All three staff meteorologists at [American] KLTV, the ABC affiliate broadcasting to the Tyler-Longview-Jacksonville area of Northeast Texas, joined forces last November to deliver an on-air rebuttal of the idea that humans are changing the earth’s climate.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, representing the work of hundreds of scientists from 130 countries, had declared eight months earlier that warming of the atmosphere was “unequivocal” and that greenhouse gases from human activities were “very likely” the cause of most of the warming since the mid-20th century.
The three KLTV weathercasters – appearing in a Nov. 8 story by a station news reporter – let it be known, however, that they were unconvinced.
Meteorologist Grant Dade: “Is the Earth warming? Yes, I think it is. But is man causing that? No. It’s a simple climate cycle our climate goes through over thousands of years.”
Read more of the story by Bill Dawson at ‘The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media’ by clicking here: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0608_tv.htm
Further in the article there is also comment that:
The disagreements between television weathercasters and climate scientists involve “a jurisdictional war,” and “there’s nobody free of sin in this matter,” Knight said. “I’m seeing a row here, but it’s not a bad row.”
On one side, there seems to be “a disdain in the orthodox scientific research community for those who are not smart enough to get a Ph.D. or do research, and instead go into the fluff of television and just forecast the weather,” he said.
On the other side, “there’s a certain amount of disdain from television meteorologists who are predicting the weather for those who pontificate about what their [climate] models show,” he added.
Knight summed up his own view of climate change this way: “There’s no question that warming is going on. To say it’s a hoax is to deny the data. To say it’s all human-caused is foolish, too.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Why: coz they’re past their use-by cranky old codgers or pretty – and weather ain’t climate?
Or maybe you dont have to be smart to realise what sloppy science, green religion and carpetbaggery is trying to feed us.
Knight’s personsl summary updated: “There is no question that climate change is going on. To say it’s a hoax is to deny the data. To say it’s all human caused is foolish too.”
Reading ‘climate change’ literally, (as opposed to code for warming)I would have to agree.
But pedantic shots aside, I would appear that climatologists have failed to take their public interface front-line (meteorologists, weather forecasters and weather presenters) with them. With predictable consequences. Elitist disdain is not a terribly smart way to answer questions from the front line. Invites reciprococity.
I thought it might be useful to drop in a few pieces from the above article. Divergent views yes, but no ‘numbers’ as to whether the majority of the worlds media meteorologists are believers in non-climate change.
“In a phone interview with the Yale Forum, Ryan said he thinks many “naysayers” about the idea of manmade climate change among broadcast weather forecasters “are coming from a perspective of the policy first – or they’re against it because they think it will hurt the economy, so how can I set out to punch holes in the theory – rather than scientifically testing a theory.”
In certain cases, skeptical weathercasters are “putting their own personal views – sometimes even fundamentalist religious beliefs – first, and then looking at climate change from the standpoint of preconceived things they believe in,” he said.”
“My bottom line [about climate change] is I think something is happening,” he said. “Is it human activity? I don’t know. I need to get better educated.”
“Quite a few on television around the country are skeptical only because they feel they have asked questions and raised issues and been told to be quiet, this is the truth,” he said.
Weather is regional; and climate is nothing but regionalism averaged; which is to say one is real, the other is a clapped out GCM. Hi Luke (?); thanks for the papers; could only extract the Scott Power ENSO powerpoint one; it’s a bit chicken/egg, this PDO/IPO and ENSO combo; Power tentatively concludes that PDO has a wider structure than ENSO, but that maybe PDO’s are merely random ENSO activity creating a decadal pattern; I’m still digesting that one; here’s a paper from Newman, who is not ambivalent about saying PDO is nothing more than decadal ENSO patterns;
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
Both Newman and Power credit the ocean as being the dominant player; no surprise there.
This uncertainty may be one reason why weather forecasters turn up their nose at their rarified betters, the scientists; John Coleman, founder of the weather channel and now at KUSI News in San Diego has some interesting things to say about this turf-war and AGW generally;
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524#SlideFrame_1
Weather forecasters don’t have the luxury of constantly adjusting time-frames and explaining away perpetual failures of predictions.
On a more serious note the disdain coming from the AGW elite has some alarming aspects; I’m thinking of the treatment dished out to Don Aitkins, and Don Parkes by tamino;
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/perjury/#more-724
If you are this ferocious and censorious towards non-conformity naturally people are going to kick up their heels; the IPCC has never been transparent as McIntyre’s exposure of Mann and Graybill showed:
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
This is an amazing read about cover-ups, obfuscation and hubris. If AGW is a done deal why aren’t the advocates more transparent; one would like to think that neither this psychology is behind it;
http://theness.com/articles.asp?id=23
or this ideology;
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
I guess this question must be asked: would Jennifer go to a weather commentator on her local TV channel to ask about climate and expect to get something other than another opinion?
Cohenite: Should I bother with yet another string of comments from your links when I’m perfectly satisfied you, like drongo have dug your heels in regardless of what our “appointed” scientists say.
Now lets get off on who appoints climate science at the grass roots hey.
Why do so many pediaticians not know as much about cancer as an oncologist?
Specialisation.
gavin; I haven’t dug in my heels; this paper is giving me pause;
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3663.1
It should be of interest to you, what with Stevenson screens and local contamination and all.
Gavin, sorry to come across as a “recalcitrant” but I can’t be like Ross Garnaut’s version of Heinz Arndt [which I don’t believe], “either a believer or an atheist”.
I hope I’m open minded and sceptical. I dont doubt that there is warming but not convinced it’s catastrophic, man made or fixable.
cohenite; you have obviously missed the point that I never used Stevenson screens or got bothered by local contamination when measuring ambient conditions. I just wrote a piece for Louis on the difficulties of approaching a mid point like ph 7 in a clean water sample or ambient without some bias or hysteresis in the best indication as judged by the user.
Folks should note the only way IMO to get precision is to average many measurements that randomly approach the null from both directions. Using odd numbers of detectors above say three is another way in the absence of absolute standards
Gavin, I meant to add, “or permanent”.
The thing is you don’t need to have a Ph.D in order to interpret data… or read the conclusions that both sides come to… wait a year or two and then see what they are saying now.
My Observations of what has gone before and is now…
CO2 was supposed to lead Temperature rise as it was the driver of Global temp… However CO2 was found to lag behind Temperature rise by up to 800 years… AGW Hypothesis faulty.
For ten years CO2 has risen by 4%… But Temp has remained static, however no mechanism can explain that lag other than a vague reference to Oceans retaining the heat. However oceans cooled 0.03 degrees C in the top 700mtrs between 2003 to 2005…. AGW hypothesis faulty.
Computer Climate Models predicted that with a 100 ppm rise of CO2 over Fifty years that the Tropical Troposphere at the 200hPa boundary would rise 1.5 degrees C….. The observed rise was at the most 0.2 degrees C…. AGW Hypothesis Faulty.
The “Hockey stick” graph used by Mann has been discredited and is now not used by the IPCC…..
When asked, climate scientists have been very reluctant to share data. In some cases the data has not been archived thus results are not reproducible…. See Climate Audit for examples.
Better correlation between Solar influences and temperature rise than CO2…. Granted the arguments… But in view of the latest ten years, given the peak of the Sunspot cycle and its decent into a yet unstarted cycle 24 plus lack of warming… One could point to causes other than anthropogenic CO2 and its surmised effects on the climate.
Geological record of the Earths temperature as per Sediment samples….. example… 5000 years the Rate of change per century has an average of 2.5 degrees C…. Put a trend line in for 1979 to 2005 the Trend is 1.8. That is still well within the normal range… Still no signal of AGW. Still only within parameters of natural variation.
There’s more…. But I’ll leave it there.
That should have read.
…When asked, SOME climate scientists….
SJT said……. [Why do so many pediaticians not know as much about cancer as an oncologist?
Specialisation.]
The assumption you make here is that the holder of the certification is not practicing quackery. Either because it is demanded of them or they are bad practitioners.
Plenty of certified doctors and specialists also cite “Natural remedies”…. Quackery in my book.
Given the rise in the amount of people taking advise from medical charlatans and the rise in the use of Natural remedies…. It is no wonder people indulging in ignorance and superstition believe in AGW speculation.
“SJT said……. [Why do so many pediaticians not know as much about cancer as an oncologist?”
Good analogy.
Even though billions of dollars have been poured into cancer research over the years, oncologists still know bugger all about it – i.e. what causes it, how to prevent it, or how to ‘cure’ it. They can only treat it – with varying degrees of success.
Same as ‘climate scientists’ know bugger all about climate – they can only predict the past with any degee of certainty.
“Why: coz they’re past their use-by cranky old codgers”
The other way of looking at it, of course, is that they’ve been around long enough to have seen the same bull$hit go past once or twice before.
http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf
“Given the rise in the amount of people taking advise from medical charlatans and the rise in the use of Natural remedies…. It is no wonder people indulging in ignorance and superstition believe in”… global cooling!
“The thing is you don’t need to have a Ph.D in order to interpret data”….aaaah but it helps.
“For ten years CO2 has risen by 4%… But Temp has remained static” ever lit a wick and stood a while before the bang?
Or watched the lag when you hitched the cart in front of the horse?
Since CO2 etc has risen, what’s next?
I see Luke is pedaling his brand of science again. He said …and weather ain’t climate? A question mark??? Is it or isn’t it? The IPCC definition for climate uses it. So weather is climate?
hahahahaha – the old cooling scam. The great thing about the blogosphere is that bull keeps floating around forever Did you know Al Gore is actually Elvis Presley?
Was that “Newsweek” magazine – ROTFL !
Whats happening is the TV Weatherman have some idea of what they are talking about. And they are entirely separate from this outrageous and transparent racket.
Luke you idiot. There is no cooling scam. There is only cooling. All scientific evidence attests to expected cooling. None ways against it. It seems that your addiction to relentless lying continues.
“a disdain in the orthodox scientific research community for those who are not smart enough to get a Ph.D.”
I got a real chuckle out of that one. As someone who spent 13 years with an average of 4 days a week dealing with private business scientist (pharmaceuticals, chemical, manufacturing..) and 1 day a week in academia dealing with their PhDs using analytical instruments (gas chromatographs, mass specs…) I attest the academia PhDs are the ones to stupid and incompetent to get a job while working on their education.
The really brilliant students are almost always recruited away from earning the PhD at the Masters level…the recruiters make it very clear “Why wait on a PhD when it will not earn you much more and I have a position right now starting at 6 figure?”
Bottom line: The vast majority of the PhDs in academia are actually the worst performers in their given field. Put another way, when my coworkers and I divided up the work for the week the calls least wanted were in academa because the PhDs were “dumber than rocks”, but thought they were brilliant….much like the AGW PhDs the media thinks are experts.
As CO2 lags temperature and human contribution to CO2 is about 3%, plus the fact that chemical equilibrium with the ocean takes about 5 years, I would expect atmospheric CO2 to start decreasing in the next year or so, in line with the observed cooling.
I note that while human “emissions” are quoted as accellerating, all of a sudden there is all quiet on the CO2 front in terms of atmosphere concentration. Might be worth a visit and see if the latest Mauna Loa numbers are starting to decrease.
TV meteorologists earn more money. That’s smart.
It takes a rare skill to read think, & talk at the same time.
Therefore TV meteorologists are smarter, & more skilled, so would be climate skeptics, obviously
“Good analogy.
Even though billions of dollars have been poured into cancer research over the years, oncologists still know bugger all about it – i.e. what causes it, how to prevent it, or how to ‘cure’ it. They can only treat it – with varying degrees of success.”
I said an oncologist knows more, and that’s the case.
Gavin,
“…ever lit a wick and stood a while before the bang?”
So, CO2 is going to blow up the atmosphere now??
And no, I never lit a wick and stood back and waited 100 years for something to go off!!
I HAVE lit a lot of CANDLE wicks in my life and got exactly what I expected from them!!
Maybe you meant “lit a fuze?”
Ya know, dumb analogies are becoming warmers worst feature!!
Luke, Gavin, SJT and the rest of the gory bleeders are, I’m sure, sceptics at heart.
When you guys look at any deal that is going to cost you, I bet you are as sceptical and critical as the next.
Why then aren’t you this way with AGW?
Surely you are just a little sus of the science?
“Why then aren’t you this way with AGW?
Surely you are just a little sus of the science?”
Because it’s science. Science has been one of our greatest achievements. It has lifted us out of ignorance and fear. Sometimes it tells us things we’d rather not hear.
“hahahahaha – the old cooling scam”
Exactly.
Just like the current new warming scam.
SJT,
You have no scepticism for; the hockey stick?, the alarmist claims?, Al Gore’s AIT?, temperature measurements?, GCM predictions?………..
Actually, SJT, its a poor analogy. You should be comparing the oncologist’s(the meteorologist’s), with the cancer research scientist’s (the climatologist’s), respective knowledge of cancer. But then, analogical reasoning is nowadays very poor.
“Because it’s science. Science has been one of our greatest achievements. It has lifted us out of ignorance and fear. Sometimes it tells us things we’d rather not hear.”
How very romantic. Yes, it is a great acheivement but most people were not living in ignorance and fear before it and those that were are still living in ignorance and fear(and many of those because of the ‘science’ promoted by alarmists). Science doesn’t tell us anything just as history doesn’t either. With all due respect, SJT, I’m quite happy to have escaped the overbearing majesterium of religion and would prefer not to substitute it for another majesterium that reached beyond it bounds because of those, like yourself, who suffer from hubris and presume to speak on it’s (science’s) behalf.
Speaking of things we’d rather not hear; Don Aitkins has responded to a typical attack by Clive Hamilton;
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/05/22/ipcc-not-god?page=2
In the comments, rank exploit’s recent revision of Tamino’s conclusion that there has been warming since the beginning of the century, is subject to interesting banter, especially by Ian Castles and ecoeng. Those comments reminded me of Spencer Weart’s old RC piece on CO2 saturation; basically Weart columnises the atmosphere and postulates that as IR moves up layer by layer it gets trapped and reemitted in a tortuous process until it reaches the upper reradiative part of the atmosphere, were because there is more CO2, and because the spectrum lines of the CO2 at low pressure are “much more sharply defined”, the IR is delayed from radiating into space by a Tyndall-like damming mechanism; rather like a Bernoulli effect!
After doing a bit of revision, I’m convinced noone has a clear idea how CO2 traps/absorbs IR and creates heat. Consider;
1 CO2 doesn’t have a permanent electric diapole, and its diapole is generated by collisions with nitrogen and oxygen, with such collisions being dependent on pressure and temperature
2 Alternatively, CO2 has 4 vibrational modes, 3 of which are IR active, although 2 are doubly degenerate; but in any event CO2 doesn’t need to collide in order to absorb because molecules vibrate at even low temperatures due to the uncertainty principle.
3 The rate of deexcitation of CO2 due to collisions is much quicker than the rate of excitation due to absorbtion; this means that there will not be localised saturation and the atmosphere will remain opaque at that level; it is only at low pressures, as in the upper atmosphere, that a divergence of Maxwellian and Planck temp will occur, and a local thermal disequilibrium occur, allowing radiative dispersal; that is the saturation is not in the lower levels but in the upper.
4 Where do Stefan-Boltzman, Wien and Beer’s Laws apply in setting limits to CO2 absorbtion? And do these laws determine a logarithmic decline in CO2 sensitivity?
5 Why doesn’t the emitting process have a cooling effect since the emission removes energy from the CO2 molecule?
“5 Why doesn’t the emitting process have a cooling effect since the emission removes energy from the CO2 molecule?”
Precisely.
Don’t pretend to understand the science let alone the quantum mechanics but can any one tell me how the atmosphere, while always cooler, can warm the earth’s surface?
Spangled drongo
because of one very simple error in understanding – everyone assumes that CO2 absorbs IR means that it sucks in IR like a sponge and re emits it warming things up.
CO2 increases in temperature (its kinetic energy or Brownian motion) by converting IR into motion. Once converted to motion it then transfers that mechanical energy to the neighbouring O2 and N2 molecules and the energy gets dissipated outwards to space.
SO a cooler atmosphere can never ever warm the surface. It if could Mars would be slightly warmers than it is.
“SJT,
You have no scepticism for; the hockey stick?, the alarmist claims?, Al Gore’s AIT?, temperature measurements?, GCM predictions?………..”
All science is wrong, in the sense that we keep on researching it and finding out new things we didn’t know before. Physical science is just a sequence of advances, revealing imperfections in what we knew before. The study of global warming no less than any other branch of science. The scientists are still hard at work researching it, and are negotiating now to get the next level of computers lined up so that more realistic modelling of clouds and storms can be done. They certainly don’t think they have all the answers either, or they would just pack up and move on to something else.
Manns hockey stick was pioneering work. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if it had errors in it. However, like a lot of science, it has since been generally confirmed to be on the right track by independent scientists doing their own research. Apart from that, the hockey stick is only about ten percent of the case for AGW. Take it away, and there is still a compelling case. Read the IPCC report. They have a whole report on the various aspects of climate that are being analysed to come to the same conclusion. AGW is real. The only question is the degree of warming. Pat Michaels and other ‘sceptics’ agree with that much. They believe that the warming will not be more than about 1C.
There is a similar example with the understanding of AIDS, for example. You can still find professors and scientists who don’t believe it is caused by HIV. They can point out all kinds of errors in early research into HIV and AIDS. Despite all that, it is now commonly accepted that HIV causes AIDS.
“After doing a bit of revision, I’m convinced noone has a clear idea how CO2 traps/absorbs IR and creates heat. Consider;”
You mean you don’t understand it. That’s not a failing on your part, a lot of people will not have the level of understanding of physics to understand how that mechanism works. Pat Michaels understands it, and accepts it. Paul, who helps run this blog, understands it and accepts it. The only real point of contention is to what degree the warming that results will affect the climate.
There is a lot of science you don’t understand, and I don’t understand. That doesn’t mean no-one does understand it, or that our failing to understand it invalidates it.
“5 Why doesn’t the emitting process have a cooling effect since the emission removes energy from the CO2 molecule?”
Because the energy that is re-emitted is re-emitted in a random direction.
The energy was trapped was trapped because it was heading away from earth through the atmosphere. It was caught by a greenhouse gas, perhaps CO2. It was then re-emitted in a random direction. Roughly half of it will continue on it’s journey out into space. Half of it will head back down to earth, warming the planet.
“4 Where do Stefan-Boltzman, Wien and Beer’s Laws apply in setting limits to CO2 absorbtion? And do these laws determine a logarithmic decline in CO2 sensitivity?”
They certainly do. But even with a logarithmic response, a doubling of CO2 will be significant.
The editors at New Matilda have used an unfortunate phrasing for their caption of the climate change protest.
“An anti-climate change protest”
Doesn’t do any good to protest against it, you may as well be protesting the fact the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. It’s just a physical fact.
Don Aitken demonstrates his profound ignorance on this issue, and why he should be ignored. What an idiot.
“It may well be true that we are contributing to that warming – this is suggested by the fact that warming in the northern hemisphere, where most human beings live, is more pronounced than in the southern hemisphere. But the connection between that warming and the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not strong statistically.”
That he could get something so fundamental to the issue so wrong is amazing.
It’s predominantly warmer in the North because there is more land mass and less oceans than in the South. The oceans tend to keep things cooler. People would do well to ignore him and stick to listening to experts on this matter.
“1 CO2 doesn’t have a permanent electric diapole, and its diapole is generated by collisions with nitrogen and oxygen, with such collisions being dependent on pressure and temperature”
It’s spelled dipole. AFAIK, the dipole is irrelevant. The absorption has been measured and understood for decades now. There is a well documented and accepted database on absorption of radiation by gases called HITRAN. This was created for research originally done by the US military, wanting to understand tracking enemy aircraft through the atmosphere. Hardly a bunch of hippie commies out to wreck civilisation.
The original emipirical research started over a century ago. CO2 absorbs radation at certain wavelengths. It’s as simple as that. If you want to know the exact mechanism by which that occurs, you have to understand advanced quantum phyics, which is getting a bit beyond my understanding. 🙂
SJT; what I posted were a number of contradictory explanations for CO2 interaction with IR; most of them, Weart’s ridiculous article aside, are scientifically valid; most of these principles I can understand, even if the maths does leave me behind; it is typically patronising to say I don’t understand the science and that I should accept the decisions of those ‘scientists’ who do; if they do, let them explain more carefully; alternatively, if they can’t because the scientific understanding is evolving, or contradictory, let’s wait until the ambivalence is resolved before we wreck the economies of the world based on an idea which is half-baked.
As for Mann, the hockey-stick is emblematic of all that is deficient with AGW; McIntyre’s expose of the hockey-stick is real science;
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
Louis – “SO a cooler atmosphere can never ever warm the surface. It if could Mars would be slightly warmers than it is.”
So why is the Earth approx 33deg warmer than the blackbody temperature it would be without an atmosphere?
BTW Mars is warmer that is would be without its thin atmosphere.
cohenite – “As for Mann, the hockey-stick is emblematic of all that is deficient with AGW; McIntyre’s expose of the hockey-stick is real science;”
No the subsequent studies using different techniques and proxies that confirmed and extended the original study is real science. The even managed to get it in the peer reviewed literature which is more than McIntyre has.
SJT; yeah, dipole not diapole; I was thinking of diaper; anyhow, HITRAN; 98% of the S-B emissions from earth are between 5-70 microns; CO2 has a strong sensitivity at 15 and 4 microns; but remember the double degeneracy? Plus the IR wavelength, means only the 15 micron point is relevant; at 15 microns, CO2 competes with H2O; at this wavelengh CO2 is stronger than H2O, but H2O is vastly more plentiful, so I guess I should have listed this fact in my list of contradictory aspects of the CO2 absorbing mechanism.
As for Don; you are far too harsh; AGW postulates that the oceans should warm first, especially the southern oceans; they aren’t; so who is the idiot(s)? My guess is IPCC.
Ender
Water vapour.
Weird, Louis. Water vapour can be a GHG, but CO2 can’t?
Ender; Mar’s atmosphere is 95% CO2. Wait for it; Venus’s is 96%.
“Ender; Mar’s atmosphere is 95% CO2. Wait for it; Venus’s is 96%.”
What is the density?
“AGW postulates that the oceans should warm first, especially the southern oceans” – it does? where is this said …
Give us some more on 1-5 points above
“the atmosphere will remain opaque at that level;” – well this would give you a runaway would it not? Endless capacity.
and where does re-radiation versus collisions fit in.
and leaving out Mott and Hissink – what do you mean by double degeneracy ?
in the possible interests of having a decent discussion – would encourage you to lay the physics out in some detail !! Even a guest post on what the physics is supposed to do and the anomalies. Don’t be shy – we won’t rip in (much 🙂 )
(BTW did the second zip file work?)
SJT
Clouds. Repeat after me, clouds.
Louis
how do the clouds warm the earth?
Sjt,
A rhetorical question which will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Louis – “Ender
Water vapour.”
So how does the water vapour do it?
cohenite – “CO2 competes with H2O; at this wavelengh CO2 is stronger than H2O, but H2O is vastly more plentiful,”
Only at certain altitudes. The stratosphere is very dry leaving the spectrum to CO2. This is why it is not obvious and needs sophisticated methods to work out the overall absorption of IR in a column of the atmosphere.
Louis – “Sjt,
A rhetorical question which will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
”
I did not take it as rhetorical as clouds both trap and reflect radiation. So clouds also cool the Earth. In fact isn’t this the mechanism that the cosmic ray theory uses – more cosmic rays – more clouds – more cooling?
Ender
Boring, time wasting rhetoric.
“Louis
how do the clouds warm the earth?”
It’s a simple question, Louis. Care to answer it?
“A rhetorical question which will be treated with the contempt it deserves.”
I didn’t see the rhetorical part of it. You said CO2 doesn’t warm the earth, water in clouds does. How does it do that, Louis?
Just an aside, I’ve been Googling CO2 (Greenhouse) for dummies. Can you guess where that leads?
It seems all references start with blogs.
Louis – “Boring, time wasting rhetoric.”
Not really – you have apparently shot down the deniers contender for alternatives to greenhouse AGW theory. Perhaps you need to explain yourself.
http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/AboutDenmark/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/ClimateResearch/CosmicRaysAndClimate/
“Global warming caused by cosmic rays?
It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth’s surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth’s climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth’s climate.”
Do you actually have any feet left?
Luke; yes thanks; double degeneracy; 2 vibrational modes of the same frequency; are you testing me? Are you a census taker? Where is my chianti?
Luke, about the oceans; you are joking; I’m not even going to look up the numerous hansen references to stored heating capacity in the ocean, which is going to come out soon and fry us all! Sorry about the dramatics, but really, you were the one who gave me the Rintoul references and this is what SURVOSTRAL is looking for: heating at the various levels in the southern ocean.
As to the aspects of the points I raised about CO2; I agree, they are contradictory, but they constitute the general gist of what I have been lectured with at such esteemed sites as Tamino’s and Deltoid. Personally, I think the notion of opaqueness due to CO2 is quaint; I’ve expressed my opinion about regionalism before; and CO2 is subject to the geographical discontinuities, as well as chronological ones; ie: diurnal and seasonal; or do you assert that the concentration of CO2 is stable in an area at all times, or uniform over the globe?
As to Mars and density; so what, now it isn’t CO2 that does the warming but density?
I think you are being obtuse about clouds too; they moderate both heat and cold; over time they generally cool, but it isn’t a greenhouse effect because, well, answer me this; if there was 100% cloud cover of the whole earth, would the earth be cooler or warmer?
“As to Mars and density; so what, now it isn’t CO2 that does the warming but density?”
The atmosphere of Venus is very dense, the atmosphere of Mars is very thin. That’s what.
SJT; I can honestly say we are in complete agreement.
now now – don’t go to oceans general. It was Southern Ocean you quoted. Southern Ocean being much larger should take longer to warm? Gavin Schmidt has alway added this an expected dichotomy between the hemispheres.
Still encourage you to do a summary post on CO2 physics as above. Come on – blog contribution requested. Community service Cohenite !! JEN – get on the case …
No I’m not testing you – I’m after some brave soul to have a bash at laying this out more seriously. You’ve been elected.
As for Mars – an old Louis ruse argument. Classic in fact. Revolves around Mars having more CO2 than Earth (probably does) – so why isn’t Mars warmer than it is. Well the glib answer is that is warmer as it is , than without its atmosphere and it behoves Louis to make a calculation.
Of course Mars is a lot further from the Sun – square law of radiation intensity and a considerably different albedo. Atmosphere is not comparable to Earth etc.
So look forward to Louis’s well laid out argument. ROTFL in advance…
On clouds – different types of clouds do different things – so well worth watching Realplayer video presentation http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/cloud-aerosol_files/frame.htm Note slides 3 and 4 !! Well worth it for clarity….
luke; yes the Joel Norris link is good; now, as to clouds, I’m thinking Lindzen’s Adaptive IR Iris and this link, because of its rather snarky comments;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002914.html
Aren’t you all ashamed?
As to a history of CO2 science, I’m afraid I work for a living, but it certainly needs to be done, and after all, I’ve made a start. I also think there is website called CO2 Science.
As to Mars, and Venus for that matter; they have no plate tectonics, although Venus may have an extreme form of volcanism called episodic overturn.
I mean, would a CO2 exposition begin with Ruddiman/Sage or Arrhenius? If you ignored the anthropological and concentrated on the physics, would you ignore the other gases and feedbacks?
Now now – you know enough to write it off the top of your head I reckon. 30 mins !
Arrhenius – plenty of time to explore all the aspects eventually – just do the physics 101 first IMO. Not the whole history of everything – just the 1-5 type stuff above. We need a clearer view of how greenhouse works at the molecular level – who knows – might even get Louis on the page for a start and stop him banging on.
But I’m lost – why should I be ashamed – what’s Lindzen got to do with what?
If you’re running clouds have changed current climate line – pls decipher for us what Norris is saying about the international cloud monitoring programs. Unclear to me. Also of interest is the Earthshine experiment that Anthony Watts recently featured. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/
SJT…. Just picking up a Point about AIDS, which you mentioned in a post above…
The great Epidemic of Heterosexual AIDS has quietly been dropped…. All those horrendous figures you heard…. never happened… More exaggerations for political causes unfortunately.
The only place that has a serious problem with Heterosexual spread of AIDS is Sub Saharan Africa… Due to Sexual practices, large infection rates from Herpes and the resultant open wounds, plus a link between uncircumcised males (foreskin allows the virus to last longer after sex thus increasing probability of infecting next partner…)
I’m talking hetrosexual spread of AIDS. Not other Demographic vectors.
…………………………………..
SJT said this also… Seems something is wrong with it…?
[“5 Why doesn’t the emitting process have a cooling effect since the emission removes energy from the CO2 molecule?”
Because the energy that is re-emitted is re-emitted in a random direction.
The energy was trapped was trapped because it was heading away from earth through the atmosphere. It was caught by a greenhouse gas, perhaps CO2. It was then re-emitted in a random direction. Roughly half of it will continue on it’s journey out into space. Half of it will head back down to earth, warming the planet.]
No SJT …. It cannot Random walk back down to the planets surface… A molecule can only pass energy from a higher energy state to a lower energy state… Since only 38 molecules out of 100 000 are CO2, the likelihood of a Molecule of CO2 finding another molecule of CO2 that is below it AND depleted is astronomically high… Plus wouldn’t it have a higher probability to interact with the other 99 962 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
CO2 does not beam energy… It must transfer it through Kinetic processes.
Correct me if I am wrong… I am after all just a humble Ex fisherman… ; )
Now considering that the most prolific GHG is Water vapor… and water vapor is completely dependent on Solar irradiation placing it into the atmosphere….. The most likely GHG Molecule that an energised CO2 molecule would meet would be water vapor… Since it is more likely that Water vapor will be in a higher energy state, they will not have any effect on each other.
…. So how is this CO2 molecule at 3000m going to warm the surface?
Doesn’t matter how you look at it… Seems to me that Water vapor is the be all and end all when it comes to this unique planet… Water vapor is the main GHG… CO2 is Insignificant.
SJT,
The amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is around 380ppmv for a partial pressure at the surface of about 0.5hPa. On Mars with its largely CO2 atmosphere of around 8 hPa at the surface the partial pressure of CO2 is about 8 hPa.
There’s more CO2 in the Martian atmosphere than in Earth’s atmosphere! Even allowing for the smaller size of the planet.
Per square meter of surface at least an order of magnitude more, maybe twice that.
Not that it is helping the surface temperature much as the song “Rocket Man” says : “fact it’s cold as hell”
Some greenhouse gas.
I think J.Hansford is right, water vapour is the be all and end all on Earth when it comes to greenhouse gases.
So J Hansford (and must be we be so formal) – why does a CO2 molecule have to have a date with another molecule?
Eyrie – err nope – the surface of Mars in warmer than it would be without its atmosphere. You see you’ve just engaged in wishful thinking. You’ve pre-supposed it should be nice and cosy – why? Have you considered how much less energy Mars gets from the Sun? Virtually no atmosphere.
” No SJT …. It cannot Random walk back down to the planets surface… A molecule can only pass energy from a higher energy state to a lower energy state… Since only 38 molecules out of 100 000 are CO2, the likelihood of a Molecule of CO2 finding another molecule of CO2 that is below it AND depleted is astronomically high… Plus wouldn’t it have a higher probability to interact with the other 99 962 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
CO2 does not beam energy… It must transfer it through Kinetic processes.”
As Luke said, it doesn’t have to be handed back to another molecule. As I already said, it can head straight back to the earths surface.
Well, this is going to be bigger than Ben Hur, or the Hulk’s underpants. J Hansford has raised a number of other issues;
1 Does emission and energy transfer depend on a thermal or energy gradient?
2 Is collision the only method through which a CO2 molecule can reemit?
3 If the initial absorbtion/excitation causes vibration, and therefore, the expenditure of energy, won’t the emission, by whatever means, cause an energy and thermal deficeit in that area?
4 Is the directional up/down split of the emission a reasonable assumption?
cohenite – “I think you are being obtuse about clouds too; they moderate both heat and cold;”
Not really as you are the people that are advancing the cosmic ray theory that depends on more clouds – more cooling. Now here you are saying what I have been saying all along with regards to cosmic ray ‘theory’, that clouds both warm and cool so how can you tell, assuming for a moment that GCR is true, whether the cosmic rays are forming more warming clouds or cooling clouds.
As I have said before, to lie properly you need to get the stories straight.
Luke, I didn’t say Mars wasn’t warmer than it would be without an atmosphere just that despite the enormous amount of CO2 it still isn’t very warm and there’s no sign of a “runaway” greenhouse effect. You crazies often like to point to Venus. Maybe it is warmer because it is closer to the Sun?
Well it’s actually crazies like you like to bang on about runaways – – – who’s banging on about runaways?
So how warm should Mars be then? These sort of comments are just feelings not calculations.
“Well, this is going to be bigger than Ben Hur, or the Hulk’s underpants. J Hansford has raised a number of other issues;
1 Does emission and energy transfer depend on a thermal or energy gradient?
2 Is collision the only method through which a CO2 molecule can reemit?
3 If the initial absorbtion/excitation causes vibration, and therefore, the expenditure of energy, won’t the emission, by whatever means, cause an energy and thermal deficeit in that area?
4 Is the directional up/down split of the emission a reasonable assumption?”
Fortunately, this work has already been done by people called scientists. For some reason, their findings are being ignored and challenged.
“CO2 was supposed to lead Temperature rise as it was the driver of Global temp… However CO2 was found to lag behind Temperature rise by up to 800 years… AGW Hypothesis faulty.”
CO2 can be a driver or a feedback, depending on the circumstances.
“The amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is around 380ppmv for a partial pressure at the surface of about 0.5hPa. On Mars with its largely CO2 atmosphere of around 8 hPa at the surface the partial pressure of CO2 is about 8 hPa.
There’s more CO2 in the Martian atmosphere than in Earth’s atmosphere! Even allowing for the smaller size of the planet.
Per square meter of surface at least an order of magnitude more, maybe twice that.”
I was comparing Mars and Venus.
“Luke, I didn’t say Mars wasn’t warmer than it would be without an atmosphere just that despite the enormous amount of CO2 it still isn’t very warm and there’s no sign of a “runaway” greenhouse effect. You crazies often like to point to Venus. Maybe it is warmer because it is closer to the Sun?”
Luke already said exactly that. Radiation hitting an object decreases rapidly the further you get from the sun.
Ender; read what I write; the word is moderate; which if you like is a form of H2O saturation; that is, clouds are a negative feedback to any temperature situation; which goes back to my original question; if earth was totally covered by clouds, like Venus, would earth be warmer or cooler than it otherwise would be?
Luke; in regard to Lindzen here is some pros and cons;
http://co2science.org/articles/V5/N44/C2.php
Spencer’s work has of course carried on from this.
“Ender; read what I write; the word is moderate; which if you like is a form of H2O saturation; that is, clouds are a negative feedback to any temperature situation; which goes back to my original question; if earth was totally covered by clouds, like Venus, would earth be warmer or cooler than it otherwise would be?”
No, they are not a negative feedback to any temperature situation. Just ask Louis. Although he doesn’t actually want to say why.
Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, just hang around any tropical area in monsoon season, but clouds also reflect radiation because they can be bright and white, as well as dark and grey, depending on the conditions that they were created in.
Whether you can generalise from Spencer’s MJO work to the globe is highly speculative, especially when you not differential spatial responses to clouds across the globe. (see Norris’s papers)
Luke,Ender
I’ve never seen a number for the greenhouse effect of the Martian atmosphere. For Earth it is said to be 33 deg C. What is the number for Mars?
SJT : It is an inverse square law for radiation.
I found this reference to Mars and mean annual temperatures.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Mars.html
Before I found this reference I first did a simple calculation assuming the Earth was at 255K(-18C) with no atmosphere and then assuming Mars got 0.45 the insolation got a surface of Mars temperature of 208K. Earth with atmosphere is assumed to be at 288K. The reference I give has the mean annual surface temperature of Mars at -55C or 218 K.
So the total greenhouse effect on Earth is 33C and on Mars 10C.
Despite the presence of lots more CO2 per square meter on Mars. Like about 40 times that for Earth (you need to correct Mars surface pressure for Martian gravity of 0.38g to find the mass of CO2).
I conclude CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect on Earth is due to other gases, namely mainly water vapour.
Note my reference says Earth would be warmer than Mars if it was in the same orbit as Mars due to the “relatively feeble greenhouse effect of the thin Martian atmosphere”.
Anyone care to comment?
“I conclude CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect on Earth is due to other gases, namely mainly water vapour.”
Which is inline with the science. The only problem is that it is being doubled, in content, so that small effect will still be occuring, along with the enhanced greenhouse effect, and feedback effects. Water vapour is not a forcing, it is a feedback. CO2 can be a forcing and a feedback. One of the points of interest is that the small forcing we are producing now, will cause also a CO2 positive feedback response.
Don’t forget, it only takes a small change in temperature to cause significant changes to the environment, as is already being observed.
SJT,
the oceans didn’t warm, the average temp is almost back down to baseline, the middle trop is not heating faster than the surface, AGW hasn’t stolen our babies or slaughtered people. Could you please tell us again exactly what you are talking about??
Why do we need to stop emitting PLANT FOOD??
What is going to happen if we don’t??
How is it going to do it??
Eyrie – “I conclude CO2 is a pathetic greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect on Earth is due to other gases, namely mainly water vapour.”
So you would conclude that from 2 utterly different planets that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. So what do you make of Venus?
Remember how greenhouse gases transfer the IR energy. On Mars with its thin CO2 only atmosphere there is almost no inert filler gases to transfer the energy to. On Earth there are billions of O2 and N2 molecules surrounding each CO2 molecule to accept the energy imparted by the incident IR photon. On Earth because of nitrogen and oxygen the CO2 is much more effective than on Mars. In fact if you were terraforming Mars one of the real shortages would be nitrogen to thicken up the atmostphere.
It is generally accepted that CO2 contributes between 10% and 25% of the greenhouse warming.
Your conclusion is wrong.
“Water vapour is not a forcing, it is a feedback”
Aw, comeon; H2O dominates the absorbing spectrum and it has no primary forcing function?! SJT you are suffering from reaction syndrome. And who said CO2 will double? Even disregarding the absolute mess to do with establishing a pre-industrial CO2 base line (see Jaworowski and Beck), it is not at all evident that CO2 levels are going to continue to rise.
Ender, finally someone introduces the big boys, N2 and O2; are you absolutely sure that N2 and O2 can only accept energy from CO2 and not directly from the surface by convection?
“Aw, comeon; H2O dominates the absorbing spectrum and it has no primary forcing function?!”
That’s right. A forcing is defined as something that is changing the state of the system. Water vapour isn’t doing that. Unless you want to create some means of producing enourmous amounts of water vapour? There will be more made in response to higher water temperatures, however, but that makes it a positive feedback.
Wow Ender, Between 10% and 25%. If that is the best estimate we sure don’t know much. “It is generally accepted” generally means “I don’t really have a clue”.
So Ender, where does the energy go when a CO2 molecule absorbs a long wave photon? Why does the CO2 molecule care what the species is of the molecule it runs in to? Surely it will heat other CO2 molecules as well as it heats N2 or O2?
Now this is the first time I’ve seen anyone claim that the CO2 greenhouse effect is enhanced by dilution with other gases. Are you saying a pure CO2 atmosphere won’t trap any long wave radiation?
I refined my calculation by putting in the albedo for Earth and Mars from the same reference. This makes things worse. In fact I can get a cooling from the CO2 atmosphere on Mars!
As for the two utterly different planets I’m using Mars as an experiment where some of the confounding effects are not present to try to better understand the effect of one variable. Not much water vapour and no significant cloud on Mars to confuse the issue. Mars has similar axial tilt and about the same length of day. Not so bad an experiment I think.
SJT; so CO2 can force but not H2O because we are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere? What comes out of a car’s exhaust as a by product of combustion? CO2 and H2O; I’ve had this debate with luke; man is creating more water surfaces by his damming; AGW supporters use this fact to assume the sea rise would be higher if it were not for the dammed water; you can’t have it both ways; the relevant paper is by Chao, Wu and Li.
More generally, Spencer’s work on -ve feedbacks is misunderstood in that the -ve feedback is to both warming and cooling conditions;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2543
http://climatesci.org/2007/08/14/positive-feedback-have-we-been-fooling-ourselves-by-roy-spencer/#comments
“What comes out of a car’s exhaust as a by product of combustion? CO2 and H2O;”
How long do these gases persist? CO2 we are adding now will be around for, IIRC, a century. Water vapour does not persist, but is always being recreated. Water surfaces created by damming? Come on. Work out the surface areas of the new areas being created and the total surface area that exists now and then make that claim.
It’s not Jack’s beanstalk you’ve found Cohenite – it rains back out. !!!
As for Mars vs Earth GHG effect, let’s do a check list:
Earth, incoming solar radiation 1367 W/m2
Albedo 0.367
Mean global surface temp 288K
Surface pressure 101 kPa
Mars, incoming solar radiation 590 W/m2
Albedo 0.15
Mean global surface temp 227K
Surface pressure 0.7–0.9 kPa
Venus, incoming solar radiation 2614 W/m2
Albedo 0.65
Mean global surface temp 732K
Surface pressure 9300 kPa
Mars has a more elliptical orbit than Earth.
Mars has 25 times more CO2 than Earth?
Greenhouse effect on Mars quoted at 5-10K
Do we agree on that? Be good to get some basics right first.
Mars vs earth vs Jack and the beanstalk…
..I only pay attention to weather forecasters if they are wearing a bikini or less – Venus Rising.
SJT; CO2 turnover, like every other bit of the AGW sham, is subject to obfuscation; here is a debate between some of your scientists and a humble engineer;
http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalc.htm
Luke; a good discussion on Venus here in the public review to the article;
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm
Now boys, a prize for which of you resists the longest the AGW reflex to go ad hominem.
Watch it Cohenite – we’re having a “nice” discussion here. Don’t push us too far as we’re very touchy ! Anger management therapy in progress after 3 busted keyboards and two punched out monitors.
Daly – mate let’s keep on the plane of reality pls.
So anyway – where’s the guest post?
Eyrie – “Now this is the first time I’ve seen anyone claim that the CO2 greenhouse effect is enhanced by dilution with other gases. Are you saying a pure CO2 atmosphere won’t trap any long wave radiation?”
It is not a matter of dilution but other molecules to impart the energy to. Again remember that temperature is a measure of the velocity of the molecules whereas the heat content depends on the amount of molecules present. A lot of fast moving molecules is high temperature and high heat content. A small amount of molecules moving fast like the solar wind, has a fantastically high temperature however has extremely low heat content.
Its it also not one variable changing as the two planets have completely different atmospheres and are not comparable.
At least however you are admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas unlike Louis who denies that there is any such thing.
That would make SJT the winner; that first link is to an article by Dietze which touches on most of the CO2 issues raised on this post; issues I raise because they are either not addressed by IPCC or treated in a contradictory way.
The issue does need addressing, and I’ll put my mind to it; but today at work I called a client Richard Lindzen, so I need to do a bit of disassociation.
ender; I thought we had resolved this ‘greenhouse’ concept in the negative, with Smith’s article not up to the task.
Name dropper hey.
Reckon cohenite is a phoney when it comes to delivering on original climate stuff?
gavin; the client’s name was really Sue Smith*.
*Name changed for privacy reasons.
Yet another reason to doubt CO2:
http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/
Luke; I started looking at Arrhenius and noted Weart has a longer piece where he traces the history of CO2 and ‘Greenhouse’, a term he disapproves of incidentally;
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#molecule.
But Weart bloviates and is fixated on this layer columnisation of the atmosphere business; I think Miskolczi has done with this. Another interesting counter to Weart and the IPCC atmospheric model generally is here;
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopics=7157&st=0
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=0
As usual with the 2nd 2 links the comments deal with all the issues we have been discussing concerning the CO2 absorbtion mechanisms, saturation, forcing, -ve feedbacks and equilibrium issues. If there is anything left over then Michael Hammer’s paper on CO2 saturation and specifically Beer’s Law is worth looking at. It’s not exactly what you wanted but it’ll have to do for now.
If that ist physorgforum link doesn’t get you through google: Aubrey E Banner Greenhouse Gas Effect and Carbon Dioxide Consideration of Infrared Absorbtion
So back on Mars you have a small greenhouse effect of 5-10K – a lot less radiation than Earth to drive the effect to start with. And a very low density atmosphere – so a lot less potential for convection and conduction – less capacity for heat transfer and buffering. So logically Mars is behaving as you would expect for CO2.
And not well understood dust component maybe further reducing radiation and periodically changing its cryosphere dynamics.
Looks like somebody else did the same calculation I did and came up with the same results and conclusion.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-106854.html
Nice arm waves Luke and Ender. We can ignore anything Ender says from now on as his last post was content free.
Given the dust storms on Mars there’s plenty of potential for convection and the effect of the dust suspended in the atmosphere was measured as warming.
Nothing logical about your view Luke. CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas even in large quantities is the reasonable conclusion.
Eyrie – your comments are completely without foundation. The atmospheric density on Mars is VERY low. So won’t be many of those energetic greenhouse derived collisions going on. It’s fundamental.
The energy input into the Mars systems is HOW MUCH compared with Earth. ?? HOW MUCH ? about 40% …
Imagine Earth with only 40% of the normal radiation !!!!
So in terms of arm waving it’s really you. You have made no physical substantiation of your position. Being insistent is not a science argument. The greenhouse effect on Mars is entirely appropriate given the energy input and atmospheric density. It models out quite well.
So comments like “lousy” are just rhetorical drivel.
From your link “So Mars greenhouse effect of CO2 is over 4 times as strong as on Earth. ” WRONG – not if the radiation input is miles different and the atmospheric density if fractional. No water vapour. What an utterly incredible statement.
“CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas even in large quantities is the reasonable conclusion”
Lousy is such a pointless word to use, you may as well describe it as saintly or evil. It does what it does, and the question is, is what it is doing going to be a significant influence on the environment. To date, the observations say yes. The changes in ecosystems are being observed already.
“Yet another reason to doubt CO2:”
Ha ha, yes very funny. Good job pointing out yet another idiot on the blogosphere.
Luke,
OK we’re listening. Now do the math that compensates for the reduced incoming radiation on Mars.
You’re the guy that asked Louis to do the calculation.
“The greenhouse effect on Mars is entirely appropriate given the energy input and atmospheric density. It models out quite well.”. So where did you get this from?
BTW when you allow for albedo, Mars retains about 59% of incoming short wave radiation per square meter as Earth gets, not 40%.
“So Mars greenhouse effect of CO2 is over 4 times as strong as on Earth. ” He was talking about CO2 greenhouse effect, not water vapour. Your comment about no water vapour is irrelevant. He even showed how he derived that. All we’ve had from you is pointless arm waving and no mathematical calculations, or even a link to a credible calculation of the greenhouse effect on Mars.
I’ve seen 7 C but haven’t been able to find a link that substantiates this. I can’t even get a consensus on the mean annual surface temperature for Mars.
Anybody know of a link where we can get a greenhouse effect on Mars based on physical first principles? Compared to “measured” data?
It seems 8hPa is a little high for surface pressure on Mars. 6 hPa is the “sea level” definition. So there’s only 30 times as much mass of CO2 over each square meter on Mars as on Earth.
Now could someone tell me what the presence of long wave transparent gases has to do with all this or what the mean free path of CO2 molecules is at the Martian surface to see whether the pressure is truly low?
SJT:”The changes in ecosystems are being observed already.”
Do you mean the terrible catastrophe of increased plant biomass? Looks good to me. More plants, more life, maybe *slightly* warmer world while using a relatively cheap and accessible energy source. Sounds like “win – win” to me.
Watts Mars got to do with a square of turf on earth?
Utter rot Eyrie – well take 59% – there’s a bloody huge radiation deficit cf Earth.
Yes little water vapour on Mars cf Venus or Earth to give any feedback greenhouse effect. Try to keep up.
And have it you way – if we don’t have a mean annual temperature for Mars – well hookey doo – walk away now and stop talking. You would conclude it’s unknowable. But let’s keep going.
Have 8 hPa – it’s still stuff all.
So we put our vastly diminished radiation input into a low density atmosphere where the probability of collisions with other molecules is extremely low.
So the effect you get when you do the energy balance equation using TOA radiation and albedo with no atmosphere is about 5-10K less than the measured temperature (which you don’t believe anyway).
http://www.marsroverblog.com/dyn/entry/26523/discussion_page/101
And if you’re going to bang on about more CO2 = more plant growth well you have come down in the last shower. The FACE experiments show it’s much more complicated. Don’t have the rainfall – well doesn’t help. And yes in rangelands CO2 can mean more woody weeds and less grasses. Check up on your ecology before bragging. If the Pacific keeps tending towards a more El Nino-like mean state it will be a lot less for many areas of production and population.
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&q=cache:E1NCUabgyZkJ:www.bookzone.com.tw:81/gate/gb/www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2006/gav0602.pdf+vecchi+nature+2006+held
Luke,
finished your lexical vommiting?
Try learning how to spell gramps. Your senility is showing.
“Why are so Many TV Meteorologists and Weathercasters Climate Skeptics?”
Competencies required of most TV Meteorologists are that they be able to dress themselves; work on a pre-determined schedule, i.e., tell time; exhibit no ticks or involuntary dribbling on camera; and articulate in comprehensible speech a script prepared for the viewing audience.
Climate scientists have no comparable rigor in their career-oriented requirements.
I must have hit a nerve. Luke is frothing at the mouth without answering the relevant questions.
The marsroverblog reference has just one sensible post where the author gets it about right which is basically the same calculation as mine. There’s lots of arm waving about the lack of atmosphere and how a thicker atmosphere enhances the greenhouse effect but no sensible physics, just assertion that it is so.
Why do other non greenhouse gas molecules make a difference? The CO2 molecules can run in to each other and warm by conduction as well as radiation and there’s also plenty of convection on Mars.
What we can do on Mars is see how much greenhouse effect is due to CO2. As there seems to be some doubt about the CO2 contribution on Earth we have a nice natural laboratory to work with on Mars.
30 times as much CO2 as Earth and it’s stuff all according to Luke. I guess we can forget about limiting CO2 emissions then?
Wasn’t there some satellite data just the other day about the increased plant biomass?
Jennifer needs a better class of troll around here.
No I have answered your question totally. It’s an old argument – the Mars greenhouse one. And you analysis is trivial and dishonest.
Essentially we don’t disagree on the basic numbers I would suggest.
We can probably agree close enough that Mars gets less radiation and what the temperature might be without any atmosphere.
If you accept an estimate of surface temperature we are left with difference which is the effect of the atmosphere. I think we might even agree on that.
So it comes down to one aspect. You say that number – 5-10K proves that CO2 is minor in effect.
You keep rabbiting on about 30X CO2 but are fundamentally dishonest like most scumbag denialists in forgetting to mention a lot less radiation (no radiation and CO2 does nothing) and a very thin atmosphere. Very thin.
So does 5-10K prove anything.
So it simply come down to THIS.
There is 50 TIMES more heat capacity on Earth than Mars. What are those energised molecules going to transfer their heat from being energised by longwave into. You could warm up every molecule and it would make diddly squat difference as the atmosphere is that thin.
So all your bulldusting comes down to that ! How pathetic.
I look forward to your desperate waffling explanation.
What’s the theoretical impact of THAT amount of radiation in an atmosphere of that density and composition. Is it different to what you would expect. No what you’d expect as that’s what you would like to believe but an argument based on physics.
Satellite data – read my comments on that. If you worked with NDVI satellite data and NPP yourself you might understand. Have you checked out where it’s greening. I’ll leave that as an exercise in comprehension for you to find out.
And don’t you just find it extraordinary that the radiative physics that doesn’t work according to Eyrie does seem to validate out even in early models of the Martian atmosphere.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/50/11/pdf/i1520-0469-50-11-1544.pdf LOL !
The difference between pro-AGWers and skeptics is simple:
Pro-AGW’ers say, there are people (called climatologists) who are able to predict the future to within fractions of a degree celsius, over multi-decadal periods.
Skeptics say, no-one can predict the future.
Forest and trees, anyone?
“”There’s lots of arm waving about the lack of atmosphere and how a thicker atmosphere enhances the greenhouse effect but no sensible physics, just assertion that it is so.
Why do other non greenhouse gas molecules make a difference? The CO2 molecules can run in to each other and warm by conduction as well as radiation and there’s also plenty of convection on Mars.
“”
Argument from ignorance, “”If I don’t understand it, it can’t be true””
“Skeptics say, no-one can predict the future.”
I guess all those economists who say they can predict the result of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will stop doing so?
Luke
“There is 50 TIMES more heat capacity on Earth than Mars. What are those energised molecules going to transfer their heat from being energised by longwave into. You could warm up every molecule and it would make diddly squat difference as the atmosphere is that thin.”
Heat capacity of what. You are a scientised clown.
SJT
How about going on gardening leave?
Heat capacity of Earth’s atmosphere of air and Martian CO2 atmosphere dimwit Louis.
Luke
Fail: Endogenic Heat 191
No you fail gramps. There is no evidence of endogenic heat.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5628/2056
So you sly old fox how does it feel to have your skanky old Mars CO2 ruse shredded in front of your eyes – come in spinner. ROFTL.
No you fail gramps. There is no evidence of endogenic heat.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5628/2056
So you sly old fox how does it feel to have your skanky old Mars CO2 ruse shredded in front of your eyes – come in spinner. ROFTL.
Eyrie – “Nothing logical about your view Luke. CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas even in large quantities is the reasonable conclusion.”
Nobody ever said that CO2 is a good greenhouse gas and it does not have to be to have an effect. We are not concerned with efficiency here just the effect that CO2 has in Earths atmosphere.
Here is a list of greenhouse gases:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ipcc-list-of-greenhouse-gases-1?cat=technology
Methane for instance is 39 times better than CO2 at trapping heat and there are other compounds that are better still.
The only time that you would be concerned about efficiency of greenhouse gases is if you say given the task of warming Mars. For this you would use more the efficient greenhouse gases like methane rather than CO2. If you have read the science fiction book Red Mars there is something in it call the Russel Cocktail. Kim Stanley Robinson is good in the way he can mix science with story telling and he got the mix of greenhouse gases right in this instance.
http://www.redcolony.com/art.php?id=0012131
“Margarita Marinova, a research assistant at MIT, has an idea that could change the face of Mars forever. She claims that one-hundred factories on the Martian surface, constantly releasing large amounts of PFCs, or super-greenhouse gases, would lead to an increase in temperature similar the climate of Canada’s. She claims that in 60 years these PFCs could do the trick.
But what do these “super-greenhouse gases” contain? The “Russell Cocktail” as it is described in Robinson’s Mars Trilogy (Nov. 1993, Jun. 1995, Jul. 1997,) is a mixture of carbon, sulfur, and fluoride. The resulting mixture would be an artificial greenhouse gas that, when distributed across the planet, would raise temperatures in a relatively short period of time.”
However CO2 is the gas we are emitting and efficient or not it is having an effect. Thank goodness it is inefficient compared to the others – at the rate we are emitting it we would have cooked ourselves long ago if it was as efficient as methane.
Luke
you do know what endogenic heat is?
Yep.