentially correct (leaving aside a heap of published work in 2007 that supports my position).

Clearly wrong? What do you think the researchers have been doing all these years with all that research money? Every point that has been raised as a doubt, the scientists have already thought of. That's their job, that's why they have conferences, that's why they pool specialist knowledge. The idea that they could miss the bleeding obvious that some amateur on the internet thought of, is a common meme, but it's ridiculous.

The warming has been measured, on the ground. McIntyre, for all his waffling on and childish 'waldo' games, verified it to himself on his own web site. His response is to find points in the Southern Hemisphere to cherry pick, where the prediction already is that the Southern Hemisphere will not warm as quickly.

The completely independent Australian temperature record verifies the world temperature record, a rise in anomolies, although it is not as high as the rise in the Northern Hemisphere, as predicted by the models.

 

[CapelDodger]

Because all layers are emitting downward and all layers are being warmed by absorbing photons emitted from layers above. It cascades down.

And gets kicked back up, and sideways. It's like a frickin' pinball machine up there. Eventually the ball always goes down the slot; put in some extra bumpers and, on average, it'll stick around longer. In the end - in equilibrium - the infra-red photons emitted from the top of the fluid skin on Planet Earth will equal, in energy, the photons coming in.

There's really nothing freaky about that, is there? And yet it seems an impossible struggle to get it across. Human nature - waddaygonnado?

 

[CapelDodger]

And as they head downward, every photon that collides with another molecule is thousands of times likelier to hit a water molecule than another CO2 molecule, because of the relative ratios of those molecules.

True, and the same applies to a photon heading in any direction - up, down, sideways. But why is that water-vapour there?

If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - entirely infra-red transparent - there would be no liquid water at the surface, and the tiniest wisp of water-vapour during daylight (from sublimation). Water-vapour is only in the atmosphere in significant quantities because the greenhouse effect of CO2 raises much of the Earth's surface above freezing-point.

Water-vapour is a feedback not a forcing.

Every time gas gets another bundle of kinetic energy, it expands slightly relative to the gravity field - using up that kinetic energy.

Expands relative to the gravity field? WTF is that supposed to mean?

The gas that's getting the extra kinetic energy is the entire troposphere. It has nowhere to expand to except upwards. It also has the option of increasing its pressure, and in practice it does both. The tropopause moves up until pressure is equalised with the stratospheric pressure.

The predicted rise of the tropopause has been observed.

Sure looks like this is primarily a convective heat transfer system, not radiative. But you would like to focus on the (approximate) 1/1000 of the energy system that is radiative and claim that it is the major driver.

Within the troposphere there is a predominant convective element to heat transfer, but at the tropopause that convection pretty much stops, and it's clearly nonsense to suggest that convection is the mechanism by which the atmosphere as a whole emits energy into space. It's all radiative out there.

 

[mhaze]

Clearly wrong? What do you think the researchers have been doing all these years with all that research money? Every point that has been raised as a doubt, the scientists have already thought of. That's their job, that's why they have conferences, that's why they pool specialist knowledge. The idea that they could miss the bleeding obvious that some amateur on the internet thought of, is a common meme, but it's ridiculous.

With all due respect, the argument from Authority should be rejected.

Reason: No authoritative source reference provided that covers the base material summaried in these now familiar questions 1 and 3.

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

 

[CapelDodger]

It might be useful to simplify here (for the purposes of discussion) and assume that all downward tracks at the 30,000 foot level are absorbed by water vapor, and all upward tracks at th 30,000 foot level are absorbed by CO2. All downward tracks then affect the water cycle and radiative downward impacts are laughably small.

That's just laughable. Why should water-vapour be transparent on the way up but not transparent on the way down? You may find some use for that idea, but doesn't simplify matters.

Here's the simple picture. Planet Earth is a big ball of rock. Covering its surface is a very thin skin of fluids. Radiation from the Sun introduces energy into the fluid (and an even thinner layer of said ball of rock), and the fluid layer emits the same amount - by radiation, the currency the energy arrived in, the currency of Space. This applies, of course, when the fluid skin is in equilibrium with its surroundings.

When it's out of equilibrium - as it is now - energy in doesn't balance energy out, and the fluid skin warms or cools. Currently, for well-understood reasons, energy in is greater than energy out and the fluid skin is warming.

It's simple, really.

 

[a_unique_person]

With all due respect, the argument from Authority should be rejected.

Reason: No authoritative source reference provided that covers the base material summaried in these now familiar questions 1 and 3.

Not if the person is relying on an Authority in that field, which I am. Face it, a few guys babbling on on the internet is not substitute for hard research, money and man-hours.

I also believe you are still making an argument from ignorance. There is plenty of research out there that answers your questions, if you go out there and find it, and read it.

Have you read the whole of the IPCC TAR4 yet?

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Christies own temperature records, (once he removed the errors that he didn't want to find), do just that, the troposphere is warming, the stratosphere is cooling, exactly as predicted.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

Read the 4AR. You did say 'any', and it's quite clearly demonstrated using the temperature record and models. I suspect that won't be good enough for you, though.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century