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

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.

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.

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?

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?

Please show me irrefutable proof that CO2 causes warming.

"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

@Why, Amen Brother! There is no proof that CO2 drives the temperature. In fact there is data that shows it doesn't.

"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?

crickets!

Please show me irrefutable proof that CO2 causes warming.

Please show me irrefutable proof that you are alive.

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.

"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.

@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!

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."

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.

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...

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...

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.

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

The Plates move and solar radiation is variable as we have all recently witnessed. Y'all like that cooling? Biologically; adapt or die. Or...adapt and die is more accurate. All things must pass.

@Caliban, 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.

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!

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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).

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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/

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

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

Anybody interested in surface CO2 measurements from 140 sites in 45 countries?

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"Leprechaun farts cause jet stream instability"

Wow, Cap'n... An all this time I was under the impression it worked the other way around...:-)

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

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

...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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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. (?)

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.

"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.

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.

@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?

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. :)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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

Or maybe we're being watched... OOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOO

:D

@runrig-ditto on the thanks.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Run: Thanks, those are great...

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/

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.

@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.

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.

@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?

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...

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?

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.

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.

Sorry, 400ppm and 295ppm, 1.35%

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

@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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Alchem: For this exercise I would like to consider the earth flat (yes, I know that sounds like the usual from me, but I really do know it is not flat). The reason is that dealing in spherical coordinates complicates things without adding much value. The Earth is large enough that the column we are dealing with is nearly a cylinder instead of a truncated cone. There would be a bit more fidelity if I took the spherical nature into effect, but there should be very little difference. Let me know if that is OK or if you want me to stay in spherical coordinates.

The 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alche:

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

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

Well, interesting reasoning, however if you space CO2 out because it is "miscible" how does that help? conservation of matter kicks in, and I doubt you've improved the situation. Density would "fall-off" faster in the height trade-off.

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

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

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

I don't think salt violates this at all-I don't see how anyway.

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

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

Alche:

The Barometric formula and Dalton's law have nothing to do with the proportions of CO2. The link to CO2 concentrations is to measurements not models. It also shows almost no change from sea level to 3000 m if you look at Samoa and Hawaii.

The 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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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

#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

#1
Thermodynamics: Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site and I asked this question of him and I now ask you to tell me where all of this CO2 that Douglas is talking about went? Why are new records for cold now being set in Antarctica if CO2 levels are up?

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

Then we are presented with this totally uninformative bit of disinformation below and other than knowing why they did not want to present what I will inform you of because the alarmist have been saying ever since they understood that there was a MWP & a LIA that they did not want to try to explain, in spite of overwhelming historical evidence, that they accrued, & that is because they had no anthropogenic cause. When the charlatans could no longer dodge the facts, they tried to say that theses climatic events were only isolated to Northern Europe, if you can imagine that.

JDSwallow said:

#1
Thermodynamics: Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site and I asked this question of him and I now ask you to tell me where all of this CO2 that Douglas is talking about went? Why are new records for cold now being set in Antarctica if CO2 levels are up?

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

Where did the CO2 go? It is called geological weathering. CO2 content in the atmosphere goes up and down over geological times through geological processes. We are putting it into the atmosphere faster than most geological processes. This thread is addressing the interaction of IR radiation with the air. Read and learn. Don't expect to derail us to chase your misguided idea that CO2 falls to the ground and disappears. Look up the word homosphere and learn something.

@JD-I am afraid I do not understand your comments at all, could you continue the conversation, elsewhere?

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

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

[WRY]You shouldn't be so hard on JD, after all [/wry], you and I were both using arguments about equilibrium mechanics, fooled by the steady-state result, no doubt. If you of us had mentioned we needed non-linear mechanics to describe the homosphere, well, that would have got my attention. If mixing were local for example, not well, ATMOSPHERIC! lol. Now that I look at it that way, I feel pretty dumb.

I forgot to answer your question-
If it's true you can get it from where "Watts-Up" got it.

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

Then we have people like Maggie, who answer my cooling rates with delta studies, not even realizing, those effects support heat drivers, not insulation, but thinking they've won anyway because it is a day/night study involving teperature. It could have been studying how fast underwear dries for all he cared.
Or studies that include clouds but ignore the easier humidity... I mean, why even publish? deliberate deception?

Then we have people like Maggie, who answer my cooling rates with delta studies, not even realizing, those effects support heat drivers, not insulation, but thinking they've won anyway because it is a day/night study involving teperature. It could have been studying how fast underwear dries for all he cared.

Nice red herring there Alchem, and way to muddle the conversation. If you can't show your "theory" works, then you need to go back and figure out why, not ignore evidence that contradicts your "idea" and scoff at those who question the evidence you rely on.

You've just admitted you have no proof. Chastising me because I question your logic and evidence doesn't change that simple fact.

Mr. Stumpy gave me the link to this rather biased and misleading site

@jd idiot
1. you cant read or comprehend English well, can you?
2. you were already on the SITE moron. this is PHYS.org still... this is just another article. and I told you to come read the conversation between Alchemist and Thermodynamics, because they were working out the CO2 issue that you were asking about. the rest of your post is irrelevant and stupid under the circumstances. try reading for comprehension.

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

@Alchemist/Thermodynamics
apologies for the interruption. JD cannot comprehend what is going on, apparently. Sorry. I thought he might learn something.
PLEASE CONTINUE

CS: No need for any apology. Alche and I are enjoying the journey. JDS is just one of the many sights along the way. An annoying one, but one of the sights. Alche has turned out to be a good partner in this. He has his opinions but he is willing to follow the data. I hope to do as well. You are a great person to have watching over our shoulder. It is always great to have someone checking our work. Thanks for keeping us on our toes and don't sweat the cranks.

@JD-I am afraid I do not understand your comments at all, could you continue the conversation, elsewhere?

I feel pretty dumb.[/q

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

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

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

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

thermodynamics: Why don't you fill a balloon with CO2 and tell me how high it flies. You were unable to understand this FACT when I gave you the example of when "Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages." I have been to Everest Base Camp, crossed Thorong La pass that is 17,769 feet above sea level on the Annapurna Circuit& made it to the last camp on Kilimanjaro but not to the top because I had a cold and RAN OUT OF O2 because there is only less that 50% of the atmosphere at that altitude that there is at sea level so why don't you tell me exactly how much CO2 there is at the height. I will tell you one thing that you will never learn until you get out of your basement & look at something is that there were always clouds over head and snow on the ground which proves that H2O contributes over 98% of the green house affect.

So you are an alchemist who I'm sure practices "al•che•my

@jd-troll
really? Swallow is in your name, but that doesn't mean you are a hooker or a Ornithologist, does it? quit being an idiot

I have been to the Prague Castle area

So? so have I. I've been to the great pyramids and the great wall of china too, but that is not relevant

or provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing or even tell me you opinion about just where all of this CO2 went

now you are being TOTALLY stupid! have you NOT READ ABOVE? now i KNOW you are nothing but a TROLL! (or a hooker) wow.

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

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

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

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

So you are an alchemist who I'm sure practices "al•che•my

@jd-troll
really? Swallow is in your name, but that doesn't mean you are a hooker or a Ornithologist, does it? quit being an idiot

I have been to the Prague Castle area

So? so have I. I've been to the great pyramids and the great wall of china too, but that is not relevant

or provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing or even tell me you opinion about just where all of this CO2 went

now you are being TOTALLY stupid! have you NOT READ ABOVE? now i KNOW you are nothing but a TROLL! (or a hooker) wow.

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

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

PLEASE CONTINUE


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

PLEASE CONTINUE

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

Thanks, Mr. Stumpy for all of the great, valuable and pertinent information

@jd
you are welcome
keep reading and waiting for the data to roll in

Mr. Stumpy, just what do you consider to be relevant? I have been to China four blah blah blah plus places you, from the tone of your post, have never even heard of

I've been all over the world. I grew up all over the world with the exception of the Australian outback...I've only now had a home longer than 2 years, so it is likely that I've been places you have not heard of as well. how is this relevant? how does your "travels with Charlie" make it relevant? you will have to elucidate

OK, I think I have had enough amusement from JDS for me. Time for me to try to move on with our analysis. We know that CO2 is not going to settle out of the air and, if you want to waste your time, you can continue to argue that point with JDS, I think it is pointless.

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

I want to be able to be sure that everyone watching understands how the radiation emission from the earth is distributed with respect to energy. So, in the next post I will try to put the radiant energy into a binned form so we can have an idea of where the energy resides in the wavelength or wavenumber range. Next.

Now I will try to provide information in a form that can be understood. If there are better ways to show the information just go ahead and rearrange it.

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

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

Now I wanted to know how that was distributed. The shape is identical to the black body shape in the reference from Watts Up. I then started looking at "bins," Bins are a numerical concept that is used to break up a signal or data into blocks

My first bin is from 100 nm to 3000 nm. That tells us how much is in the tail before 3000 nm.

{100, 3000, 0.000048}

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

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

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

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

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

{3000 nm, 10097 nm, 0.25}

This shows that only 25% of the area under the curve is in the lower wavelength range. This interprets to 25% of the power being in the lower wavelength region.

For anyone who would like to check my work, this is from equation 1-33 in Siegel and Howell "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer."

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

One interesting part of that is that the photons carry less energy as the wavelength goes up. That means that there are substantially more photons in the longer wavelength range. You should be able to do the 10097 nm to 40000 nm by difference. (0.689)

So, what we have now is the total radiation from the earth and the wavelength bins it falls in.

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

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

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

H2O
1.38, 1.87, 2.6, 6.3 um

Considering we can eliminate anything under 3 um we should be able to pick our wavelengths for the calculations. Alche, time for you to chime in and let me know how you like this approach. If you have any other suggestions, please make them.

Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.

Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.

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

Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.

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

Yes. Its been a very long time since I looked at this book, and I have notes I wrote in it that I don;t remember doing. As I recall, I got an 80 in that course.

Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.

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

Yes. Its been a very long time since I looked at this book, and I have notes I wrote in it that I don;t remember doing. As I recall, I got an 80 in that course.

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

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

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

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

No experiment since proves what you are maintaining.

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

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

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

Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.

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

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

Makes one wonder at what one can believe about the "science" regarding the earth's climate, unless you are Thermodynamics kind of person, then you believe everything, no question.
"Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin." Huxley

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

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

It might be a mistake to neglect the effect of clouds.

http://hockeyscht...net.html

I assume that you people really think that you are on to some earth shatter revelations, afraid not.

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

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

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

I assume that the ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula did not fit these people's narrative and that is not how science is conducted, unless one is dishonest.

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

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

"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

It really does make you wonder if people are paid to divert these conversations, doesn't it? Probability low, impact/insanity/inanity high.

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

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

Thoughts?

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

Best to you...

Just a quick comment, I had to go looking for it but I have the 2nd edition. It has been awhile, but checking your numbers you seem to be right on the mark Thermal. Keep going.

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

@Thermo @Maggnus
this is specifically

"Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th edition, by Siegel, and Howell

correct? making sure. I don't have the book but I am ordering it ASAP.

@Alche
are you using the same book as well?

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

Thoughts?

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

Best to you...

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

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

[

this is specifically

"Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th edition, by Siegel, and Howell

correct? making sure. I don't have the book but I am ordering it ASAP.

That is the book. It is not cheap, but it is among the best. Alche has another reference that does not go into heat transfer as deeply, and Maggy and I probably took similar courses. If you want to save money, I am also trying to find examples on-line for the issues I am addressing but the reality is that much of the literature does not get deep enough into the equations to be very helpful. If you get the book and need any help along the way, just let Maggy or me know.

SIG .308

@Thermo
I love this round. good flat trajectory in its ballistics. makes a very good long range round for hunting... the .50 military round makes too much of a mess of the meat. :-) Usually my go to when I NEED meat. Otherwise I bowhunt.Ii prefer to stalk & track. more fun

ENJOY yalls Mothers day. I am headed out in 3 hours for same (M-day AND target practice). Have to celebrate early: daughters and grandkids tomorrow!

If you get the book and need any help along the way, just let Maggy or me know

I will. if you are ever on http://www.sciforums.com look me up and we can swap e-mails. truck captain stumpy.

SIG .308

@Thermo
I love this round. good flat trajectory in its ballistics. makes a very good long range round for hunting... the .50 military round makes too much of a mess of the meat. :-) Usually my go to when I NEED meat. Otherwise I bowhunt.Ii prefer to stalk & track. more fun

ENJOY yalls Mothers day. I am headed out in 3 hours for same (M-day AND target practice). Have to celebrate early: daughters and grandkids tomorrow!

If you get the book and need any help along the way, just let Maggy or me know

I will. if you are ever on http://www.sciforums.com look me up and we can swap e-mails. truck captain stumpy.

CS: How are you listed on sciforums?

I see that you "scientific" people cannot answer my challenge regarding CO2 & the climate, & isn't this what the focus is? Here is some more for you to dance around.

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

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

Alche:

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

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

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

If you look at the Y axis you will find some large differences in cross sections that are listed there. This is about as detailed as you can get on the web (I think).

Alche:

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

Alche: One more proposed condition for the calculations. I propose that we not include aerosols. Mostly because I have no confidence in a simple model being able to handle them. I know they are there, but I really think it would be a monumental task to include them.

CS: How are you listed on sciforums?

@Thermodynamics
Truck Captain Stumpy
pretty much how I list everywhere... either that or Captain Stumpy. It's what I have been called for decades.
@Thermo
@Alche
again, sorry for the idiot interruptions above. jd apparently cannot comprehend what yall are up to. wish he knew a bit more. just ignore his stupidity and keep plugging at it.

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

Thanks for staying with it.

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

I saved this last time you posted it... thanks

Alche: One more proposed condition for the calculations. I propose that we not include aerosols. Mostly because I have no confidence in a simple model being able to handle them. I know they are there, but I really think it would be a monumental task to include them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alche:

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

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

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

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

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

You have, obviously, not read this thread. We all know that H2O is the major GHG. We are also in the middle of exploring the relationship of the increase of CO2 to any change in energy retention by the earth. That is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend so we will just watch with amusement as you rant and rave about nothing.

thermodynamics: First off; where are all of your research findings about your "findings"? You are also in the middle of exploring the relationship of the increase of CO2 to any change in energy retention by the earth & you have NO results.

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

http://gbpihed.go...iers.pdf This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalayan Mountains.

JDSwallow said:

Why, thermodynamics, do you not have the courage or intelligence to get away from the ad hominem attacks and just deal with the evidence that I present? To not do so makes you to appear to be very, very disingenuous and , if I might add, dishonest person, using the word loosely.

That is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend so we will just watch with amusement as you rant and rave about nothing.

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

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

Lead would boil here, thermodynamics

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

Just what would the atmosphere be on your utopian planet,thermodynamics?

JDSwallow said: "thermodynamics: That is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend so we will just watch with amusement as you rant and rave about nothing.

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

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

http://www.sott.n...gs-Melt-

Alche, as we move forward on this project there are some things I am finding that I want to toss out for discussion. I want to, first, restate the problem we are working on. Please look these over to make sure we are still on the same page. This is my interpretation and please feel free to correct me. The following statements are often made and we will attempt to evaluate them.

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

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

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

It is those three statement that we will attempt to determine the validity of.

There are a number of things that I have been looking at that impact the analysis we are doing. The first issue was the identification of the homosphere and heterosphere. This is a demarcation between the two is the change from full mixing of the non-condensable components in the homosphere and stratification in the heterosphere (starting in the stratosphere - which some sources is named after stratification that takes place there. If Runrig or others can help with a better understanding of these zones it would be very helpful.

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

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

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

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

http://en.wikiped...of_Earth

Any comments are welcome.

There are some terms that are common in radiative heat transfer that also are pertinent to this discussion. The terms are "optical depth," "optically thin," "optically thick," and "absorbance."

http://en.wikiped...al_depth

http://en.wikiped...sorbance

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

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

And Beer-Lambert

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

I am used to working with optically thin gas layers in combustion systems. However, the atmosphere is a very long path. Because of that I have to better understand how the photons are absorbed in the layers and then reradiated. This leads back to the questions about what happens with photons that come down through the atmosphere from the sun as well as photons heading up from the ground. If I ignore any of them I run into the problem that layers of the air will be a different temperature than they actually are. For instance, the upper atmosphere is heated by absorption of short wave radiation by ozone. The temperature of the lower atmosphere touching the earth is heated by both convection and radiation. We have to make sure to represent all of the heat transfer taking place to assess our questions.

Two more concepts before I hang it up tonight. There is only one way that the earth can exchange energy (in any consistent way other than impacts) and that is by radiation. All evidence indicates that the amount of radiation coming from the sun is stable. If I look at the earth as a sphere that is radiating to space, then the only way that energy can accumulate on the sphere is if the amount of radiation leaving the earth decreases. From the perspective of heat transfer that means the effective temperature of the sphere has to decrease. If that does not happen, the amount of heat does not change (either up or down). Note, I am talking about heat, not temperature. The earth is huge and every part has enormous heat capacity. Heat can change without much of a change in temperature. However, for the total heat to change the radiation balance must change. We all know that but I wanted to make it clear that is what we will be looking for.

The second thing is that within the layers of the atmosphere we know that there is considerable mixing. That means that molecules that are excited by photons can relax without reemitting photons at the same frequency they absorbed. For that reason they can "smear" out the emissions as they redistribute the energy both up and down. Any approach to balancing the energy on the planet has to take mixing and transformation of energy in excited molecules into consideration. This will require either a continuous calculus approach or a discrete layer approach or a combination of the two. I will start by looking at a thin layer using Beer's law and discrete bands.

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

Any comments are welcome.

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

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

Wikipedia is an accepted data reference by many, contributed to by thousands of scientific professionals in their respective fields.
Ignoring that fact makes your derisive commentary pretty f##k'ing lame and without merit...

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

Any comments are welcome.

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

Thank you for your comment. I am trying to make any references available to all. When I can't I will attribute those references I am using.

Wikipedia is an accepted data reference by many, contributed to by thousands of scientific professionals in their respective fields.
Ignoring that fact makes your derisive commentary pretty f##k'ing lame and without merit...

@Whydening Gyre
ignore him, WG... he made comments about CO2 and I (stupidly) referred him here to learn about CO2, gas and distribution by watching the analysis above. It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS at this point that he has absolutely NO CLUE about what Thermo and Alche are doing and is here only to TROLL because he cannot comprehend the above.

just sit back, read on and enjoy the outcome... its getting good! No troll is going to be able to mess up math and science, only piss off the players.

I am trying to make any references available to all.

@Thermo
yall are doing a bang up job! please continue! there are SOME who appreciate it, even though there are idiots who cant understand what you are doing.

While there are some photons in the water bands or CO2 bands that will make it all the way out of the atmosphere without interacting with a molecule, those are the rare photons. In general, an IR photon, in one of the molecular emission bands, will interact with an active molecule (GHG molecule) before it goes very far. That photon does not hang around in the molecule. It is changed to energy. The normal parlance is to say the photon is absorbed and then reemitted, but that is jargon. In reality the photon is changed to some energy mode of the molecule and then another photon can be emitted from the molecule. However, since photons of the same energy are not distinguishable the detail of what goes on is not important to the issue. Instead, it is important to know that the photon changes the energy of the molecule and then the excited molecule can relax through collisions or emitting a photon. The direction of a photon emitted by relaxation is random.

As I mentioned above, any photon in the bands of active GHGs tend to be absorbed and then others are emitted as they make their way through the atmosphere. However, not all molecules can absorb the same wavelengths. In fact, monatomic atoms such as Ar and diatomic molecules such as N2 or O2 do not absorb IR photons with any significant coupling. That means that if you had an atmosphere of pure N2, O2, and Ar, it would be transparent to IR. The Earth would be colder than it is. In fact, it would be a frozen planet. However, we have H2O (the major GHG) in our atmosphere and because of it, significant IR bands (lines) are absorbed. We also have CO2 in the atmosphere and it absorbs bands (lines) of IR photons. Without those two GHGs the earth would be cold enough to have problems supporting life.

Now, let's look at one claim: "A gas that makes up only 400 ppm cannot be significant."

What is the composition of the standard dry atmosphere?

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

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