Simple Question About AGW

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, except for the following:

CO2 and Water absorb infared at differing wavelegths, so CO2 is transparent at the wavelength water absobs at and vice versa, although there is some overlap.

I think we can already see a 0.5 C increase due to CO2 and we have not doubled yet.

A question.

Does the absorbed radiation get re-emitted at the same frequency, or can it be re-emitted at a differrent frequency?

 

[Slimething]

So there you go. Find data of troposphere temperature measurements why is it important. The important thing is to make sure is not yet another contrarian straw man.

I don't think I have to go find it. mhaze has posted it. CapelDodger has stated that a tropospheric hotspot is a bona fide requirement of the current AGW hypothesis. All I'm looking for is confirmation that this predicted effect is not happening.

Mind you that I don't believe that the lack of a tropospheric hotspot is the deathknell of AGW. I've been after Capel Dodger and others to desist from hanging on to the various "secondary" predictions of the AGW GHG mechanics because I believe that all is not known about the expression of this mechanism. After all, the physics underlayment of the hypothesis is elegant and compelling. I must caution everyone in extrapolating too far from this basis, though. IOW, I disagree that the lack of such tropospheric hotspot as falsification.


In my experience, I can count the number of times that a prediction has gone according to theory on one hand. My personal opinion is that the beauty of science si not in the knowing but in the discovery. The very fact that a model of the abnormal climate based such a simple mechanism has eluded very talented physicists is evidence that there are unrealized influences, IMHO.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I only care (in this case) about one meaning, which is that you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect. Which you clearly aren't. Question answered, let's all move on.

I'm trying to find out if mhaze accepts the CO2 greenhouse effect but with minimal contrbution to the recent temperature rise, or doubts it altogether.

Last July he said

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

That suggests to me that he used to accept the effect, albeit with large uncertainty in the effect on temperature, and has moved towards very low effect. I'd like like to know what evidence caused the change in his position.

 

[bobdroege7]

A question.

Does the absorbed radiation get re-emitted at the same frequency, or can it be re-emitted at a differrent frequency?

Here is a site with a graph of the absorption spectra for various greenhouse gases.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It's from the enemy camp, but you can find the errors in their arguments!

but the simple answer is that it can re-emit at the same frequency, but more likely it will tranfer the energy to other molecules in collisions and then be radiated as blackbody radiation at a range of frequencies.

Nice question though, took some thought, and research, now I have to get back to your reading list. But beware the bandwith police as I am foaw. they took my pandora away.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here is a site with a graph of the absorption spectra for various greenhouse gases.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It's from the enemy camp, but you can find the errors in their arguments!

but the simple answer is that it can re-emit at the same frequency, but more likely it will tranfer the energy to other molecules in collisions and then be radiated as blackbody radiation at a range of frequencies.

Nice question though, took some thought, and research, now I have to get back to your reading list. But beware the bandwith police as I am foaw. they took my pandora away.

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[mhaze]

Here is a site with a graph of the absorption spectra for various greenhouse gases.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It's from the enemy camp, but you can find the errors in their arguments!

but the simple answer is that it can re-emit at the same frequency, but more likely it will tranfer the energy to other molecules in collisions and then be radiated as blackbody radiation at a range of frequencies.

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?



"Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.
Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase: "

"This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer."

please use quote boxes or something?

done

 

[Pipirr]

mhaze, could you please use quote boxes or something? Hard to tell where your quoting begins and ends.

 

[a_unique_person]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?



Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.
Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:
http://brneurosci.org/co2-equations.png


This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer.

You are forgetting Enhanced effect and feedbacks. That's the worry. We know temperature will rise, (you do now acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG and it is causing temperatures to rise, at least. You can now drop the "falsification of CO2").

 

[mhaze]

You are forgetting Enhanced effect and feedbacks. That's the worry.

No this is backing it out from the real world. So those are incorporated, and since this attributes all temp rise to co2 it would be an absolute worst case.

Of course, the plant is emerging from the Little Ice Age so it should be warming, and the PDO shift of the 1970s, similar effect.

 

[fsol]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?



"Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.
Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase: "
http://brneurosci.org/co2-equations.png


"This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer."

please use quote boxes or something?

done

Is that reasonable? Do they back that up with anything?

 

[a_unique_person]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?

It's certainly a lot better than "The Falsification of CO2" as far as articles go.

 

[CapelDodger]

No this is backing it out from the real world.

Not as such; the real world is where the feedbacks apply. Isolating the CO2 influence (if it has any) is backing out of the real world.

So those are incorporated, and since this attributes all temp rise to co2 it would be an absolute worst case.

Gibberish.

Of course, the plant is emerging from the Little Ice Age so it should be warming, and the PDO shift of the 1970s, similar effect.

The planet should be warming why? Do you regard it as an emergent property? Where's the energy coming from? What's the mystic influence that made the LIA what it was and the current situattion what it is (rather different)? These things don't just happen, they have causes. "Emerging from the LIA" is not a cause.

 

[CapelDodger]

Good article. Are there errors in this argument?

yup.

"Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect."

It is not at all easy, because we have not yet reached an equilibrium state with the CO2-load we're already carrrying. We could stop increasing it today and warming would continue. CO2 doesn't create heat, it contributes to the accumulation of heat.

Your quote is simply silly.

 

[mhaze]

yup.
It is not at all easy, because we have not yet reached an equilibrium state with the CO2-load we're already carrrying. We could stop increasing it today and warming would continue. CO2 doesn't create heat, it contributes to the accumulation of heat.

Your quote is simply silly.

Your assertion(s) are unprovable.

 

[Slimething]

It is not at all easy, because we have not yet reached an equilibrium state with the CO2-load we're already carrrying. We could stop increasing it today and warming would continue. CO2 doesn't create heat, it contributes to the accumulation of heat.

I'll write it again: field measurements always trump modeling. Field observations by their nature include all working mechanisms. What you are arguing against is the application of thermodynamics to observations. They hold. I know they hold. I spent a better part of my life doing research on the dissipation of xenobiotics in the environment and pseudo-first order is king there.

Warming would continue for a short time until the s-curve or equilibrium completes. Like I've stated before, the AGW effect does not seem all that scary to me in this context.

BTW, why is no one addressing the missing tropospheric hotspot? mhaze has mentioned it various times and I've asked about it twice with no response from the AGW experts here.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'll write it again: field measurements always trump modeling. Field observations by their nature include all working mechanisms. What you are arguing against is the application of thermodynamics to observations. They hold. I know they hold. I spent a better part of my life doing research on the dissipation of xenobiotics in the environment and pseudo-first order is king there.

Warming would continue for a short time until the s-curve or equilibrium completes. Like I've stated before, the AGW effect does not seem all that scary to me in this context.

BTW, why is no one addressing the missing tropospheric hotspot? mhaze has mentioned it various times and I've asked about it twice with no response from the AGW experts here.

Of course they do field measurements. Do you think they are stupid? There are satellites with instruments that can measure the radiation coming from the earth, there are instruments that can do the same looking up from the surface.

http://ao.osa.org/ViewMedia.cfm?id=20806&seq=0

H. W. Yates, "Measurement of the earth radiation balance as an instrument design problem," Appl. Opt. 16, 297- (1977)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kippandzonen-CNR1.jpg

 

[a_unique_person]

There's more

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, 2004
Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm
2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm
2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm
2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41)
C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m
3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm
2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect.
Satellite radiation-budget measurements [Raval and
Ramanathan, 1989; Inamdar and Ramanathan, 1997] have
been used to examine the radiative feedbacks in the climate
system. Changes of the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation
[Harries et al., 2001; Wielicki et al., 2002] have been
reported also from satellite measurements. Yet to our
knowledge, radiative forcing and its direct relation to
surface temperature and humidity changes, has not been
observationally examined in depth and over long time
periods with radiation budget measurements at Earth’s
surface.
[4] Here we present the changes and trends of radiative
fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas
increases and temperature and humidity changes measured
from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface
Radiation Budget (ASRB) network.



GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937, 2004
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624, 2005
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback.

 

[BobK]

I visit a couple sites that discuss A/GW. I found this to be interesting. For it to be coincidence would be extraordinary.

Luke's comment March 8, 2008 10:53 PM Australia time found in this thread is identical with a_unique_person's comment found just above. If you ignore the two word preface and make allowance for different software handling of blank lines.

I'm unsure of the time difference between EST and Australia. So I'm wondering if they might be the same person, or if one of them is making use of the efforts of the other without attribution.

Insight, anyone?

 

[Pipirr]

I visit a couple sites that discuss A/GW. I found this to be interesting. For it to be coincidence would be extraordinary.

Luke's comment March 8, 2008 10:53 PM Australia time found in this thread is identical with a_unique_person's comment found just above. If you ignore the two word preface and make allowance for different software handling of blank lines.

I'm unsure of the time difference between EST and Australia. So I'm wondering if they might be the same person, or if one of them is making use of the efforts of the other without attribution.

Insight, anyone?

Sad.

 

[BobK]

Sad.

If you're saying it's sad that someone would take the post of another person who made the effort to look up the references, leaving the reader with the assumption that it was their effort. I think I would say it is indeed sad they couldn't make even a minimal effort to acknowledge the originator. Especially since some research time was required due to the originator compiling the information from three different issues.

I don't know that to be true though. It could be the same person using a different name at different sites. Hence the query.